Table 17 Residential Mortgage State Concentrations
## Table 0 ##
(1) Represents acquired loans from Countrywide that were considered impaired and written down to fair value at the acquisition date in accordance with SOP 03-3.
See page 65 for the discussion of the characteristics of the SOP 03-3 loans.
$34.0 billion and $49.0 billion, and strengthened our Tier 1 Capital ratio at December 31, 2008 and 2007 by 24 bps and 27 bps.
Excluding the SOP 03-3 portfolio, residential mortgage loans with greater than 90 percent refreshed LTV represented 23 percent of the portfolio and those loans with refreshed FICO lower than 620 represented eight percent of the portfolio.
In addition, residential mortgage loans to borrowers in the state of California represented 36 percent and 32 percent of total residential mortgage loans at December 31, 2008 and 2007.
The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) within California represented 13 percent and 11 percent of the total residential mortgage portfolio at December 31, 2008 and 2007.
In addition, residential mortgage loans to borrowers in the state of Florida represented seven percent and six percent of the total residential mortgage portfolio at December 31, 2008 and 2007.
Additionally, 56 percent and 40 percent of loans in California and Florida are in reference pools of synthetic securitizations, as described above, which provide mezzanine risk protection.
Total credit risk on three percent of our mortgage loans in Florida has been mitigated through the purchase of protection from government sponsored entities.
The table above presents outstandings, nonperforming loans and net charge-offs by certain state concentrations for the residential mortgage portfolio.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages banks to meet the credit needs of their communities for housing and other purposes, particularly in neighborhoods with low or moderate incomes.
At December 31, 2008, our CRA portfolio comprised seven percent of the total ending residential mortgage loan balances but comprised 24 percent of nonperforming residential mortgage loans.
This portfolio also comprised 27 percent of residential mortgage net charge-offs during 2008.
While approximately 48 percent of our residential mortgage portfolio carries risk mitigation protection, only a small portion of our CRA portfolio is covered by this protection.
Home Equity At December 31, 2008, approximately 79 percent of the home equity portfolio was included in GCSBB, while the remainder of the portfolio was primarily in GWIM.
Outstanding home equity loans increased $37.7 billion, or 33 percent, at December 31, 2008 compared to December 31, 2007, primarily due to the Countrywide acquisition which added approximately $29.0 billion in home equity loans of which $14.2 billion is included in the SOP 03-3 portfolio.
An additional $25.0 billion in organic growth and draws on existing lines was partially offset by paydowns and net charge-offs.
See page 65 for more information on the SOP 03-3 home equity portfolio.
Home equity unused lines of credit totaled $107.4 billion at December 31, 2008 compared to $120.1 billion at December 31, 2007.
The $12.7 billion decrease was driven primarily by higher account utilization due to draws on existing lines as well as line management initiatives on deteriorating accounts with declining equity positions partially offset by the addition of the Countrywide portfolio which added $4.5 billion of unused lines related to the non SOP 03-3 portfolio.
The home equity utilization rate was 52 percent at December 31, 2008 compared to 44 percent at December 31, 2007.
The increase was driven by the same factors as previously discussed as well as the addition of the Countrywide portfolio which had a higher utilization rate.
Nonperforming home equity loans increased $1.3 billion compared to December 31, 2007 and net charge-offs increased $3.2 billion to $3.5 billion for 2008, or 2.59 percent (2.73 percent excluding the SOP 03-3 portfolio) of total average home equity loans compared to 0.28 percent in 2007.
These increases were driven by continued weakness in the housing markets, the slowing economy and seasoning of vintages originated in periods of higher growth.
Additionally, the increase was driven by high refreshed CLTV loans in geographic areas that have experienced the most significant declines in home prices.
Home price declines coupled with the fact that most home equity loans are secured by second lien positions have significantly reduced and in some cases resulted in no collateral value after consideration of the first lien position.
This drove more severe charge-offs as borrowers defaulted.
Excluding the SOP 03-3 portfolio, home equity loans with greater than 90 percent refreshed CLTV comprised 37 percent of the home equity portfolio at December 31, 2008, and represented 85 percent of net charge-offs for 2008.
In addition, loans with a refreshed FICO lower than 620 represented 10 percent of the home equity loans at December 31, 2008.
The 2006 vintage loans, which represent $34.2 billion, or 25 percent of our home equity portfolio, continue to season and have a higher refreshed CLTV and accounted for approximately 49 percent of net charge-offs for 2008.
