AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued) At December 31, 2005, the Company had net federal and state operating loss carryforwards available to reduce future taxable income of approximately $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion, respectively.
If not utilized, the Company’s net operating loss carryforwards expire as follows (in thousands):
## Table 0 ##
SFAS No.109, “Accounting for Income Taxes,” requires that companies record a valuation allowance when it is “more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.
” At December 31, 2005, the Company has provided a valuation allowance of approximately $422.4 million, including approximately $249.5 million attributable to SpectraSite, primarily related to net operating loss and capital loss carryforwards.
Approximately $237.8 million of the SpectraSite valuation allowance was assumed as of the acquisition date.
The balance of the valuation allowance primarily relates to net state deferred tax assets.
The Company has not provided a valuation allowance for the remaining deferred tax assets, primarily its federal net operating loss carryforwards, as management believes the Company will have sufficient time to realize these federal net operating loss carryforwards during the twenty-year tax carryforward period.
The Company intends to recover a portion of its deferred tax asset through its federal income tax refund claims related to the carry back of certain federal net operating losses.
In June 2003 and October 2003, the Company filed federal income tax refund claims with the IRS relating to the carry back of $380.0 million of net operating losses generated prior to 2003, of which the Company initially anticipated receiving approximately $90.0 million.
Based on preliminary discussions with tax authorities, the Company has revised its estimate of the net realizable value of the federal income tax refund claims and anticipates receiving a refund of approximately $65.0 million as a result of these claims by the end of 2006.
There can be no assurances, however, with respect to the specific amount and timing of any refund.
The recoverability of the Company’s remaining net deferred tax asset has been assessed utilizing stable state (no growth) projections based on its current operations.
The projections show a significant decrease in depreciation and interest expense in the later years of the carryforward period as a result of a significant portion of its assets being fully depreciated during the first fifteen years of the carryforward period and debt repayments reducing interest expense.
Accordingly, the recoverability of the net deferred tax asset is not dependent on material improvements to operations, material asset sales or other non-routine transactions.
Based on its current outlook of future taxable income during the carryforward period, management believes that the net deferred tax asset will be realized.
The realization of the Company’s deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2005 will be dependent upon its ability to generate approximately $1.3 billion in taxable income from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2025.
If the Company is unable to generate sufficient taxable income in the future, or carry back losses, as described above, it will be required to reduce its net deferred tax asset through a charge to income tax expense, which would result in a corresponding decrease in stockholders’ equity.
From time to time the Company is subject to examination by various tax authorities in jurisdictions in which the Company has significant business operations.
The Company regularly assesses the likelihood of additional assessments in each of the tax jurisdictions resulting from these examinations.
During the year ended
our liquidity needs through sources of wholesale funding.
These sources include other domestic time deposits of $250,000 or more, brokered deposits and negotiable CDs, deposits in foreign offices, short-term borrowings, FHLB advances, other long-term debt, and subordinated notes.
At December 31, 2009, total wholesale funding was $7.8 billion, a decrease from $13.8 billion at December 31, 2008.
The $7.8 billion portfolio at December 31, 2009, had a weighted average maturity of 4.5 years.
Various strategies (described below), as well as growth in core deposits, reduced our reliance on wholesale borrowings.
During 2009, we initiated various strategies with the intent of further strengthening our liquidity position, as well as reducing the size of our balance sheet to, among other objectives, provide additional support to our TCE ratio (see “Capital” discussion).
Our actions taken during 2009 resulted in: (a) $4.1 billion increase in our unpledged investment securities, (b) $0.7 billion increase in available cash and due from banks, (c) $1.0 billion automobile loan securitization, (d) $0.6 billion sale of municipal securities, (e) $0.6 billion debt issuance as part of the TLGP, and (f) $0.2 billion mortgage loan sale.
Any proceeds from these actions were used primarily to pay down wholesale borrowings.
In addition to these actions, core deposits grew $4.9 billion during 2009.
This increase reduced our reliance upon noncore funding sources.
In addition, our loan-to-deposit ratio improved to 91% at December 31, 2009, compared with 108% at December 31, 2008.
