exposure through the stress testing of earnings-at-risk, which measures the extent to which changes in interest rates will affect the Firm’s core net interest income (see page 77 of this Annual Report for further discussion of core net interest income) and interest rate-sensitive fees (“nontrading interest rate-sensitive revenue”).
Earnings-atrisk excludes the impact of trading activities and MSRs, as these sensitivities are captured under VaR.
The Firm conducts simulations of changes in nontrading interest rate-sensitive revenue under a variety of interest rate scenarios.
Earnings-at-risk tests measure the potential change in this revenue, and the corresponding impact to the Firm’s pretax net interest income, over the following 12 months.
These tests highlight exposures to various interest rate-sensitive factors, such as the rates themselves (e. g. , the prime lending rate), pricing strategies on deposits, optionality and changes in product mix.
The tests include forecasted balance sheet changes, such as asset sales and securitizations, as well as prepayment and reinvestment behavior.
Mortgage prepayment assumptions are based on current interest rates compared with underlying contractual rates, the time since origination, and other factors which are updated periodically based on historical experience and forward market expectations.
The amount and pricing assumptions of deposits that have no stated maturity are based on historical performance, the competitive environment, customer behavior, and product mix.
Immediate changes in interest rates present a limited view of risk, and so a number of alternative scenarios are also reviewed.
These scenarios include the implied forward curve, nonparallel rate shifts and severe interest rate shocks on selected key rates.
These scenarios are intended to provide a comprehensive view of JPMorgan Chase’s earnings-at-risk over a wide range of outcomes.
JPMorgan Chase’s 12-month pretax net interest income sensitivity profiles.
## Table 0 ##
(a) Downward 100- and 200-basis-point parallel shocks result in a federal funds target rate of zero and negative three- and six-month treasury rates.
The earnings-at-risk results of such a low-probability scenario are not meaningful.
The change in earnings-at-risk from December 31, 2011, resulted from investment portfolio repositioning, partially offset by higher expected deposit balances.
The Firm’s risk to rising rates was largely the result of widening deposit margins, which are currently compressed due to very low short-term interest rates, and ALM investment portfolio positioning.
Additionally, another interest rate scenario used by the Firm — involving a steeper yield curve with long-term rates rising by 100 basis points and short-term rates staying at current levels — results in a 12-month pretax net interest income benefit of $778 million.
The increase in net interest income under this scenario is due to reinvestment of maturing assets at the higher long-term rates, with funding costs remaining unchanged.
Risk monitoring and control Limits Market risk is controlled primarily through a series of limits set in the context of the market environment and business strategy.
In setting limits, the Firm takes into consideration factors such as market volatility, product liquidity and accommodation of client business and management experience.
The Firm maintains different levels of limits.
Corporate level limits include VaR and stress limits.
Similarly, line of business limits include VaR and stress limits and may be supplemented by loss advisories, nonstatistical measurements and profit and loss drawdowns.
Limits may also be allocated within the lines of business, as well at the portfolio level.
Limits are established by Market Risk in agreement with the lines of business.
Limits are reviewed regularly by Market Risk and updated as appropriate, with any changes approved by lines of business management and Market Risk.
Senior management, including the Firm’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Risk Officer, are responsible for reviewing and approving certain of these risk limits on an ongoing basis.
All limits that have not been reviewed within specified time periods by Market Risk are escalated to senior management.
The lines of business are responsible for adhering to established limits against which exposures are monitored and reported.
Limit breaches are required to be reported in a timely manner by Risk Management to limit approvers, Market Risk and senior management.
Market Risk consults with Firm senior management and lines of business senior management to determine the appropriate course of action required to return to compliance, which may include a reduction in risk in order to remedy the excess.
Any Firm or line of business-level limits that are in excess for three business days or longer, or that are over limit by more than 30%, are escalated to senior management and the Firmwide Risk Committee.
Impact of derivatives on the Consolidated Balance Sheets The following table summarizes information on derivative receivables and payables (before and after netting adjustments) that are reflected on the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, by accounting designation (e. g. , whether the derivatives were designated in qualifying hedge accounting relationships or not) and contract type.
Free-standing derivative receivables and payables(a)
## Table 1 ##
(a) Balances exclude structured notes for which the fair value option has been elected.
See Note 4 on pages 214–216 of this Annual Report for further information.
(b) Excludes $11 million of foreign currency-denominated debt designated as a net investment hedge at December 31, 2011.