The portfolio’s 2007 vintages, which represent 26 percent of the portfolio, are showing similar asset quality characteristics as the 2006 vintages and accounted for 28 percent of net charge-offs in 2008.
Additionally, legacy Bank of America discontinued the program of purchasing non-franchise originated loans in the second quarter of 2007.
These purchased loans represented only three percent of the portfolio but accounted for 17 percent of net charge-offs for 2008.
Item 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk (Amounts in millions) In the normal course of business, we are exposed to market risks related to interest rates, foreign currency rates and certain balance sheet items.
From time to time, we use derivative instruments, pursuant to established guidelines and policies, to manage some portion of these risks.
Derivative instruments utilized in our hedging activities are viewed as risk management tools and are not used for trading or speculative purposes.
Interest Rates Our exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relates primarily to the fair market value and cash flows of our debt obligations.
The majority of our debt (approximately 94% and 93% as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively) bears interest at fixed rates.
We do have debt with variable interest rates, but a 10% increase or decrease in interest rates would not be material to our interest expense or cash flows.
The fair market value of our debt is sensitive to changes in interest rates, and the impact of a 10% change in interest rates is summarized below.
## Table 1 ##
We have used interest rate swaps for risk management purposes to manage our exposure to changes in interest rates.
We did not have any interest rate swaps outstanding as of December 31, 2017.
We had $791.0 of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of December 31, 2017 that we generally invest in conservative, short-term bank deposits or securities.
The interest income generated from these investments is subject to both domestic and foreign interest rate movements.
During 2017 and 2016, we had interest income of $19.4 and $20.1, respectively.
Based on our 2017 results, a 100 basis-point increase or decrease in interest rates would affect our interest income by approximately $7.9, assuming that all cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities are impacted in the same manner and balances remain constant from year-end 2017 levels.
Foreign Currency Rates We are subject to translation and transaction risks related to changes in foreign currency exchange rates.
Since we report revenues and expenses in U. S.  Dollars, changes in exchange rates may either positively or negatively affect our consolidated revenues and expenses (as expressed in U. S.  Dollars) from foreign operations.
The foreign currencies that most impacted our results during 2017 included the British Pound Sterling and, to a lesser extent, Brazilian Real and South African Rand.
Based on 2017 exchange rates and operating results, if the U. S.  Dollar were to strengthen or weaken by 10%, we currently estimate operating income would decrease or increase approximately 4%, assuming that all currencies are impacted in the same manner and our international revenue and expenses remain constant at 2017 levels.
The functional currency of our foreign operations is generally their respective local currency.
Assets and liabilities are translated at the exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date, and revenues and expenses are translated at the average exchange rates during the period presented.
The resulting translation adjustments are recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax, in the stockholders’ equity section of our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Our foreign subsidiaries generally collect revenues and pay expenses in their functional currency, mitigating transaction risk.
However, certain subsidiaries may enter into transactions in currencies other than their functional currency.
Assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than the functional currency are susceptible to movements in foreign currency until final settlement.
Currency transaction gains or losses primarily arising from transactions in currencies other than the functional currency are included in office and general expenses.
We regularly review our foreign exchange exposures that may have a material impact on our business and from time to time use foreign currency forward exchange contracts or other derivative financial instruments to hedge the effects of potential adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates arising from these exposures.
We do not enter into foreign exchange contracts or other derivatives for speculative purposes.
Item 7.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Results of Operations – Diamond Offshore – (Continued) While conditions in the mid-water market vary slightly by region, mid-water rigs have been adversely impacted by (i) lower demand, (ii) declining dayrates, (iii) increased regulatory requirements, including more stringent design requirements for well control equipment, which could significantly increase the capital needed to comply with design requirements that would permit such rigs to work in U. S.  waters, (iv) the challenges experienced by lower specification units in this segment as a result of more complex customer specifications, and (v) the intensified competition resulting from the migration of some deepwater and ultra-deepwater units to compete against mid-water units.
To date, the mid-water market has seen the highest number of cold-stacked and scrapped rigs.
Since 2012, Diamond Offshore has sold 12 of its mid-water rigs for scrap.
As market conditions remain challenging, Diamond Offshore expects higher specification rigs to take the place of lower specification units, where possible, leading to additional lower specification rigs being cold stacked or ultimately scrapped.
Impact of changes in tax laws or their interpretation Diamond Offshore operates through various subsidiaries in a number of countries throughout the world.
