Russia and Europe.
Average sales price realizations for uncoated freesheet paper decreased in both Europe and Russia, reflecting weak economic conditions and soft market demand.
In Russia, sales prices in rubles increased, but this improvement is masked by the impact of the currency depreciation against the U. S.  dollar.
Input costs were significantly higher for wood in both Europe and Russia, partially offset by lower chemical costs.
Planned maintenance downtime costs were $11 million lower in 2014 than in 2013.
Manufacturing and other operating costs were favorable.
Entering 2015, sales volumes in the first quarter are expected to be seasonally weaker in Russia, and about flat in Europe.
Average sales price realizations for uncoated freesheet paper are expected to remain steady in Europe, but increase in Russia.
Input costs should be lower for oil and wood, partially offset by higher chemicals costs.
Indian Papers net sales were $178 million in 2014, $185 million ($174 million excluding excise duties which were included in net sales in 2013 and prior periods) in 2013 and $185 million ($178 million excluding excise duties) in 2012.
Operating profits were $8 million (a loss of $12 million excluding a gain related to the resolution of a legal contingency) in 2014, a loss of $145 million (a loss of $22 million excluding goodwill and trade name impairment charges) in 2013 and a loss of $16 million in 2012.
Average sales price realizations improved in 2014 compared with 2013 due to the impact of price increases implemented in 2013.
Sales volumes were flat, reflecting weak economic conditions.
Input costs were higher, primarily for wood.
Operating costs and planned maintenance downtime costs were lower in 2014.
Looking ahead to the first quarter of 2015, sales volumes are expected to be seasonally higher.
Average sales price realizations are expected to decrease due to competitive pressures.
Asian Printing Papers net sales were $59 million in 2014, $90 million in 2013 and $85 million in 2012.
Operating profits were $0 million in 2014 and $1 million in both 2013 and 2012.
U. S.  Pulp net sales were $895 million in 2014 compared with $815 million in 2013 and $725 million in 2012.
Operating profits were $57 million in 2014 compared with $2 million in 2013 and a loss of $59 million in 2012.
Sales volumes in 2014 increased from 2013 for both fluff pulp and market pulp reflecting improved market demand.
Average sales price realizations increased significantly for fluff pulp, while prices for market pulp were also higher.
Input costs for wood and energy were higher.
Operating costs were lower, but planned maintenance downtime costs were $1 million higher.
Compared with the fourth quarter of 2014, sales volumes in the first quarter of 2015, are expected to decrease for market pulp, but be slightly higher for fluff pulp.
Average sales price realizations are expected to to be stable for fluff pulp and softwood market pulp, while hardwood market pulp prices are expected to improve.
Input costs should be flat.
Planned maintenance downtime costs should be about $13 million higher than in the fourth quarter of 2014.
Consumer Packaging Demand and pricing for Consumer Packaging products correlate closely with consumer spending and general economic activity.
In addition to prices and volumes, major factors affecting the profitability of Consumer Packaging are raw material and energy costs, freight costs, manufacturing efficiency and product mix.
Consumer Packaging net sales in 2014 decreased 1% from 2013, but increased 7% from 2012.
Operating profits increased 11% from 2013, but decreased 34% from 2012.
Excluding sheet plant closure costs, costs associated with the permanent shutdown of a paper machine at our Augusta, Georgia mill and costs related to the sale of the Shorewood business, 2014 operating profits were 11% lower than in 2013, and 30% lower than in 2012.
Benefits from higher average sales price realizations and a favorable mix ($60 million) were offset by lower sales volumes ($11 million), higher operating costs ($9 million), higher planned maintenance downtime costs ($12 million), higher input costs ($43 million) and higher other costs ($7 million).
In addition, operating profits in 2014 include $8 million of costs associated with sheet plant closures, while operating profits in 2013 include costs of $45 million related to the permanent shutdown of a paper machine at our Augusta, Georgia mill and $2 million of costs associated with the sale of the Shorewood business.
