Financial report context:
notes to consolidated financial statements 192 jpmorgan chase & co . / 2008 annual report consolidation analysis the multi-seller conduits administered by the firm were not consoli- dated at december 31 , 2008 and 2007 , because each conduit had issued expected loss notes ( 201celns 201d ) , the holders of which are com- mitted to absorbing the majority of the expected loss of each respective conduit . implied support the firm did not have and continues not to have any intent to pro- tect any eln holders from potential losses on any of the conduits 2019 holdings and has no plans to remove any assets from any conduit unless required to do so in its role as administrator . should such a transfer occur , the firm would allocate losses on such assets between itself and the eln holders in accordance with the terms of the applicable eln . expected loss modeling in determining the primary beneficiary of the conduits the firm uses a monte carlo 2013based model to estimate the expected losses of each of the conduits and considers the relative rights and obliga- tions of each of the variable interest holders . the firm 2019s expected loss modeling treats all variable interests , other than the elns , as its own to determine consolidation . the variability to be considered in the modeling of expected losses is based on the design of the enti- ty . the firm 2019s traditional multi-seller conduits are designed to pass credit risk , not liquidity risk , to its variable interest holders , as the assets are intended to be held in the conduit for the longer term . under fin 46 ( r ) , the firm is required to run the monte carlo-based expected loss model each time a reconsideration event occurs . in applying this guidance to the conduits , the following events , are considered to be reconsideration events , as they could affect the determination of the primary beneficiary of the conduits : 2022 new deals , including the issuance of new or additional variable interests ( credit support , liquidity facilities , etc ) ; 2022 changes in usage , including the change in the level of outstand- ing variable interests ( credit support , liquidity facilities , etc ) ; 2022 modifications of asset purchase agreements ; and 2022 sales of interests held by the primary beneficiary . from an operational perspective , the firm does not run its monte carlo-based expected loss model every time there is a reconsideration event due to the frequency of their occurrence . instead , the firm runs its expected loss model each quarter and includes a growth assump- tion for each conduit to ensure that a sufficient amount of elns exists for each conduit at any point during the quarter . as part of its normal quarterly modeling , the firm updates , when applicable , the inputs and assumptions used in the expected loss model . specifically , risk ratings and loss given default assumptions are continually updated . the total amount of expected loss notes out- standing at december 31 , 2008 and 2007 , were $ 136 million and $ 130 million , respectively . management has concluded that the model assumptions used were reflective of market participants 2019 assumptions and appropriately considered the probability of changes to risk ratings and loss given defaults . qualitative considerations the multi-seller conduits are primarily designed to provide an effi- cient means for clients to access the commercial paper market . the firm believes the conduits effectively disperse risk among all parties and that the preponderance of the economic risk in the firm 2019s multi- seller conduits is not held by jpmorgan chase . consolidated sensitivity analysis on capital the table below shows the impact on the firm 2019s reported assets , lia- bilities , tier 1 capital ratio and tier 1 leverage ratio if the firm were required to consolidate all of the multi-seller conduits that it admin- isters at their current carrying value . december 31 , 2008 ( in billions , except ratios ) reported pro forma ( a ) ( b ) .

Financial table:
( in billions except ratios ): assets; reported: $ 2175.1; pro forma ( a ) ( b ): $ 2218.2
( in billions except ratios ): liabilities; reported: 2008.2; pro forma ( a ) ( b ): 2051.3
( in billions except ratios ): tier 1 capital ratio; reported: 10.9% ( 10.9 % ); pro forma ( a ) ( b ): 10.9% ( 10.9 % )
( in billions except ratios ): tier 1 leverage ratio; reported: 6.9; pro forma ( a ) ( b ): 6.8

Additional report context:
( a ) the table shows the impact of consolidating the assets and liabilities of the multi- seller conduits at their current carrying value ; as such , there would be no income statement or capital impact at the date of consolidation . if the firm were required to consolidate the assets and liabilities of the conduits at fair value , the tier 1 capital ratio would be approximately 10.8% ( 10.8 % ) . the fair value of the assets is primarily based upon pricing for comparable transactions . the fair value of these assets could change significantly because the pricing of conduit transactions is renegotiated with the client , generally , on an annual basis and due to changes in current market conditions . ( b ) consolidation is assumed to occur on the first day of the quarter , at the quarter-end levels , in order to provide a meaningful adjustment to average assets in the denomi- nator of the leverage ratio . the firm could fund purchases of assets from vies should it become necessary . 2007 activity in july 2007 , a reverse repurchase agreement collateralized by prime residential mortgages held by a firm-administered multi-seller conduit was put to jpmorgan chase under its deal-specific liquidity facility . the asset was transferred to and recorded by jpmorgan chase at its par value based on the fair value of the collateral that supported the reverse repurchase agreement . during the fourth quarter of 2007 , additional information regarding the value of the collateral , including performance statistics , resulted in the determi- nation by the firm that the fair value of the collateral was impaired . impairment losses were allocated to the eln holder ( the party that absorbs the majority of the expected loss from the conduit ) in accor- dance with the contractual provisions of the eln note . on october 29 , 2007 , certain structured cdo assets originated in the second quarter of 2007 and backed by subprime mortgages were transferred to the firm from two firm-administered multi-seller conduits . it became clear in october that commercial paper investors and rating agencies were becoming increasingly concerned about cdo assets backed by subprime mortgage exposures . because of these concerns , and to ensure the continuing viability of the two conduits as financing vehicles for clients and as investment alternatives for commercial paper investors , the firm , in its role as administrator , transferred the cdo assets out of the multi-seller con- duits . the structured cdo assets were transferred to the firm at .

Question: what was the ratio of the total amount of expected loss notes out- standing at december 31 , 2008 compared to 2007
Answer: 1.05