management 2019s discussion and analysis we believe our credit ratings are primarily based on the credit rating agencies 2019 assessment of : 2030 our liquidity , market , credit and operational risk management practices ; 2030 the level and variability of our earnings ; 2030 our capital base ; 2030 our franchise , reputation and management ; 2030 our corporate governance ; and 2030 the external operating environment , including the assumed level of government support . certain of the firm 2019s derivatives have been transacted under bilateral agreements with counterparties who may require us to post collateral or terminate the transactions based on changes in our credit ratings . we assess the impact of these bilateral agreements by determining the collateral or termination payments that would occur assuming a downgrade by all rating agencies . a downgrade by any one rating agency , depending on the agency 2019s relative ratings of the firm at the time of the downgrade , may have an impact which is comparable to the impact of a downgrade by all rating agencies . we allocate a portion of our gce to ensure we would be able to make the additional collateral or termination payments that may be required in the event of a two-notch reduction in our long-term credit ratings , as well as collateral that has not been called by counterparties , but is available to them . the table below presents the additional collateral or termination payments that could have been called at the reporting date by counterparties in the event of a one-notch and two-notch downgrade in our credit ratings. .

Table: in millions as of december 2012 as of december 2011 additional collateral or termination payments for a one-notch downgrade $ 1534 $ 1303 additional collateral or termination payments for a two-notch downgrade 2500 2183

in millions 2012 2011 additional collateral or termination payments for a one-notch downgrade $ 1534 $ 1303 additional collateral or termination payments for a two-notch downgrade 2500 2183 cash flows as a global financial institution , our cash flows are complex and bear little relation to our net earnings and net assets . consequently , we believe that traditional cash flow analysis is less meaningful in evaluating our liquidity position than the excess liquidity and asset-liability management policies described above . cash flow analysis may , however , be helpful in highlighting certain macro trends and strategic initiatives in our businesses . year ended december 2012 . our cash and cash equivalents increased by $ 16.66 billion to $ 72.67 billion at the end of 2012 . we generated $ 9.14 billion in net cash from operating and investing activities . we generated $ 7.52 billion in net cash from financing activities from an increase in bank deposits , partially offset by net repayments of unsecured and secured long-term borrowings . year ended december 2011 . our cash and cash equivalents increased by $ 16.22 billion to $ 56.01 billion at the end of 2011 . we generated $ 23.13 billion in net cash from operating and investing activities . we used net cash of $ 6.91 billion for financing activities , primarily for repurchases of our series g preferred stock and common stock , partially offset by an increase in bank deposits . year ended december 2010 . our cash and cash equivalents increased by $ 1.50 billion to $ 39.79 billion at the end of 2010 . we generated $ 7.84 billion in net cash from financing activities primarily from net proceeds from issuances of short-term secured financings . we used net cash of $ 6.34 billion for operating and investing activities , primarily to fund an increase in securities purchased under agreements to resell and an increase in cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes , partially offset by cash generated from a decrease in securities borrowed . goldman sachs 2012 annual report 87 .

Question: what were cash and cash equivalents in billions at the end of 2011?
Answer: 56.01
Calculation: subtract(72.67, 16.66)