fair value of financial instruments we believe that the fair values of current assets and current liabilities approximate their reported carrying amounts . the fair values of non-current financial assets , liabilities and derivatives are shown in the following table. .

Table: ( $ in millions ) 2005 carrying amount 2005 fair value 2005 carrying amount fair value notes and other long-term assets $ 1374 $ 1412 $ 1702 $ 1770 long-term debt and other long-term liabilities $ 1636 $ 1685 $ 848 $ 875 derivative instruments $ 6 $ 6 $ 2014 $ 2014

we value notes and other receivables based on the expected future cash flows dis- counted at risk-adjusted rates . we determine valuations for long-term debt and other long-term liabilities based on quoted market prices or expected future payments dis- counted at risk-adjusted rates . derivative instruments during 2003 , we entered into an interest rate swap agreement under which we receive a floating rate of interest and pay a fixed rate of interest . the swap modifies our interest rate exposure by effectively converting a note receivable with a fixed rate to a floating rate . the aggregate notional amount of the swap is $ 92 million and it matures in 2010 . the swap is classified as a fair value hedge under fas no . 133 , 201caccounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities 201d ( 201cfas no . 133 201d ) , and the change in the fair value of the swap , as well as the change in the fair value of the underlying note receivable , is recognized in interest income . the fair value of the swap was a $ 1 million asset at year-end 2005 , and a $ 3 million liability at year-end 2004 . the hedge is highly effective , and therefore , no net gain or loss was reported during 2005 , 2004 , and 2003 . during 2005 , we entered into two interest rate swap agreements to manage the volatil- ity of the u.s . treasury component of the interest rate risk associated with the forecasted issuance our series f senior notes and the exchange of our series c and e senior notes for new series g senior notes . both swaps were designated as cash flow hedges under fas no . 133 and were terminated upon pricing of the notes . both swaps were highly effective in offsetting fluctuations in the u.s . treasury component . thus , there was no net gain or loss reported in earnings during 2005 . the total amount for these swaps was recorded in other comprehensive income and was a net loss of $ 2 million during 2005 , which will be amortized to interest expense using the interest method over the life of the notes . at year-end 2005 , we had six outstanding interest rate swap agreements to manage interest rate risk associated with the residual interests we retain in conjunction with our timeshare note sales . historically , we were required by purchasers and/or rating agen- cies to utilize interest rate swaps to protect the excess spread within our sold note pools . the aggregate notional amount of the swaps is $ 380 million , and they expire through 2022 . these swaps are not accounted for as hedges under fas no . 133 . the fair value of the swaps is a net asset of $ 5 million at year-end 2005 , and a net asset of approximately $ 3 million at year-end 2004 . we recorded a $ 2 million net gain during 2005 and 2004 , and a $ 3 million net gain during 2003 . during 2005 , 2004 , and 2003 , we entered into interest rate swaps to manage interest rate risk associated with forecasted timeshare note sales . during 2005 , one swap was designated as a cash flow hedge under fas no . 133 and was highly effective in offsetting interest rate fluctuations . the amount of the ineffectiveness is immaterial . the second swap entered into in 2005 did not qualify for hedge accounting . the non-qualifying swaps resulted in a loss of $ 3 million during 2005 , a gain of $ 2 million during 2004 and a loss of $ 4 million during 2003 . these amounts are included in the gains from the sales of timeshare notes receivable . during 2005 , 2004 , and 2003 , we entered into forward foreign exchange contracts to manage the foreign currency exposure related to certain monetary assets . the aggregate dollar equivalent of the notional amount of the contracts is $ 544 million at year-end 2005 . the forward exchange contracts do not qualify as hedges in accordance with fas no . 133 . the fair value of the forward contracts is a liability of $ 2 million at year-end 2005 and zero at year-end 2004 . we recorded a $ 26 million gain during 2005 and a $ 3 million and $ 2 million net loss during 2004 and 2003 , respectively , relating to these forward foreign exchange contracts . the net gains and losses for all years were offset by income and losses recorded from translating the related monetary assets denominated in foreign currencies into u.s . dollars . during 2005 , 2004 , and 2003 , we entered into foreign exchange option and forward contracts to hedge the potential volatility of earnings and cash flows associated with variations in foreign exchange rates . the aggregate dollar equivalent of the notional amounts of the contracts is $ 27 million at year-end 2005 . these contracts have terms of less than one year and are classified as cash flow hedges . changes in their fair values are recorded as a component of other comprehensive income . the fair value of the option contracts is approximately zero at year-end 2005 and 2004 . during 2004 , it was deter- mined that certain derivatives were no longer effective in offsetting the hedged item . thus , cash flow hedge accounting treatment was discontinued and the ineffective con- tracts resulted in a loss of $ 1 million , which was reported in earnings for 2004 . the remaining hedges were highly effective and there was no net gain or loss reported in earnings for 2005 , 2004 , and 2003 . as of year-end 2005 , there were no deferred gains or losses on existing contracts accumulated in other comprehensive income that we expect to reclassify into earnings over the next year . during 2005 , we entered into forward foreign exchange contracts to manage currency exchange rate volatility associated with certain investments in foreign operations . one contract was designated as a hedge in the net investment of a foreign operation under fas no . 133 . the hedge was highly effective and resulted in a $ 1 million net loss in the cumulative translation adjustment at year-end 2005 . certain contracts did not qualify as hedges under fas no . 133 and resulted in a gain of $ 3 million for 2005 . the contracts offset the losses associated with translation adjustments for various investments in for- eign operations . the contracts have an aggregate dollar equivalent of the notional amounts of $ 229 million and a fair value of approximately zero at year-end 2005 . contingencies guarantees we issue guarantees to certain lenders and hotel owners primarily to obtain long-term management contracts . the guarantees generally have a stated maximum amount of funding and a term of five years or less . the terms of guarantees to lenders generally require us to fund if cash flows from hotel operations are inadequate to cover annual debt service or to repay the loan at the end of the term . the terms of the guarantees to hotel owners generally require us to fund if the hotels do not attain specified levels of 5 0 | m a r r i o t t i n t e r n a t i o n a l , i n c . 2 0 0 5 .

Question: what is the potential gain if the notes and other long-term assets had been sold at the end of 2005?
Answer: 38
Calculation: subtract(1412, 1374)
Explanation: this represents an un realized asset on the balance sheet and would be a gain to the company if sold at fair value .