AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES 9.
Debt Outstanding Continued (d) Notes and Bonds Payable: (i) Notes and Bonds Payable Issued by AIGFP: At December 31,2005, AIGFP's notes and honds outstanding, the proceeds of which are invested in a diversified portfolio of securities and derivative transactions, were as follows:
## Table 0 ##
AIGFP economically hedges its notes and bonds.
AlG guarantees all of AIGFP's debt.
(ii) Notes and Bonds Payable Issued by ILFC: As of December 31,2005, notes aggregating $15.01 billion were outstanding with maturity dates from 2006 to 2065 and interest rates ranging from 2.95 percent to 6.63 percent.
Notes aggregating $3.52 billion are at floating interest rates and the remainder are at fixed rates.
The foreign exchange adjustment for the foreign currency denominated debt was $197 million at December 31,2005 and $1.2 billion at December 31,2004.
ILFC had $13.13 billion of debt securities registered for public sale at December 31,2005.
As of December 31,2005,$8.66 billion of debt securities were issued.
In addition, ILFC has a Euro Medium Term Note Program for $7.0 billion, under which $4.98 billion in notes were sold through December 31,2005.
ILFC has substantially eliminated the currency exposure arising from foreign currency denominated notes by economically hedging that portion of the note exposure not already offset by Euro denominated operating lease payments, although such hedges do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment under FAS 133.
Notes issued under this program are included in Notes and Bonds Payable.
ILFC had a $4.3 billion Export Credit Facility (ECA) foruse in connection with the purchase of approximately 75 aircraft delivered through 2001.
This facility was guaranteed by various European Export Credit Agencies.
The interest rate varies from 5.75 percent to 5.90 percent on these amortizing ten-year borrowings depending on the delivery date of the aircraft.
At December 31,2005, ILFC had $1.2 billion outstanding under this faciliry.
The debt is collateralized by a pledge of the shares of a subsidiary of ILFC, which hokds title to the aircraft financed under the facility.
In May 2004, ILFC entered into a similarly structured ECA for up to a maximum of $2.64 bilion for Airbus aircraft to be delivered through May 31,2005.
The facility has since been extended to include aircraft to be delivered through May 31, 2006.
The facility becomes available as the various European Export Credit Agencies provide their guarantees for aircraft based on a six-month forward-looking calendar, and the interest rate is determined through a bid proces.
At December 31,2005, ILC had $1.4 billion outstanding under this facility.
Borrowings with respect to these facilities are included in Notes and Bonds Payable.
In August 2004, ILFC received a commitment for an Ex-lm Bank comprehensive guarantee in the amount of $1.68 billion to support the financing of up to 30 new Boeing aircraft.
The initial delivery period from September 1,2004 through August 31,2005 has been extended by ILFC to August 31, 2006.
ILFC did not have any borrowings outstanding under this facility at December 31,2005.
From time to time, ILFC enters into various bank financings.
As of December 31,2005 the total funded amount was $1.4 billion.
The financings marure through 2010.
One tranche of one of the loans totaling $410 million was funded in Japanese yen and swapped to U. S.  dollars.
In December of 2005, ILFC entered into two tranches of junior subordinated debt totaling $1.0 billion.
Both mature on December 21,2065, but each tranche has a different call option.
The $600 million tranche has a call date of December 21,2010 and the $400 million tranche has a call date of December 21,2015.
The note with the 2010 call date has a fixed interest rate of 5.90 percent for the first five years.
The note with the 2015 call date has a fixed interest rate of 6.25 percent for the first ten years.
Both tranches have interest rate adjustments if the call option is not exercised.
The new interest rate is a floating quarterly reset rate based on the initial credit spread plus the highest of(i)3 month LIBOR, (ii)10-year constant maturity treasury and(ii)30-year constant maturity treasury.
AlG does not guarantee any of the debt obligations of ILFC.
(ii) Notes and Bonds Payable Issued by AGF: As of December 31,2005, AGF notes aggregating $983 million were outstanding with maturity dates ranging from 2006 to 2010 at interest rates ranging from 4.03 percent to 8.45 percent.