In late 2009, we redeemed $370.8 million aggregate principle amount of certain subordinated notes issued previously by the Bank.
This capital at the Bank was replaced with an intercompany subordinated note from the parent company in the amount of $400 million with a term of 15 years.
A pretax gain of $73.6 million was recorded reflecting the difference between the carrying value of the notes and the purchase price of the debt, net of expenses and associated interest rate swaps.
This transaction increased the quantity and quality of the Bank’s capital, and did not have a material impact on our liquidity position.
The Bank has access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window and Term Auction Facility (TAF).
These borrowings are secured by commercial loans and home equity lines-of-credit.
The Bank is also a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB)-Cincinnati, and as such, has access to advances from this facility.
These advances are generally secured by residential mortgages, other mortgage-related loans, and available-for-sale securities.
Information regarding amounts pledged, for the ability to borrow if necessary, and unused borrowing capacity at both the Federal Reserve and the FHLB-Cincinnati, are outlined in the following table: Table 44 — Federal Reserve and FHLB-Cincinnati Borrowing Capacity
## Table 1 ##
As part of a periodic review conducted by the Federal Reserve, our discount window and TAF borrowing capacity was reduced during 2009.
The reduction was based on the lowering of the specific percentages of pledged amounts available for borrowing.
We can also obtain funding through other methods including: (a) purchasing federal funds (see Table 45 below), (b) selling securities under repurchase agreements (see Table 45 below), (c) the sale or maturity of investment securities, (d) the sale or securitization of loans, (e) the sale of national market certificates of deposit, (f) the relatively shorter-term structure of our commercial loans (see Table 46 below) and automobile loans, and (g) the issuance of common and preferred stock.
At December 31, 2009, we believe that the Bank had sufficient liquidity to meet its cash flow obligations for the foreseeable future.
As shown in the table above, our loan portfolio is diversified by consumer and commercial credit.
At the corporate level, we manage the credit exposure in part via a credit concentration policy.
The policy designates specific loan types, collateral types, and loan structures to be formally tracked and assigned limits as a percentage of capital.
C&I lending by NAICS categories, specific limits for CRE primary project types, loans secured by residential real estate, shared national credit exposure, and designated high risk loan definitions represent examples of specifically tracked components of our concentration management process.
Currently there are no identified concentrations that exceed the established limit.
Our concentration management process is approved by our board level Risk Oversight Committee and is one of the strategies utilized to ensure a high quality, well diversified portfolio that is consistent with our overall objective of maintaining an aggregate moderate-to-low risk profile.
The table below provides our total loan and lease portfolio segregated by the type of collateral securing the loan or lease.
The changes in the collateral composition are consistent with the portfolio growth metrics, with increases noted in the residential and vehicle categories.
The increase in the unsecured exposure is centered in high quality commercial credit customers.
Table 10 - Loan and Lease Portfolio by Collateral Type
## Table 2 ##
Commercial Credit The primary factors considered in commercial credit approvals are the financial strength of the borrower, assessment of the borrower’s management capabilities, cash flows from operations, industry sector trends, type and sufficiency of collateral, type of exposure, transaction structure, and the general economic outlook.
While these are the primary factors considered, there are a number of other factors that may be considered in the decision process.
We utilize a centralized preview and senior loan approval committee, led by our chief credit officer.
The risk rating (see next paragraph) and complexity of the credit determines the threshold for approval of the senior loan committee with a minimum credit exposure of $10.0 million.
For loans not requiring senior loan committee approval, with the exception of small business loans, credit officers who understand each local region and are experienced in the industries and loan structures of the requested credit exposure are involved in all loan decisions and have the primary credit authority.
For small business loans, we utilize a centralized loan approval process for standard products and structures.
In this centralized decision environment, certain individuals who understand each local region may make credit-extension decisions to preserve our commitment to the communities we operate in.
In addition to disciplined and consistent judgmental factors, a sophisticated credit scoring process is used as a primary evaluation tool in the determination of approving a loan within the centralized loan approval process.
In commercial lending, on-going credit management is dependent on the type and nature of the loan.
We monitor all significant exposures on an on-going basis.