## Table 0 ##
North American Consumer Packaging net sales were $2.0 billion in 2014 compared with $2.0 billion in 2013 and $2.0 billion in 2012.
Operating profits were $92 million ($100 million excluding sheet plant closure costs) in 2014 compared with $63 million ($110 million excluding paper machine shutdown costs and costs related to the sale of the Shorewood business) in 2013 and $165 million ($162 million excluding a gain associated with the sale of the Shorewood business in 2012).
Coated Paperboard sales volumes in 2014 were lower than in 2013 reflecting weaker market demand.
The business took about 41,000 tons of market-related downtime in 2014 compared with about 24,000 tons in 2013.
Average sales price realizations increased year-
MetLife, Inc.  Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued) In addition to reinsuring mortality risk as described previously, the Company reinsures other risks, as well as specific coverages.
The Company routinely reinsures certain classes of risks in order to limit its exposure to particular travel, avocation and lifestyle hazards.
The Company has exposure to catastrophes, which could contribute to significant fluctuations in the Company’s results of operations.
The Company uses excess of retention and quota share reinsurance arrangements to provide greater diversification of risk and minimize exposure to larger risks.
The Company had also protected itself through the purchase of combination risk coverage.
This reinsurance coverage pooled risks from several lines of business and included individual and group life claims in excess of $2 million per policy, as well as excess property and casualty losses, among others.
This combination risk coverage was commuted during 2005.
The Company reinsures its business through a diversified group of reinsurers.
No single unaffiliated reinsurer has a material obligation to the Company nor is the Company’s business substantially dependent upon any reinsurance contracts.
The Company is contingently liable with respect to ceded reinsurance should any reinsurer be unable to meet its obligations under these agreements.
In the Reinsurance Segment, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (“RGA”) retains a maximum of $6 million of coverage per individual life with respect to its assumed reinsurance business.
The amounts in the consolidated statements of income are presented net of reinsurance ceded.
Information regarding the effect of reinsurance is as follows:
## Table 1 ##
Reinsurance recoverables, included in premiums and other receivables, were $10.4 billion and $10.2 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, including $1.2 billion at both December 31, 2007 and 2006 relating to reinsurance of long-term GICs and structured settlement lump sum contracts accounted for as a financing transaction; $3.4 billion and $3.0 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, relating to reinsurance on the run-off of long-term care business written by Travelers; $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, relating to reinsurance on the run-off of workers compensation business written by Travelers; and $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, relating to the reinsurance of investment-type contracts held by small market defined benefit contribution plans.
Reinsurance and ceded commissions payables, included in other liabilities, were $571 million and $275 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.9.
Closed Block On April 7, 2000, (the “Demutualization Date”), MLIC converted from a mutual life insurance company to a stock life insurance company and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
The conversion was pursuant to an order by the New York Superintendent of Insurance (the “Superintendent”) approving MLIC’s plan of reorganization, as amended (the “Plan”).
On the Demutualization Date, MLIC established a closed block for the benefit of holders of certain individual life insurance policies of MLIC.
Assets have been allocated to the closed block in an amount that has been determined to produce cash flows which, together with anticipated revenues from the policies included in the closed block, are reasonably expected to be sufficient to support obligations and liabilities relating to these policies, including, but not limited to, provisions for the payment of claims and certain expenses and taxes, and to provide for the continuation of policyholder dividend scales in effect for 1999, if the experience underlying such dividend scales continues, and for appropriate adjustments in such scales if the experience changes.
At least annually, the Company compares actual and projected experience against the experience assumed in the then-current dividend scales.
Dividend scales are adjusted periodically to give effect to changes in experience.
The closed block assets, the cash flows generated by the closed block assets and the anticipated revenues from the policies in the closed block will benefit only the holders of the policies in the closed block.
To the extent that, over time, cash flows from the assets allocated to the closed block and claims and other experience related to the closed block are, in the aggregate, more or less favorable than what was assumed when the closed block was established, total dividends paid to closed block policyholders in the future may be greater than or less than the total dividends that would have been paid to these policyholders if the policyholder dividend scales in effect for 1999 had been continued.