In 2005, AGF increased its shelf registration statement by $10.0 billion.
AGF had $11.
l billion of debt securities registered and available for issuance at December 31,2005.
AGF uses the proceeds from the issuance of notes and bonds for the funding of its finance receivables.
AlG does not guarantee any of the debt obligations of AGF.
(iv) Notes, Bonds and Debentures Issued by AlG: (A) Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Debentures: On November 9,2001, AIG isued zero coupon convertible senior debentures in the aggregate principal amount at stated maturity of $1.52 billion.
The notes were offered at 65.8 percent of principal amount at stated maturity, bear no interest unless contingent interest becomes payable under certain conditions and are due November 9,2031.
The net proceeds to AlG were $990 million.
Commencing January 1,2002, holders may
Consumer Lending Asset Classes Home Equity and Residential Real Estate Loan Classes We use several credit quality indicators, including delinquency information, nonperforming loan information, updated credit scores, originated and updated LTV ratios, and geography, to monitor and manage credit risk within the home equity and residential real estate loan classes.
We evaluate mortgage loan performance by source originators and loan servicers.
A summary of asset quality indicators follows: Delinquency/Delinquency Rates: We monitor trending of delinquency/delinquency rates for home equity and residential real estate loans.
See the Asset Quality section of this Note 3 for additional information.
Nonperforming Loans: We monitor trending of nonperforming loans for home equity and residential real estate loans.
See the Asset Quality section of this Note 3 for additional information.
Credit Scores: We use a national third-party provider to update FICO credit scores for home equity loans and lines of credit and residential real estate loans at least quarterly.
The updated scores are incorporated into a series of credit management reports, which are utilized to monitor the risk in the loan classes.
LTV (inclusive of combined loan-to-value (CLTV) for first and subordinate lien positions): At least annually, we update the property values of real estate collateral and calculate an updated LTV ratio.
For open-end credit lines secured by real estate in regions experiencing significant declines in property values, more frequent valuations may occur.
We examine LTV migration and stratify LTV into categories to monitor the risk in the loan classes.
Historically, we used, and we continue to use, a combination of original LTV and updated LTV for internal risk management and reporting purposes (e. g. , line management, loss mitigation strategies).
In addition to the fact that estimated property values by their nature are estimates, given certain data limitations it is important to note that updated LTVs may be based upon management’s assumptions (e. g. , if an updated LTV is not provided by the third-party service provider, home price index (HPI) changes will be incorporated in arriving at management’s estimate of updated LTV).
Geography: Geographic concentrations are monitored to evaluate and manage exposures.
Loan purchase programs are sensitive to, and focused within, certain regions to manage geographic exposures and associated risks.
A combination of updated FICO scores, originated and updated LTV ratios and geographic location assigned to home equity loans and lines of credit and residential real estate loans is used to monitor the risk in the loan classes.
Loans with higher FICO scores and lower LTVs tend to have a lower level of risk.
Conversely, loans with lower FICO scores, higher LTVs, and in certain geographic locations tend to have a higher level of risk.
Consumer Purchased Impaired Loan Class Estimates of the expected cash flows primarily determine the valuation of consumer purchased impaired loans.
Consumer cash flow estimates are influenced by a number of credit related items, which include, but are not limited to: estimated real estate values, payment patterns, updated FICO scores, the current economic environment, updated LTV ratios and the date of origination.
These key factors are monitored to help ensure that concentrations of risk are managed and cash flows are maximized.
See Note 4 Purchased Loans for additional information.
Table 63: Home Equity and Residential Real Estate Balances
## Table 1 ##
(a) Represents recorded investment.
(b) Represents outstanding balance.
FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS In addition to the following, see Note 7 Fair Value in the Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Report for further information regarding fair value.
The following table summarizes the assets and liabilities measured at fair value at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and the portions of such assets and liabilities that are classified within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy.
Level 3 assets and liabilities are those where the fair value is estimated using significant unobservable inputs.
Table 19: Fair Value Measurements – Summary
## Table 2 ##
The majority of assets recorded at fair value are included in the securities available for sale portfolio.