Foreign currency-denominated debt was not designated as a hedging instrument at December 31, 2012.
(c) As permitted under U. S.  GAAP, the Firm has elected to net derivative receivables and derivative payables and the related cash collateral receivables and payables when a legally enforceable master netting agreement exists.
therefore, are not recorded on the Consolidated balance sheets until settlement date.
The unsettled reverse repurchase agreements and securities borrowing agreements predominantly consist of agreements with regular-way settlement periods.
Loan sales- and securitization-related indemnifications Mortgage repurchase liability In connection with the Firm’s mortgage loan sale and securitization activities with the GSEs, as described in Note 16, the Firm has made representations and warranties that the loans sold meet certain requirements.
The Firm has been, and may be, required to repurchase loans and/or indemnify the GSEs (e. g. , with “make-whole” payments to reimburse the GSEs for their realized losses on liquidated loans).
To the extent that repurchase demands that are received relate to loans that the Firm purchased from third parties that remain viable, the Firm typically will have the right to seek a recovery of related repurchase losses from the third party.
Generally, the maximum amount of future payments the Firm would be required to make for breaches of these representations and warranties would be equal to the unpaid principal balance of such loans that are deemed to have defects that were sold to purchasers (including securitization-related SPEs) plus, in certain circumstances, accrued interest on such loans and certain expense.
The following table summarizes the change in the mortgage repurchase liability for each of the periods presented.
Summary of changes in mortgage repurchase liability (a)
## Table 2 ##
(a) On October 25, 2013, the Firm announced that it had reached a $1.1 billion agreement with the FHFA to resolve, other than certain limited types of exposures, outstanding and future mortgage repurchase demands associated with loans sold to the GSEs from 2000 to 2008.
(b) Presented net of third-party recoveries and included principal losses and accrued interest on repurchased loans, “make-whole” settlements, settlements with claimants, and certain related expense.
Make-whole settlements were $11 million, $414 million and $524 million, for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
(c) Included a provision related to new loan sales of $4 million, $20 million and $112 million, for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Private label securitizations The liability related to repurchase demands associated with private label securitizations is separately evaluated by the Firm in establishing its litigation reserves.
On November 15, 2013, the Firm announced that it had reached a $4.5 billion agreement with 21 major institutional investors to make a binding offer to the trustees of 330 residential mortgage-backed securities trusts issued by J. P. Morgan, Chase, and Bear Stearns (“RMBS Trust Settlement”) to resolve all representation and warranty claims, as well as all servicing claims, on all trusts issued by J. P.  Morgan, Chase, and Bear Stearns between 2005 and 2008.
The seven trustees (or separate and successor trustees) for this group of 330 trusts have accepted the RMBS Trust Settlement for 319 trusts in whole or in part and excluded from the settlement 16 trusts in whole or in part.
The trustees’ acceptance is subject to a judicial approval proceeding initiated by the trustees, which is pending in New York state court.
In addition, from 2005 to 2008, Washington Mutual made certain loan level representations and warranties in connection with approximately $165 billion of residential mortgage loans that were originally sold or deposited into private-label securitizations by Washington Mutual.
Of the $165 billion, approximately $78 billion has been repaid.
In addition, approximately $49 billion of the principal amount of such loans has liquidated with an average loss severity of 59%.
Accordingly, the remaining outstanding principal balance of these loans as of December 31, 2014, was approximately $38 billion, of which $8 billion was 60 days or more past due.
The Firm believes that any repurchase obligations related to these loans remain with the FDIC receivership.
For additional information regarding litigation, see Note 31.
Loans sold with recourse The Firm provides servicing for mortgages and certain commercial lending products on both a recourse and nonrecourse basis.
In nonrecourse servicing, the principal credit risk to the Firm is the cost of temporary servicing advances of funds (i. e. , normal servicing advances).
In recourse servicing, the servicer agrees to share credit risk with the owner of the mortgage loans, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or a private investor, insurer or guarantor.
Losses on recourse servicing predominantly occur when foreclosure sales proceeds of the property underlying a defaulted loan are less than the sum of the outstanding principal balance, plus accrued interest on the loan and the cost of holding and disposing of the underlying property.
The Firm’s securitizations are predominantly nonrecourse, thereby effectively transferring the risk of future credit losses to the purchaser of the mortgage-backed securities issued by the trust.
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the unpaid principal balance of loans sold with recourse totaled $6.1 billion and $7.7 billion, respectively.
