Management’s discussion and analysis J. P.  Morgan Chase & Co.  Chase Auto Finance CAF is the largest U. S.  bank originator of automobile loans and leases, with more than 2.9 million accounts.
In 2003, CAF had a record number of automobile loan and lease originations, growing by 10% over 2002 to $27.8 billion.
Loan and lease receivables of $43.2 billion at December 31, 2003, were 16% higher than at the prior year-end.
Despite a challenging operating environment reflecting slightly declining new car sales in 2003 and increased competition, CAF’s market share among automobile finance companies improved to 6.1% in 2003 from 5.7% in 2002.
The increase in market share was the result of strong organic growth and an origination strategy that allies the business with manufacturers and dealers.
CAF’s relationships with several major car manufacturers contributed to 2003 growth, as did CAF’s dealer relationships, which increased from approximately 12,700 dealers in 2002 to approximately 13,700 dealers in 2003.
In 2003, operating earnings were $205 million, 23% higher compared with 2002.
The increase in earnings was driven by continued revenue growth and improved operating efficiency.
In 2003, CAF’s operating revenue grew by 23% to $842 million.
Net interest income grew by 33% compared with 2002.
The increase was driven by strong operating performance due to higher average loans and leases outstanding, reflecting continued strong origination volume and lower funding costs.
Operating expense of $292 million increased by 18% compared with 2002.
The increase in expenses was driven by higher average oans outstanding, higher origination volume and higher performance-based incentives.
CAF’s overhead ratio improved from 36% in 2002 to 35% in 2003, as a result of strong revenue growth, continued productivity gains and disciplined expense management.
Credit costs increased 18% to $205 million, primarily reflecting a 32% increase in average loan and lease receivables.
Credit quality continued to be strong relative to 2002, as evidenced by a lower net charge-off ratio and 30+ day delinquency rate.
CAF also comprises Chase Education Finance, a top provider of government-guaranteed and private loans for higher education.
Loans are provided through a joint venture with Sallie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise and the leader in funding and servicing education loans.
Chase Education Finance’s origination volume totaled $2.7 billion, an increase of 4% from last year.
Business-related metrics
## Table 0 ##
Chase Regional Banking CRB is the No.1 bank in the New York tri-state area and a top five bank in Texas (both ranked by retail deposits), providing payment, liquidity, investment, insurance and credit products and services to three primary customer segments: small business, affluent and retail.
Within these segments, CRB serves 326,000 small businesses, 433,000 affluent consumers and 2.6 million mass-market consumers.
CRB’s continued focus on expanding customer relationships resulted in a 14% increase in core deposits (for this purpose, core deposits are total deposits less time deposits) from December 31, 2002, and a 77% increase in the cross-sell of Chase credit products over 2002.
In 2003, mortgage and home equity originations through CRB’s distribution channels were $3.4 billion and $4.7 billion, respectively.
Branch-originated credit cards totaled 77,000, contributing to 23% of CRB customers holding Chase credit cards.
CRB is compensated by CFS’s credit businesses for the home finance and credit card loans it originates and does not retain these balances.
While CRB continues to position itself for growth, decreased deposit spreads related to the low-rate environment and increased credit costs resulted in an 80% decline in CRB operating earnings from 2002.
This decrease was partly offset by an 8% increase in total average deposits.
Operating revenue of $2.6 billion decreased by 9% compared with 2002.
Net interest income declined by 11% to $1.7 billion, primarily attributable to the lower interest rate environment.
Noninterest revenue decreased 6% to $927 million due to lower deposit service fees, decreased debit card fees and one-time gains in 2002.
CRB’s revenue does not include funding profits earned on its deposit base; these amounts are included in the results of Global Treasury.
Operating expense of $2.4 billion increased by 7% from 2002.
The increase was primarily due to investments in technology within the branch network; also contributing were higher compensation expenses related to increased staff levels and higher severance costs as a result of continued restructuring.
This increase in operating
Management’s discussion and analysis J. P.  Morgan Chase & C Nonperforming assets decreased by $1.7 billion, or 35%, during the year ended December 31, 2003, to $3.1 billion.
The decrease was due to activity in the commercial portfolio: total reductions, including repayments, loan sales and net charge-offs exceeded new additions, resulting in net reductions of $1.7 billion.
By contrast, there were commercial net additions during 2002.
A decline in exposure to the Telecom services, Utilities and Media industries accounted for more than half of the overall $1.7 bil- lion decrease.
Commercial Commercial nonperforming loans decreased by 45%, to $2.0 billion as of December 31, 2003, from $3.7 billion at year- end 2002.