Any cash flows in excess of amounts assumed will be available for distribution over time to closed block policyholders and will not be available to stockholders.
If the closed block has insufficient funds to make guaranteed policy benefit payments, such payments will be made from assets outside of the closed block.
The closed block will continue in effect as long as any policy in the closed block remains in-force.
The expected life of the closed block is over 100 years.
The Company uses the same accounting principles to account for the participating policies included in the closed block as it used prior to the Demutualization Date.
However, the Company establishes a policyholder dividend obligation for earnings that will be paid to policyholders as additional dividends as described below.
The excess of closed block liabilities over closed block assets at the effective date of the demutualization (adjusted to eliminate the impact of related amounts in accumulated other comprehensive income) represents the estimated maximum future earnings from the closed block expected to result from operations attributed to the closed block after income taxes.
Earnings of the closed block are recognized in income over the period the policies and contracts in the closed block remain in-force.
Management believes that over time the actual cumulative earnings of the closed block will approximately equal the expected cumulative earnings due to the effect of dividend changes.
If, over the period the closed block remains in existence, the actual cumulative
pension business in the prior period and an increase in other expenses, primarily related to expenses associated with DAC, interest expense, minority interest expense and equity compensation costs.
Revenues and Expenses Premiums, Fees and Other Revenues Premiums, fees and other revenues increased by $2,595 million, or 9%, to $32,554 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 from $29,959 million for the comparable 2005 period.
Excluding the impact of the acquisition of Travelers, which contributed $945 million during the first six months of 2006 to the year over year increase, premiums, fees and other revenues increased by $1,650 million.
The following table provides the change in premiums, fees and other revenues by segment, excluding Travelers:
## Table 2 ##
The growth in the Reinsurance segment was primarily attributable to premiums from new facultative and automatic treaties and renewal premiums on existing blocks of business in the U. S.  and international operations.
The growth in the International segment was primarily due to the following factors: ?
An increase in Mexico’s premiums, fees and other revenues due to growth in the business and higher fees, partially offset by an adjustment for experience refunds on a block of business and various one- time other revenue items in both years.  ?
South Korea’s premiums, fees and other revenues increased due to business growth, as well as the favorable impact of foreign currency exchange rates.  ?
Brazil’s premiums, fees and other revenues increased due to business growth and higher bancassurance business, as well as an increase in amounts retained under reinsurance arrangements.  ?
Chile’s premiums, fees and other revenues increased primarily due to higher institutional premiums through its bank distribution channel, partially offset by lower annuity sales.  ?
Business growth in the United Kingdom, Argentina, Australia and Taiwan, as well as the favorable impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates, also contributed to the increase in the International segment.
The growth in the Institutional segment was primarily due to growth in the dental, disability, AD&D products, as well as growth in the LTC and IDI businesses, all within the non-medical health & other business.
Additionally, growth in the group life business was attributable to the impact of sales and favorable persistency largely in the term life business.
These increases in the non-medical health & other and group life businesses were partially offset by a decrease in the retirement & savings business.
The decline in retirement & savings was primarily due to a decline in premiums from structured settlements predominantly due to lower sales, partially offset by an increase in master terminal funding premiums (“MTF”).
The growth in the Individual segment was primarily due to higher fee income from universal life and investment-type products and an increase in premiums from other life products, partially offset by a decrease in immediate annuity premiums and a decline in premiums associated with the Company’s closed block business as this business continues to run-off.
Net Investment Income Net investment income increased by $2,326 million, or 16%, to $17,082 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 from $14,756 million for the comparable 2005 period.
Excluding the impact of the acquisition of Travelers, which contributed $1,425 million during the first six months of 2006 to the year over year increase, net investment income increased by $901 million of which management attributes $648 million to growth in the average asset base and $253 million to an increase in yields.