The majority of Level 3 assets represent non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities in the securities available for sale portfolio, equity investments and mortgage servicing rights.
An instrument’s categorization within the hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
Changes from one quarter to the next related to the observability of inputs to a fair value measurement may result in a reclassification (transfer) of assets or liabilities between hierarchy levels.
PNC’s policy is to recognize transfers in and transfers out as of the end of the reporting period.
For additional information regarding the transfers of assets or liabilities between hierarchy levels, see Note 7 Fair Value in the Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Report.
BUSINESS SEGMENTS REVIEW We have six reportable business segments: ?
Retail Banking ?
Corporate & Institutional Banking ?
Asset Management Group ?
Residential Mortgage Banking ?
BlackRock ?
Non-Strategic Assets Portfolio Business segment results, including the basis of presentation of inter-segment revenues, and a description of each business are included in Note 24 Segment Reporting included in the Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Report.
Certain amounts included in this Business Segments Review section and the Business Segment Highlights in the Executive Summary section of this Item 7 differ from those amounts shown in Note 24, primarily due to the presentation in Item 7 of this Report of business net interest revenue on a taxableequivalent basis.
Note 24 presents results of businesses for 2014, 2013 and 2012.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>Range of</td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">U.S. Dollar Carrying Value</td></tr><tr><td>Maturities</td><td></td><td rowspan="2">Range of Interest Rates</td></tr><tr><td><i>(dollars in millions)</i></td><td>Currency</td></tr><tr><td>2006-2039</td><td>U.S. dollar</td><td>0.09-8.60%</td><td>$18,514</td></tr><tr><td>2006-2010</td><td>United Kingdom pound</td><td>4.59-4.68</td><td>2,370</td></tr><tr><td>2006-2024</td><td>Euro</td><td>0.29-9.25</td><td>2,922</td></tr><tr><td>2005-2009</td><td>New Zealand dollar</td><td>4.17-8.35</td><td>1,185</td></tr><tr><td>2006-2035</td><td>Japanese yen</td><td>0.01-4.00</td><td>1,050</td></tr><tr><td>2006-2015</td><td>Australian dollar</td><td>1.14-4.89</td><td>104</td></tr><tr><td>2007-2024</td><td>Swiss francs</td><td>0.25-1.38</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>2007-2015</td><td>Other</td><td>1.03-3.72</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td>$26,463</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>In millions</td><td>December 312014</td><td>December 31 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity and residential real estate loans – excluding purchased impaired loans (a)</td><td>$43,348</td><td>$44,376</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity and residential real estate loans – purchased impaired loans (b)</td><td>4,541</td><td>5,548</td></tr><tr><td>Government insured or guaranteed residential real estate mortgages (a)</td><td>1,188</td><td>1,704</td></tr><tr><td>Purchase accounting adjustments – purchased impaired loans</td><td>7</td><td>-116</td></tr><tr><td>Total home equity and residential real estate loans (a)</td><td>$49,084</td><td>$51,512</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">December 31, 2014</td><td colspan="2">December 31, 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Dollars in millions</td><td>Total Fair Value</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total Fair Value</td><td>Level 3</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$58,973</td><td>$10,257</td><td>$63,221</td><td>$10,650</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets at fair value as a percentage of consolidated assets</td><td>17%</td><td></td><td>20%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Level 3 assets as a percentage of total assets at fair value</td><td></td><td>17%</td><td></td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3 assets as a percentage of consolidated assets</td><td></td><td>3%</td><td></td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities</td><td>$5,799</td><td>$716</td><td>$5,585</td><td>$638</td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities at fair value as a percentage of consolidated liabilities</td><td>2%</td><td></td><td>2%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Level 3 liabilities as a percentage of total liabilities at fair value</td><td></td><td>12%</td><td></td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3 liabilities as a percentage of consolidated liabilities</td><td></td><td><1%</td><td></td><td><1%</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the difference between 2013 and 2014 's highest Total assets for Total Fair Value?
Answer: 4248
Reasoning program: subtract(63221,58973)