As a result, it is subject to highly complex tax laws, treaties and regulations in the jurisdictions in which it operates, which may change and are subject to interpretation.
Changes in laws, treaties and regulations and the interpretation of such laws, treaties and regulations may put Diamond Offshore at risk for future tax assessments and liabilities which could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and our results of operations and cash flows.
Further information is provided in Notes 10 and 18 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.
Contract Drilling Backlog The following table reflects Diamond Offshore’s contract drilling backlog as of February 16, 2016 (based on contract information known at that time), October 1, 2015 (the date reported in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for quarter ended September 30, 2015) and February 9, 2015 (the date reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014).
Contract drilling backlog as presented below includes only firm commitments (typically represented by signed contracts) and is calculated by multiplying the contracted operating dayrate by the firm contract period and adding one-half of any potential rig performance bonuses.
Diamond Offshore’s calculation also assumes full utilization of its drilling equipment for the contract period (excluding scheduled shipyard and survey days); however, the amount of actual revenue earned and the actual periods during which revenues are earned will be different than the amounts and periods shown in the tables below due to various factors.
Utilization rates, which generally approach 92% - 98% during contracted periods, can be adversely impacted by downtime due to various operating factors including, but not limited to, weather conditions and unscheduled repairs and maintenance.
Contract drilling backlog excludes revenues for mobilization, demobilization, contract preparation and customer reimbursables.
No revenue is generally earned during periods of downtime for regulatory surveys.
Changes in Diamond Offshore’s contract drilling backlog between periods are generally a function of the performance of work on term contracts, as well as the extension or modification of existing term contracts and the execution of additional contracts.
In addition, under certain circumstances, Diamond Offshore’s customers may seek to terminate or renegotiate its contracts.
## Table 2 ##
(a) Ultra-deepwater floaters includes $641 million attributable to future work for the semisubmersible Ocean GreatWhite, which is under construction.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">December 31, 2008</td><td colspan="2" rowspan="2" Year Ended December 31, 2008  Net Charge-offs></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Outstandings</td><td colspan="2">Nonperforming</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> Amount</td><td>Percent of Total</td><td> Amount</td><td>Percent of Total</td><td> Amount</td><td> Percent of Total</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>California</td><td>$84,847</td><td>35.6%</td><td>$2,028</td><td>28.8%</td><td>$411</td><td>44.4%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Florida</td><td>15,787</td><td>6.6</td><td>1,012</td><td>14.4</td><td>154</td><td>16.6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>New York</td><td>15,539</td><td>6.5</td><td>255</td><td>3.6</td><td>5</td><td>0.5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td>10,804</td><td>4.5</td><td>315</td><td>4.5</td><td>20</td><td>2.2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Virginia</td><td>9,696</td><td>4.1</td><td>229</td><td>3.2</td><td>32</td><td>3.5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other U.S./Foreign</td><td>101,377</td><td>42.7</td><td>3,205</td><td>45.5</td><td>303</td><td>32.8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> Total residential mortgage loans (excluding SOP 03-3 loans)</td><td>$238,050</td><td>100.0%</td><td>$7,044</td><td>100.0%</td><td>$925</td><td> 100.0</td><td> %</td></tr><tr><td> Total SOP 03-3 residential mortgage loans<sup>-1</sup></td><td>9,949</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td> Total residential mortgage loans</td><td>$247,999</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Increase/(Decrease)in Fair Market Value</td></tr><tr><td>As of December 31,</td><td>10% Increasein Interest Rates</td><td>10% Decreasein Interest Rates</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>$-20.2</td><td>$20.6</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>-26.3</td><td>26.9</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> February 16, 2016</td><td>October 1, 2015</td><td>February 9, 2015</td></tr><tr><td> (In millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Floaters:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ultra-Deepwater (a)</td><td>$4,415</td><td>$4,851</td><td>$5,390</td></tr><tr><td>Deepwater</td><td>375</td><td>439</td><td>748</td></tr><tr><td>Mid-Water</td><td>356</td><td>401</td><td>611</td></tr><tr><td>Total Floaters</td><td>5,146</td><td>5,691</td><td>6,749</td></tr><tr><td>Jack-ups</td><td>49</td><td>18</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$5,195</td><td>$5,709</td><td>$6,840</td></tr></table>

Question: What's the average of Outstandings and Nonperforming and Net charpe offs of New York in 2008? (in million)
Answer: 5266.33
Reasoning program: add(15539,255), add(#0,5), divide(#1,const_3)