This increase was primarily due to an overall increase in the asset base, an increase in fixed maturity security yields, improved results on real estate and real estate joint ventures, mortgage loans, and other limited partnership interests, as well as higher short-term interest rates on cash equivalents and shortterm investments.
These increases were partially offset by a decline in investment income from securities lending results, and bond and commercial mortgage prepayment fees.
Interest Margin Interest margin, which represents the difference between interest earned and interest credited to policyholder account balances, decreased in the Institutional and Individual segments for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the prior year.
Interest earned approximates net investment income on investable assets attributed to the segment with minor adjustments related to the consolidation of certain separate accounts and other minor non-policyholder elements.
Interest credited is the amount attributed to insurance products, recorded in policyholder benefits and claims, and the amount credited to policyholder account balances for investment-type products, recorded in interest credited to policyholder account balances.
Interest credited on insurance products reflects the current period impact of the interest rate assumptions established at issuance or acquisition.
Interest credited to policyholder account balances is subject to contractual terms, including some minimum guarantees.
This tends to move gradually over time to reflect market interest rate movements and may reflect actions by management to respond to competitive pressures and, therefore, generally does not introduce volatility in expense.
Pension and Other Postretirement Net Periodic Benefit Cost Pension Cost Net periodic pension cost is comprised of the following: i) Service Cost — Service cost is the increase in the projected pension benefit obligation resulting from benefits payable to employees of the Subsidiaries on service rendered during the current year.
ii) Interest Cost on the Liability — Interest cost is the time value adjustment on the projected pension benefit obligation at the end of each year.
iii) Expected Return on Plan Assets — Expected return on plan assets is the assumed return earned by the accumulated pension fund assets in a particular year.
iv) Amortization of Prior Service Cost — This cost relates to the increase or decrease to pension benefit cost for service provided in prior years due to amendments in plans or initiation of new plans.
As the economic benefits of these costs are realized in the future periods, these costs are amortized to pension expense over the expected service years of the employees.
v) Amortization of Net Actuarial Gains or Losses — Actuarial gains and losses result from differences between the actual experience and the expected experience on pension plan assets or projected pension benefit obligation during a particular period.
These gains and losses are accumulated and, to the extent they exceed 10% of the greater of the projected pension benefit obligation or the market-related value of plan assets, they are amortized into pension expense over the expected service years of the employees.
The Subsidiaries recognized pension expense of $98 million in 2007 as compared to $180 million in 2006 and $146 million in 2005.
The major components of net periodic pension cost described above were as follows:
## Table 3 ##
The increase in expense from 2005 to 2006 was primarily a result of both increases in service and interest cost and amortization of net actuarial losses resulting largely from lower discount rates, partially offset by the impact of an increase in the expected return on plan assets due to a larger plan assets base.
The decrease in expense from 2006 to 2007 was primarily the result of an increase in the expected return on plan assets and a decrease in amortization of net actuarial losses resulting from the $350 million contribution made in 2006.
The increase in the interest cost resulted from the increase in the discount rate.
The estimated net actuarial losses and prior service cost for the defined benefit pension plans that will be amortized from accumulated other comprehensive income into net periodic benefit cost over the next year are both $14 million.
The weighted average discount rate used to calculate the net periodic pension cost was 6.00%, 5.82% and 5.83% for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The weighted average expected rate of return on pension plan assets used to calculate the net periodic pension cost for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was 8.25%, 8.25% and 8.50%, respectively.
The expected rate of return on plan assets is based on anticipated performance of the various asset sectors in which the plan invests, weighted by target allocation percentages.
Anticipated future performance is based on long-term historical returns of the plan assets by sector, adjusted for the Subsidiaries’ longterm expectations on the performance of the markets.
While the precise expected return derived using this approach will fluctuate from year to year, the Subsidiaries’ policy is to hold this long-term assumption constant as long as it remains within reasonable tolerance from the derived rate.
The actual net return on the investments has been an approximation of the estimated return for the pension plan in 2007, 2006 and 2005.
