Management’s discussion and analysis 138 JPMorgan Chase & Co. /2013 Annual Report The credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities do not qualify for hedge accounting under U. S.  GAAP; these derivatives are reported at fair value, with gains and losses recognized in principal transactions revenue.
In contrast, the loans and lending-related commitments being risk-managed are accounted for on an accrual basis.
This asymmetry in accounting treatment, between loans and lending-related commitments and the credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities, causes earnings volatility that is not representative, in the Firm’s view, of the true changes in value of the Firm’s overall credit exposure.
The effectiveness of the Firm’s credit default swap (“CDS”) protection as a hedge of the Firm’s exposures may vary depending on a number of factors, including the named reference entity (i. e. , the Firm may experience losses on specific exposures that are different than the named reference entities in the purchased CDS), and the contractual terms of the CDS (which may have a defined credit event that does not align with an actual loss realized by the Firm) and the maturity of the Firm’s CDS protection (which in some cases may be shorter than the Firm’s exposures).
However, the Firm generally seeks to purchase credit protection with a maturity date that is the same or similar to the maturity date of the exposure for which the protection was purchased, and remaining differences in maturity are actively monitored and managed by the Firm.
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT EXPOSURE Credit portfolio hedges The following table sets out the fair value related to the Firm’s credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities, the fair value related to the CVA (which reflects the credit quality of derivatives counterparty exposure), as well as certain other hedges used in the risk management of CVA.
These results can vary from period-toperiod due to market conditions that affect specific positions in the portfolio.
Net gains and losses on credit portfolio hedges
## Table 0 ##
The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) encourages banks to meet the credit needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including neighborhoods with low or moderate incomes.
The Firm is a national leader in community development by providing loans, investments and community development services in communities across the United States.
At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Firm’s CRA loan portfolio was approximately $18 billion and $16 billion, respectively.
At December 31, 2013 and 2012, 50% and 62%, respectively, of the CRA portfolio were residential mortgage loans; 26% and 13%, respectively, were commercial real estate loans; 16% and 18%, respectively, were business banking loans; and 8% and 7%, respectively, were other loans.
CRA nonaccrual loans were 3% and 4%, respectively, of the Firm’s total nonaccrual loans.
For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, net charge-offs in the CRA portfolio were 1% and 3%, respectively, of the Firm’s net charge-offs in both years.
RWA Rollforward The following table presents the changes in the credit risk and market risk components of RWA under Basel I including Basel 2.5 for the year ended December 31, 2013.
The rollforward categories are estimates, based on the predominant driver of the change.
## Table 1 ##
(a) Rule changes refer to movements in RWA as a result of changes in regulations, in particular, Basel 2.5, which resulted in certain positions previously captured under market risk under Basel I being included as noncovered positions under credit risk RWA.
(b) Model & data changes refer to movements in RWA as a result of revised methodologies and/or treatment per regulatory guidance (exclusive of rule changes).
(c) Portfolio runoff for credit risk RWA reflects lower loan balances in Mortgage Banking and for market risk RWA reflects reduced risk from position rolloffs, including changes in the synthetic credit portfolio.
(d) Movement in portfolio levels for credit risk RWA refers to changes in book size, composition, quality, as well as market movements; and for market risk RWA, refers to changes in position and market movements.
The following table presents the risk-based capital ratios for JPMorgan Chase at December 31, 2013 and 2012, under Basel I (and, for December 31, 2013, inclusive of Basel 2.5) Risk-based capital ratios
## Table 2 ##
(a) The Tier 1 common ratio is Tier 1 common capital divided by RWA.
At December 31, 2013 and 2012, JPMorgan Chase maintained Basel I Tier 1 and Total capital ratios in excess of the well-capitalized standards established by the Federal Reserve.
In addition, at December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Firm’s Basel I Tier 1 common ratio was significantly above the 2013 5% CCAR standard.