Over the same period, nonperforming commercial loans as a percentage of total commercial loans fell to 2.42% from 4.01%.
Commercial loan net charge-offs in 2003 were $816 million, compared with $1.9 billion in 2002, the result of improved credit quality in the portfolio and increased recoveries resulting from restructurings.
There were no net charge-offs of commercial lending–related commitments in 2003, compared with $212 million in 2002.
The average annual net charge-off rate for commercial loans improved significantly, to 0.91% in 2003 from 1.93% in 2002.
Commercial net charge-offs in 2004 are expected to decline, but at a slower pace than in the second half of 2003 Consumer The $21 million decrease in consumer nonperforming loans reflected improved credit quality in the portfolio.
While net charge-offs increased by $92 million during the year reflecting a 10% growth in the portfolio, the average annual net charge-off rate declined to 1.96% from 2.30% during 2002.
In 2004, the amount of gross charge-offs is expected to increase due to growth in outstandings, but net charge-off rates are expected to remain stable.
Allowance for credit losses JPMorgan Chase’s Allowance for credit losses is intended to cover probable credit losses, including losses where the asset is not specifically identified or the size of the loss has not been determined.
At least quarterly, the Firm’s Risk Management Committee reviews the Allowance for credit losses relative to the risk profile of the Firm’s credit portfolio and current economic conditions.
The allowance is adjusted based on that review if, in management’s judgment, changes are warranted.
The allowance includes specific and expected loss components and a residual component.
For further discussion of the components of the Allowance for credit losses, see Critical accounting estimates used by the Firm on pages 75–76 and Note 12 on page 100 of this Annual Report.
At December 31, 2003, management deemed the allowance for credit losses to be appropriate to absorb losses that currently may exist but are not yet identifiable Summary of changes in the allowance
## Table 1 ##
(a) Includes $917 million and $454 million of commercial specific and commercial expected loss components, respectively, at December 31, 2003.
Includes $1.6 billion and $613 million of commercial specific and commercial expected loss components, respectively, at December 31, 2002.
(b) Includes $172 million and $105 million of commercial specific and commercial expected loss components, respectively, at December 31, 2003.
Includes $237 million and $87 million of commercial specific and commercial expected loss components, respectively, at December 31, 2002.
(c) Includes $138 million related to the transfer of the allowance for accrued interest and fees on securitized credit card loans.
Credit ratings The cost and availability of financing are influenced by credit ratings.
Reductions in these ratings could have an adverse effect on the Firm’s access to liquidity sources, increase the cost of funds, trigger additional collateral or funding requirements and decrease the number of investors and counterparties willing to lend to the Firm.
Additionally, the Firm’s funding requirements for VIEs and other thirdparty commitments may be adversely affected by a decline in credit ratings.
For additional information on the impact of a credit ratings downgrade on the funding requirements for VIEs, and on derivatives and collateral agreements, see Special-purpose entities on page 109, and Credit risk, liquidity risk and credit-related contingent features in Note 5 on pages 224–225, of this Annual Report.
Critical factors in maintaining high credit ratings include a stable and diverse earnings stream, strong capital ratios, strong credit quality and risk management controls, diverse funding sources, and disciplined liquidity monitoring procedures.
The credit ratings of the parent holding company and certain of the Firm’s significant operating subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012, were as follows.
## Table 2 ##
On June 21, 2012, Moody’s downgraded the long-term ratings of the Firm and affirmed all its short-term ratings.
The outlook for the parent holding company was left on negative reflecting Moody’s view that government support for U. S.  bank holding company creditors is becoming less certain and less predictable.
Such ratings actions concluded Moody’s review of 17 banks and securities firms with global capital markets operations, including the Firm, as a result of which all of these institutions were downgraded by various degrees.
Following the disclosure by the Firm, on May 10, 2012, of losses from the synthetic credit portfolio held by CIO, Fitch downgraded the Firm and placed all parent and subsidiary long-term ratings on Ratings Watch Negative.
At that time, S&P also revised its outlook on the ratings of the Firm from Stable to Negative.
Subsequently, on October 10, 2012, Fitch revised the outlook to Stable and affirmed the Firm’s ratings.
The above-mentioned rating actions did not have a material adverse impact on the Firm’s cost of funds and its ability to fund itself.
Further downgrades of the Firm’s long-term ratings by one notch or two notches could result in a downgrade of the Firm’s short-term ratings.
If this were to occur, the Firm believes its cost of funds could increase and access to certain funding markets could be reduced.