Based on the December 31, 2007 asset balances, a 25 basis point increase (decrease) in the expected rate of return on plan assets would result in a decrease (increase) in net periodic benefit cost of $15 million for the pension plans.
Other Postretirement Benefit Cost The net periodic other postretirement benefit cost consists of the following: i) Service Cost — Service cost is the increase in the expected postretirement plan benefit obligation resulting from benefits payable to employees of the Subsidiaries on service rendered during the current year.
ii) Interest Cost on the Liability — Interest cost is the time value adjustment on the expected postretirement benefit obligation at the end of each year.
iii) Expected Return on Plan Assets — Expected return on plan assets is the assumed return earned by the accumulated other postretirement fund assets in a particular year.
iv) Amortization of Prior Service Cost — This cost relates to the increase or decrease to other postretirement benefit cost for service provided in prior years due to amendments in plans or initiation of new plans.
As the economic benefits of these costs are realized in the future periods these costs are amortized to other postretirement benefit expense over the expected service years of the employees.
v) Amortization of Net Actuarial Gains or Losses — Actuarial gains and losses result from differences between the actual experience and the expected experience on other postretirement benefit plan assets or expected postretirement plan benefit obligation during a particular year.
These gains and losses are accumulated and, to the extent they exceed 10% of the greater
Variable Interest Entities The following table presents the total assets of and maximum exposure to loss relating to VIEs for which the Company has concluded that: (i) it is the primary beneficiary and which are consolidated in the Company’s consolidated financial statements at December 31, 2007; and (ii) it holds significant variable interests but it is not the primary beneficiary and which have not been consolidated:
## Table 4 ##
(1) The assets of the asset-backed securitizations and collateralized debt obligations are reflected at fair value.
The assets of the real estate joint ventures, other limited partnership interests, trust preferred securities and other investments are reflected at the carrying amounts at which such assets would have been reflected on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet had the Company consolidated the VIE from the date of its initial investment in the entity.
(2) The maximum exposure to loss relating to the asset-backed securitizations and collateralized debt obligations is equal to the carrying amounts of retained interests.
In addition, the Company provides collateral management services for certain of these structures for which it collects a management fee.
The maximum exposure to loss relating to real estate joint ventures, other limited partnership interests, trust preferred securities and other investments is equal to the carrying amounts plus any unfunded commitments, reduced by amounts guaranteed by other partners.
Such a maximum loss would be expected to occur only upon bankruptcy of the issuer or investee.
(3) Real estate joint ventures include partnerships and other ventures which engage in the acquisition, development, management and disposal of real estate investments.
(4) Other limited partnership interests include partnerships established for the purpose of investing in public and private debt and equity securities.
(5) Trust preferred securities are complex, uniquely structured investments which contain features of both equity and debt, may have an extended or no stated maturity, and may be callable at the issuer’s option after a defined period of time.
(6) Other investments include securities that are not trust preferred securities, asset-backed securitizations or collateralized debt obligations.
Securities Lending The Company participates in a securities lending program whereby blocks of securities, which are included in fixed maturity and equity securities, are loaned to third parties, primarily major brokerage firms.
The Company requires a minimum of 102% of the fair value of the loaned securities to be separately maintained as collateral for the loans.
Securities with a cost or amortized cost of $41.1 billion and $43.3 billion and an estimated fair value of $42.1 billion and $44.1 billion were on loan under the program at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Securities loaned under such transactions may be sold or repledged by the transferee.
The Company was liable for cash collateral under its control of $43.3 billion and $45.4 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Security collateral of $40 million and $100 million on deposit from customers in connection with the securities lending transactions at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, may not be sold or repledged and is not reflected in the consolidated financial statements.
Separate Accounts The Company held $160.2 billion and $144.4 billion in separate accounts, for which the Company does not bear investment risk, as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
The Company manages each separate account’s assets in accordance with the prescribed investment policy that applies to that specific separate account.
The Company establishes separate accounts on a single client and multiclient commingled basis in compliance with insurance laws.