Additional information regarding the Firm’s capital ratios and the federal regulatory capital standards to which the Firm is subject is presented in Note 28 on pages 316–318 of this Annual Report and the Supervision and Regulation section of the 2013 10-K.  For further information on the Firm’s Basel 2.5 measures and additional market risk disclosures, see the Firm’s consolidated Basel 2.5 Market Risk Pillar 3 Reports which are available on the Firm’s website (http://investor.
shareholder.
com/jpmorganchase/ basel.
cfm) within 60 days after December 31, 2013.
Basel II & Basel III U. S.  banking regulators published a final Basel II rule in December 2007, which was intended to be more risk sensitive than Basel I and eventually replace Basel I for large and internationally active U. S.  banks, including the Firm.
The Firm has been reporting Basel II capital ratios in parallel to the banking agencies since 2008.
In October 2013, U. S.  federal banking agencies published an interim final rule implementing further revisions to the Capital Accord in the U. S. ; such further revisions are commonly referred to as “Basel III.
” Basel III is comprised of a Standardized Approach and an Advanced Approach.
For large and internationally active banks, including the Firm, both the Basel III Standardized and Advanced Approaches became effective commencing January 1, 2014.
For 2014, the Basel III Standardized Approach requires the Firm to calculate its capital ratios using the Basel III definition of capital divided by the Basel I definition of RWA, inclusive of Basel 2.5 for market risk.
Commencing January 1, 2015 the Basel III Standardized Approach requires the Firm to calculate the ratios using the Basel III definition of capital divided by the Basel III Standardized RWA, inclusive of Basel 2.5 for market risk.
Prior to full implementation of the Basel III Advanced Approach, the Firm is required to complete a qualification period (“parallel run”) of at least four consecutive quarters (inclusive of quarters in which the Firm reported in parallel under Basel II) during which it needs to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the rule to the satisfaction of its U. S.  banking regulators.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Firm, upon exiting the Basel III Advanced Approach parallel run, will be required to calculate regulatory capital ratios under both the Standardized and Advanced Approaches.
The Firm’s capital adequacy will be evaluated against the approach that results in the lower ratio.
Basel III revises Basel I and II by, among other things, narrowing the definition of capital, and increasing capital requirements for specific exposures.
Basel III introduces a new Tier 1 common ratio requirement which has a phase-in period from 2015 to 2019.
By January 1, 2019, the minimum Tier 1 common ratio requirement is 7%, comprised of a minimum ratio of 4.5% plus a 2.5% capital conservation buffer.
Global systemically important banks (“GSIBs”) will also be required to maintain Tier 1 common requirements above the 7% minimum, in amounts ranging from an additional 1% to an additional 2.5%.
In November 2013, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) indicated that it would require the Firm, as well as one other bank, to hold the additional 2.5% of Tier 1 common; the requirement will be phased in beginning in 2016.
The Basel Committee also stated that certain GSIBs could be required to hold as much as an additional 3.5% of Tier 1 common above the 7% minimum if they were to take actions that further increase their systemic importance.
Currently, no GSIB (including the
The following table presents, as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the gross and net derivative receivables by contract and settlement type.
Derivative receivables have been netted on the Consolidated Balance Sheets against derivative payables to the same counterparty with respect to derivative contracts for which the Firm has obtained an appropriate legal opinion with respect to the master netting agreement.
Where such a legal opinion has not been either sought or obtained, the receivables are not eligible under U. S.  GAAP for netting against related derivative payables on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and are shown separately in the table below.
## Table 3 ##
(a) The prior period amounts have been revised.
This revision had no impact on the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets or its results of operations.
(b) Exchange traded derivative amounts that relate to futures contracts are settled daily.
