Financial report context:
years . the company does not yet have a robust set of annuitization experience because most of its clients 2019 policyholders are not yet eligible to annuitize utilizing the gmib . however , for certain clients there are several years of annuitization experience 2013 for those clients the annuitization function reflects the actual experience and has a maximum annuitization rate per annum of 8 percent ( a higher maximum applies in the first year a policy is eligible to annuitize utilizing the gmib 2013 it is over 13 percent ) . for most clients there is no currently observable relevant annuitization behavior data and so we use a weighted aver- age ( with a heavier weighting on the observed experience noted previously ) of three different annuitization functions with maximum annuitization rates per annum of 8 percent , 12 percent , and 30 percent , respectively ( with significantly higher rates in the first year a policy is eligible to annuitize utilizing the gmib ) . as noted elsewhere , our gmib reinsurance treaties include claim limits to protect ace in the event that actual annuitization behavior is significantly higher than expected . during 2010 , the company made various changes to assumptions ( primarily annuitization and lapse ) and methods used to calculate the fair value . the changes had a net effect of reducing fair value of the liability by $ 98 million ( where the dollar impact of each change was measured in the quarter in which the change was implemented ) . during 2010 , we recorded realized losses of $ 64 million primarily due to increasing net fair value of reported glb reinsurance liabilities resulting substantially from the impact of falling interest rates . this excludes realized losses of $ 150 mil- lion during 2010 on derivative hedge instruments held to partially offset the risk in the va guarantee reinsurance portfolio . these derivatives do not receive hedge accounting treatment . refer to 201cnet realized gains ( losses ) 201d for a breakdown of the realized gains on glb reinsurance and the realized losses on the derivatives for 2010 and 2009 . ace tempest life re employs a strategy to manage the financial market and policyholder behavior risks embedded in the reinsurance of va guarantees . risk management begins with underwriting a prospective client and guarantee design , with particular focus on protecting ace 2019s position from policyholder options that , because of anti-selective behavior , could adversely impact our obligation . a second layer of risk management is the structure of the reinsurance contracts . all va guarantee reinsurance contracts include some form of annual or aggregate claim limit ( s ) . the exact limits vary by contract , but some examples of typical con- tract provisions include : 2022 annual claim limits , as a percentage of reinsured account or guaranteed value , for gmdbs and gmibs ; 2022 annual annuitization rate limits , as a percentage of annuitization eligible account or guaranteed value , for gmibs ; and 2022 per policy claim limits , as a percentage of guaranteed value , for gmabs . a third layer of risk management is the hedging strategy which is focused on mitigating long-term economic losses at a portfolio level . ace tempest life re owned financial market instruments as part of the hedging strategy with a fair value of $ 21 million and $ 47 million at december 31 , 2010 , and 2009 , respectively . the instruments are substantially collateralized by our counterparties , on a daily basis . we also limit the aggregate amount of variable annuity reinsurance guarantee risk we are willing to assume . the last substantive u.s . transaction was quoted in mid-2007 and the last transaction in japan was quoted in late 2007 . the aggregate number of policyholders is currently decreasing through policyholder withdrawals and deaths at a rate of 5-10 per- cent annually . note that glb claims cannot occur for any reinsured policy until it has reached the end of its 201cwaiting period 201d . the vast majority of policies we reinsure reach the end of their 201cwaiting periods 201d in 2013 or later , as shown in the table below . year of first payment eligibility percent of living benefit account values .

Financial table:
year of first payment eligibility: 2010 and prior; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 1% ( 1 % )
year of first payment eligibility: 2011; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 0% ( 0 % )
year of first payment eligibility: 2012; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 7% ( 7 % )
year of first payment eligibility: 2013; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 24% ( 24 % )
year of first payment eligibility: 2014; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 19% ( 19 % )
year of first payment eligibility: 2015; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 5% ( 5 % )
year of first payment eligibility: 2016; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 6% ( 6 % )
year of first payment eligibility: 2017; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 18% ( 18 % )
year of first payment eligibility: 2018 and after; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 20% ( 20 % )
year of first payment eligibility: total; percent ofliving benefitaccount values: 100% ( 100 % )

Additional report context:
.

Question: what is the change in fair value of financial market instruments as part of the hedging strategy during 2010?
Answer: -26