Effective with the adoption of SOP 03-1, Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises for Certain Nontraditional Long-Duration Contracts and for Separate Accounts, on January 1, 2004, the Company reported separately, as assets and liabilities, investments held in separate accounts and liabilities of the separate accounts if: ?
such separate accounts are legally recognized; ?
assets supporting the contract liabilities are legally insulated from the Company’s general account liabilities; ?
investments are directed by the contractholder; and ?
all investment performance, net of contract fees and assessments, is passed through to the contractholder.
The Company reports separate account assets meeting such criteria at their fair value.
Investment performance (including investment income, net investment gains (losses) and changes in unrealized gains (losses)) and the corresponding amounts credited to contractholders of such separate accounts are offset within the same line in the consolidated statements of income.
The Company’s revenues reflect fees charged to the separate accounts, including mortality charges, risk charges, policy administration fees, investment management fees and surrender charges.
Separate accounts not meeting the above criteria are combined on a line-by-line basis with the Company’s general account assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk The Company must effectively manage, measure and monitor the market risk associated with its invested assets and interest rate sensitive insurance contracts.
It has developed an integrated process for managing risk, which it conducts through its Corporate Risk

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>In millions</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Sales</td><td>$3,403</td><td>$3,435</td><td>$3,170</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Profit</td><td>178</td><td>161</td><td>268</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Years Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2007</td><td>2006</td><td>2005</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Direct premiums</td><td>$24,168</td><td>$23,324</td><td>$22,232</td></tr><tr><td>Reinsurance assumed</td><td>6,181</td><td>5,294</td><td>4,646</td></tr><tr><td>Reinsurance ceded</td><td>-2,454</td><td>-2,206</td><td>-2,018</td></tr><tr><td>Net premiums</td><td>$27,895</td><td>$26,412</td><td>$24,860</td></tr><tr><td>Reinsurance recoverables netted against policyholder benefits and claims</td><td>$2,622</td><td>$2,313</td><td>$2,400</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td> % of Total </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> $ Change  (In millions)</td><td> $ Change</td></tr><tr><td>Reinsurance</td><td>$487</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>International</td><td>470</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional</td><td>458</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Individual</td><td>229</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate & Other</td><td>4</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Auto & Home</td><td>2</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total change</td><td>$1,650</td><td>100%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Years Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2007</td><td>2006</td><td>2005</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Service cost</td><td>$166</td><td>$163</td><td>$142</td></tr><tr><td>Interest cost</td><td>354</td><td>335</td><td>318</td></tr><tr><td>Expected return on plan assets</td><td>-507</td><td>-454</td><td>-446</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of net actuarial (gains) losses</td><td>68</td><td>125</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of prior service cost (credit)</td><td>17</td><td>11</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Net periodic benefit cost</td><td>$98</td><td>$180</td><td>$146</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> December 31, 2007</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> Primary Beneficiary</td><td colspan="2"> Not Primary Beneficiary</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td> Maximum </td><td></td><td> Maximum </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Total </td><td> Exposure to </td><td> Total </td><td> Exposure to </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Assets -1</td><td> Loss -2</td><td> Assets -1</td><td> Loss -2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Asset-backed securitizations and collateralized debt obligations</td><td>$1,167</td><td>$1,167</td><td>$1,591</td><td>$184</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate joint ventures -3</td><td>48</td><td>26</td><td>276</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Other limited partnership interests -4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>42,141</td><td>2,080</td></tr><tr><td>Trust preferred securities -5</td><td>105</td><td>105</td><td>48,232</td><td>3,369</td></tr><tr><td>Other investments -6</td><td>1,119</td><td>1,119</td><td>3,258</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$2,441</td><td>$2,418</td><td>$95,498</td><td>$5,935</td></tr></table>

Question: How many Maximum Exposure to Loss -2 of Primary Beneficiary exceed the average of Maximum Exposure to Loss -2 of Primary Beneficiary in 2007?
Answer: 2