(c) Included netted cash collateral payables of $63.9 billion and $79.2 billion at December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>Year ended December 31,(in millions)</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Hedges of loans and lending-related commitments</td><td>$-142</td><td>$-163</td><td>$-32</td></tr><tr><td>CVA and hedges of CVA</td><td>-130</td><td>127</td><td>-769</td></tr><tr><td>Net gains/(losses)</td><td>$-272</td><td>$-36</td><td>$-801</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year ended December 31, 2013</td></tr><tr><td>(in billions)</td><td>Credit risk RWA</td><td>Market risk RWA</td><td>Total RWA</td></tr><tr><td>RWA at December 31, 2012</td><td>$1,156</td><td>$114</td><td>$1,270</td></tr><tr><td>Rule changes<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>39</td><td>134</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Model & data changes<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>24</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Portfolio runoff<sup>(c)</sup></td><td>-11</td><td>-45</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Movement in portfolio levels<sup>(d)</sup></td><td>15</td><td>-39</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Increase in RWA</td><td>67</td><td>51</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>RWA at December 31, 2013</td><td>$1,223</td><td>$165</td><td>$1,388</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>December 31,</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Capital ratios</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 capital</td><td>11.9%</td><td>12.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital</td><td>14.4</td><td>15.3</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 leverage</td><td>7.1</td><td>7.1</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 common<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>10.7</td><td>11.0</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">2013</td><td colspan="4">2012</td></tr><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>Gross derivative receivables</td><td colspan="2">Amounts netted on the Consolidated balance sheets</td><td>Net derivative receivables</td><td>Gross derivative receivables</td><td colspan="2">Amounts netted on the Consolidated balance sheets</td><td>Net derivative receivables</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. GAAP nettable derivative receivables</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Over–the–counter (“OTC”)<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>$486,449</td><td>$-466,493</td><td></td><td>$19,956</td><td>$794,282</td><td>$-771,449</td><td></td><td>$22,833</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>362,426</td><td>-362,404</td><td></td><td>22</td><td>491,947</td><td>-491,678</td><td></td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange traded<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total interest rate contracts</td><td>848,875</td><td>-828,897</td><td></td><td>19,978</td><td>1,286,229</td><td>-1,263,127</td><td></td><td>23,102</td></tr><tr><td>Credit contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>66,269</td><td>-65,725</td><td></td><td>544</td><td>90,744</td><td>-90,104</td><td></td><td>640</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>16,841</td><td>-16,279</td><td></td><td>562</td><td>8,471</td><td>-8,471</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total credit contracts</td><td>83,110</td><td>-82,004</td><td></td><td>1,106</td><td>99,215</td><td>-98,575</td><td></td><td>640</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign exchange contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>148,953</td><td>-136,763</td><td></td><td>12,190</td><td>141,053</td><td>-133,088</td><td></td><td>7,965</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>46</td><td>-46</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>23</td><td>-23</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange traded<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total foreign exchange contracts</td><td>148,999</td><td>-136,809</td><td></td><td>12,190</td><td>141,076</td><td>-133,111</td><td></td><td>7,965</td></tr><tr><td>Equity contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>31,870</td><td>-29,289</td><td></td><td>2,581</td><td>26,025</td><td>-24,645</td><td></td><td>1,380</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange traded<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>17,732</td><td>-11,415</td><td></td><td>6,317</td><td>12,841</td><td>-8,768</td><td></td><td>4,073</td></tr><tr><td>Total equity contracts</td><td>49,602</td><td>-40,704</td><td></td><td>8,898</td><td>38,866</td><td>-33,413</td><td></td><td>5,453</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>21,619</td><td>-15,082</td><td></td><td>6,537</td><td>26,850</td><td>-20,729</td><td></td><td>6,121</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange traded<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>12,528</td><td>-11,212</td><td></td><td>1,316</td><td>15,108</td><td>-12,407</td><td></td><td>2,701</td></tr><tr><td>Total commodity contracts</td><td>34,147</td><td>-26,294</td><td></td><td>7,853</td><td>41,958</td><td>-33,136</td><td></td><td>8,822</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative receivables with appropriate legal opinion</td><td>$1,164,733</td><td>$-1,114,708</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td><td>$50,025</td><td>$1,607,344</td><td>$-1,561,362</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td><td>$45,982</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative receivables where an appropriate legal opinion has not been either sought or obtained</td><td>15,734</td><td></td><td></td><td>15,734</td><td>29,001</td><td></td><td></td><td>29,001</td></tr><tr><td>Total derivative receivables recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheets</td><td>$1,180,467</td><td></td><td></td><td>$65,759</td><td>$1,636,345</td><td></td><td></td><td>$74,983</td></tr></table>

Question: Which year is Total credit contracts of Net derivative receivables the most?
Answer: 2013