All commercial credit extensions are assigned internal risk ratings reflecting the borrower’s PD and LGD.
This two-dimensional rating methodology provides granularity in the portfolio management process.
The PD is rated and applied at the borrower level.
The LGD is rated and applied based on the specific type of credit extension and the quality and lien position associated with the underlying collateral.
The internal risk ratings are assessed at origination and updated at each periodic monitoring event.
There is also extensive macro portfolio management analysis on an on-going basis.
We continually review and adjust our risk-rating criteria based on actual experience, which provides us with the current risk level in the portfolio and is the basis for determining an appropriate allowance for credit losses (ACL) amount for the commercial portfolio.
A centralized portfolio management team monitors and reports on the performance of the entire commercial portfolio, including small business loans, to provide consistent oversight.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>Years ended December 31,</td><td>Federal</td><td>State</td></tr><tr><td>2006 to 2010</td><td>$5,248</td><td>$469,747</td></tr><tr><td>2011 to 2015</td><td>10,012</td><td>272,662</td></tr><tr><td>2016 to 2020</td><td>397,691</td><td>777,707</td></tr><tr><td>2021 to 2025</td><td>1,744,552</td><td>897,896</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$2,157,503</td><td>$2,418,012</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> 2009</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"> (In billions)</td></tr><tr><td> Loans and Securities Pledged:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Federal Reserve Bank</td><td>$8.5</td><td>$8.4</td></tr><tr><td>FHLB-Cincinnati</td><td>8.0</td><td>9.2</td></tr><tr><td> Total loans and securities pledged</td><td>$16.5</td><td>$17.6</td></tr><tr><td>Total unused borrowing capacity at Federal Reserve Bank and FHLB-Cincinnati</td><td>$7.9</td><td>$8.7</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="10">At December 31,</td></tr><tr><td><i>(dollar amounts in millions)</i></td><td colspan="2">2014</td><td colspan="2">2013</td><td colspan="2">2012</td><td colspan="2">2011</td><td colspan="2">2010</td></tr><tr><td>Secured loans:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Real estate—commercial</td><td>$8,631</td><td>18%</td><td>$8,622</td><td>20%</td><td>$9,128</td><td>22%</td><td>$9,557</td><td>25%</td><td>$10,389</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate—consumer</td><td>14,322</td><td>30</td><td>13,657</td><td>32</td><td>13,305</td><td>33</td><td>13,444</td><td>35</td><td>12,214</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Vehicles</td><td>10,932</td><td>23</td><td>8,989</td><td>21</td><td>6,659</td><td>16</td><td>6,021</td><td>15</td><td>7,134</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables/Inventory</td><td>5,968</td><td>13</td><td>5,534</td><td>13</td><td>5,178</td><td>13</td><td>4,450</td><td>11</td><td>3,763</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Machinery/Equipment</td><td>3,863</td><td>8</td><td>2,738</td><td>6</td><td>2,749</td><td>7</td><td>1,994</td><td>5</td><td>1,766</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Securities/Deposits</td><td>964</td><td>2</td><td>786</td><td>2</td><td>826</td><td>2</td><td>800</td><td>2</td><td>734</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>919</td><td>2</td><td>1,016</td><td>2</td><td>1,090</td><td>3</td><td>1,018</td><td>3</td><td>990</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Total secured loans and leases</td><td>45,599</td><td>96</td><td>41,342</td><td>96</td><td>38,935</td><td>96</td><td>37,284</td><td>96</td><td>36,990</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured loans and leases</td><td>2,057</td><td>4</td><td>1,778</td><td>4</td><td>1,793</td><td>4</td><td>1,640</td><td>4</td><td>1,117</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Total loans and leases</td><td>$47,656</td><td>100%</td><td>$43,120</td><td>100%</td><td>$40,728</td><td>100%</td><td>$38,924</td><td>100%</td><td>$38,107</td><td>100%</td></tr></table>

Question: what was the percentage of the anticipated approximate tax refund in 2003 based on the nol $ 90.0 million .
Answer: 0.23684
Reasoning program: divide(90.0,380.0)