The carrying value of the related liability that the Firm has recorded, which is representative of the Firm’s view of the likelihood it

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Immediate change in rates</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>December 31,(in millions)</td><td>+200bp</td><td>+100bp</td><td colspan="2">-100bp</td><td colspan="2">-200bp</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>$3,886</td><td>$2,145</td><td>NM</td><td><sup>(a)</sup></td><td>NM</td><td><sup>(a)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>4,046</td><td>2,326</td><td>NM</td><td><sup>(a)</sup></td><td>NM</td><td><sup>(a)</sup></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Gross derivative receivables</td><td></td><td colspan="3">Gross derivative payables</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>December 31, 2012(in millions)</td><td>Not designated as hedges</td><td>Designated as hedges</td><td>Total derivative receivables</td><td>Net derivative receivables<sup>(c)</sup></td><td>Not designated as hedges</td><td>Designated as hedges</td><td>Total derivative payables</td><td>Net derivative payables<sup>(c)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Trading assets and liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate</td><td>$1,323,184</td><td>$6,064</td><td>$1,329,248</td><td>$39,205</td><td>$1,284,494</td><td>$3,120</td><td>$1,287,614</td><td>$24,906</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>100,310</td><td>—</td><td>100,310</td><td>1,735</td><td>100,027</td><td>—</td><td>100,027</td><td>2,504</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign exchange<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>146,682</td><td>1,577</td><td>148,259</td><td>14,142</td><td>159,509</td><td>2,133</td><td>161,642</td><td>18,601</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>40,938</td><td>—</td><td>40,938</td><td>9,266</td><td>42,810</td><td>—</td><td>42,810</td><td>11,819</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity</td><td>43,039</td><td>586</td><td>43,625</td><td>10,635</td><td>46,821</td><td>644</td><td>47,465</td><td>12,826</td></tr><tr><td>Total fair value of trading assets and liabilities</td><td>$1,654,153</td><td>$8,227</td><td>$1,662,380</td><td>$74,983</td><td>$1,633,661</td><td>$5,897</td><td>$1,639,558</td><td>$70,656</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Gross derivative receivables</td><td></td><td colspan="3">Gross derivative payables</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>December 31, 2011(in millions)</td><td>Not designated as hedges</td><td>Designated as hedges</td><td>Total derivative receivables</td><td>Net derivative receivables<sup>(c)</sup></td><td>Not designated as hedges</td><td>Designated as hedges</td><td>Total derivative payables</td><td>Net derivative payables<sup>(c)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Trading assets and liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate</td><td>$1,433,900</td><td>$7,621</td><td>$1,441,521</td><td>$46,369</td><td>$1,397,625</td><td>$2,192</td><td>$1,399,817</td><td>$28,010</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>169,650</td><td>—</td><td>169,650</td><td>6,684</td><td>165,121</td><td>—</td><td>165,121</td><td>5,610</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign exchange<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>163,497</td><td>4,666</td><td>168,163</td><td>17,890</td><td>165,353</td><td>655</td><td>166,008</td><td>17,435</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>47,736</td><td>—</td><td>47,736</td><td>6,793</td><td>46,366</td><td>—</td><td>46,366</td><td>9,655</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity</td><td>53,894</td><td>3,535</td><td>57,429</td><td>14,741</td><td>58,836</td><td>1,108</td><td>59,944</td><td>14,267</td></tr><tr><td>Total fair value of trading assets and liabilities</td><td>$1,868,677</td><td>$15,822</td><td>$1,884,499</td><td>$92,477</td><td>$1,833,301</td><td>$3,955</td><td>$1,837,256</td><td>$74,977</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended December 31,(in millions)</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Repurchase liability at beginning of period</td><td>$681</td><td>$2,811</td><td>$3,557</td></tr><tr><td>Net realized gains/(losses)<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>53</td><td>-1,561</td><td>-1,158</td></tr><tr><td>Reclassification to litigation reserve</td><td>—</td><td>-179</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>(Benefit)/provision for repurchase<sup>(c)</sup></td><td>-459</td><td>-390</td><td>412</td></tr><tr><td>Repurchase liability at end of period</td><td>$275</td><td>$681</td><td>$2,811</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the difference between 2011 and 2012 's highest element in Not designated as hedges for Gross derivative receivables? (in million)
Answer: -214524
Reasoning program: subtract(1654153,1868677)