The nature and magnitude of the impact of further ratings downgrades depends on numerous contractual and behavioral factors (which the Firm believes are incorporated in the Firm’s liquidity risk and stress testing metrics).
The Firm believes it maintains sufficient liquidity to withstand any potential decrease in funding capacity due to further ratings downgrades.
JPMorgan Chase’s unsecured debt does not contain requirements that would call for an acceleration of payments, maturities or changes in the structure of the existing debt, provide any limitations on future borrowings or require additional collateral, based on unfavorable changes in the Firm’s credit ratings, financial ratios, earnings, or stock price.
Rating agencies continue to evaluate various ratings factors, such as regulatory reforms, rating uplift assumptions surrounding government support, and economic uncertainty and sovereign creditworthiness, and their potential impact on ratings of financial institutions.
Although the Firm closely monitors and endeavors to manage factors influencing its credit ratings, there is no assurance that its credit ratings will not be changed in the future.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>(in billions, except ratios)</td><td>2003</td><td>2002</td><td>Change</td></tr><tr><td>Loan and lease receivables</td><td>$43.2</td><td>$37.4</td><td>16%</td></tr><tr><td>Average loan and lease receivables</td><td>41.7</td><td>31.7</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Automobile origination volume</td><td>27.8</td><td>25.3</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Automobile market share</td><td>6.1%</td><td>5.7%</td><td>40bp</td></tr><tr><td>30+ day delinquency rate</td><td>1.46</td><td>1.54</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><td>Net charge-off ratio</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.51</td><td>-10</td></tr><tr><td>Overhead ratio</td><td>35</td><td>36</td><td>-100</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> 2003</td><td colspan="4">2002</td></tr><tr><td>(in millions)</td><td>Commercial</td><td>Consumer</td><td> Residual</td><td>Total</td><td>Commercial</td><td>Consumer</td><td>Residual</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td> Loans:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beginning balance at January 1</td><td>$2,216</td><td>$2,360</td><td>$774</td><td>$5,350</td><td>$1,724</td><td>$2,105</td><td>$695</td><td>$4,524</td></tr><tr><td>Net charge-offs</td><td>-816</td><td>-1,456</td><td>—</td><td>-2,272</td><td>-1,881</td><td>-1,795</td><td>—</td><td>-3,676</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for loan losses</td><td>-30</td><td>1,491</td><td>118</td><td>1,579</td><td>2,371</td><td>1,589</td><td>79</td><td>4,039</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1</td><td>-138 (c)</td><td>3</td><td>-134</td><td>2</td><td>461</td><td>—</td><td>463</td></tr><tr><td>Ending balance at December 31</td><td>$1,371(a)</td><td>$2,257</td><td>$895</td><td>$4,523</td><td>$2,216(a)</td><td>$2,360</td><td>$774</td><td>$5,350</td></tr><tr><td> Lending-related commitments:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beginning balance at January 1</td><td>$324</td><td>$—</td><td>$39</td><td>$363</td><td>$226</td><td>$—</td><td>$56</td><td>$282</td></tr><tr><td>Net charge-offs</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-212</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-212</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for lending-related commitments</td><td>-47</td><td>—</td><td>8</td><td>-39</td><td>309</td><td>—</td><td>-17</td><td>292</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Ending balance at December 31</td><td>$277(b)</td><td>$—</td><td>$47</td><td>$324</td><td>$324(b)</td><td>$—</td><td>$39</td><td>$363</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">JPMorgan Chase & Co.</td><td colspan="3">JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Chase Bank USA, N.A.</td><td colspan="3">J.P. Morgan Securities LLC</td></tr><tr><td>December 31, 2012</td><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>Outlook</td><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>Outlook</td><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>Outlook</td></tr><tr><td>Moody’s Investor Services</td><td>A2</td><td>P-1</td><td>Negative</td><td>Aa3</td><td>P-1</td><td>Stable</td><td>A1</td><td>P-1</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Standard & Poor’s</td><td>A</td><td>A-1</td><td>Negative</td><td>A+</td><td>A-1</td><td>Negative</td><td>A+</td><td>A-1</td><td>Negative</td></tr><tr><td>Fitch Ratings</td><td>A+</td><td>F1</td><td>Stable</td><td>A+</td><td>F1</td><td>Stable</td><td>A+</td><td>F1</td><td>Stable</td></tr></table>

Question: what was the decline from 2002 to 2003 in interest income , in us$ b?
Answer: 0.21011
Reasoning program: subtract(const_1,11%), divide(1.7,#0), subtract(#1,1.7)