MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued) 99 The NPR is generally consistent with the Basel Committee’s LCR.
However, it includes certain more stringent requirements, including an accelerated implementation time line and modifications to the definition of high-quality liquid assets and expected outflow assumptions.
We continue to analyze the proposed rules and analyze their impact as well as develop strategies for compliance.
The principles of the LCR are consistent with our liquidity management framework; however, the specific calibrations of various elements within the final LCR rule, such as the eligibility of assets as HQLA, operational deposit requirements and net outflow requirements could have a material effect on our liquidity, funding and business activities, including the management and composition of our investment securities portfolio and our ability to extend committed contingent credit facilities to our clients.
In January 2014, the Basel Committee released a revised proposal with respect to the Net Stable Funding Ratio, or NSFR, which will establish a one-year liquidity standard representing the proportion of long-term assets funded by long-term stable funding, scheduled for global implementation in 2018.
The revised NSFR has made some favorable changes regarding the treatment of operationally linked deposits and a reduction in the funding required for certain securities.
However, we continue to review the specifics of the Basel Committee's release and will be evaluating the U. S.  implementation of this standard to analyze the impact and develop strategies for compliance.
U. S.  banking regulators have not yet issued a proposal to implement the NSFR.
Contractual Cash Obligations and Other Commitments The following table presents our long-term contractual cash obligations, in total and by period due as of December 31, 2013.
These obligations were recorded in our consolidated statement of condition as of that date, except for operating leases and the interest portions of long-term debt and capital leases.
CONTRACTUAL CASH OBLIGATIONS
## Table 0 ##
(1) Long-term debt excludes capital lease obligations (presented as a separate line item) and the effect of interest-rate swaps.
Interest payments were calculated at the stated rate with the exception of floating-rate debt, for which payments were calculated using the indexed rate in effect as of December 31, 2013.
The table above does not include obligations which will be settled in cash, primarily in less than one year, such as client deposits, federal funds purchased, securities sold under repurchase agreements and other short-term borrowings.
Additional information about deposits, federal funds purchased, securities sold under repurchase agreements and other short-term borrowings is provided in notes 8 and 9 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
The table does not include obligations related to derivative instruments because the derivative-related amounts recorded in our consolidated statement of condition as of December 31, 2013 did not represent the amounts that may ultimately be paid under the contracts upon settlement.
Additional information about our derivative instruments is provided in note 16 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.  We have obligations under pension and other post-retirement benefit plans, more fully described in note 19 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K, which are not included in the above table.
Additional information about contractual cash obligations related to long-term debt and operating and capital leases is provided in notes 10 and 20 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.  Our consolidated statement of cash flows, also included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K, provides additional liquidity information.
The following table presents our commitments, other than the contractual cash obligations presented above, in total and by duration as of December 31, 2013.
These commitments were not recorded in our consolidated statement of condition as of that date.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued) 109 The following table presents estimated EVE exposures, calculated as of the dates indicated, assuming an immediate and prolonged shift in global interest rates, the impact of which would be spread over a number of years.
## Table 1 ##
Exposure to upward- and downward-200-basis-point shocks as of December 31, 2013 improved compared to December 31, 2012.
A lower concentration of fixed-rate securities in the investment portfolio and hedging activity in 2013 reduced EVE sensitivity to changes in market rates.
Model Risk Management The use of financial models is widespread throughout the banking and financial services industry, with larger and more complex organizations employing dozens of sophisticated models on a daily basis to measure risk exposures, determine economic and regulatory capital levels, and guide investment decisions, among other things.
However, even as models represent a significant advancement in financial management, the models themselves represent a new source of risk, i. e. , the potential for adverse consequences or financial loss from decisions based on incorrect, misused or misinterpreted model outputs and reports.
In large banking organizations like State Street, where financial models and their outputs exert significant influence on business decisions, and where model failure could have a particularly harmful effect on our financial strength and performance, model risk is managed within an extensive and rigorous risk management framework.
This framework is documented in our Model Risk Governance Policy Statement and accompanying Model Risk Governance Guidelines.
Our model risk management program has three principal components: A model risk governance program supports risk management by defining roles and responsibilities, by providing policies and guidance that define relevant model risk management activities, and by describing procedures that implement those policies; A model development process facilitates the appropriate design and accuracy of models; the development process also includes ongoing model integrity activities designed to test for robustness and stability and to evaluate a model's limitations and assumptions; and A set of model validation processes and activities is designed to validate that models are theoretically sound, are performing as expected, and are in line with their design objectives; model validation also checks that a model's key assumptions and limitations are identified and clearly communicated to the model's end users and to senior management.
The MAC, chaired by the head of the Model Validation Group, was established to provide recommendations on technical modeling issues to the corporate oversight committees.
The MAC includes members with expertise in modeling methodologies, and has representation from the various business units throughout State Street.
Business Risk Management We define business risk as the risk of adverse changes in our earnings related to business factors, including changes in the competitive environment, changes in the operational economics of our business activities and the potential effect of strategic and reputation risks, not already captured as trading market, interest-rate, credit, operational or liquidity risks.
We incorporate business risk into our assessment of our strategic plans and economic capital needs.
Active management of business risk is an integral component of all aspects of our business, and responsibility for the management of business risk lies with every employee at State Street.
Separating the effects of a potential material adverse event into operational and business risk is sometimes difficult.
For instance, the direct financial impact of an unfavorable event in the form of fines or penalties would be classified as an operational risk loss, while the impact on our reputation and consequently the potential loss of clients and corresponding decline in revenue would be classified as a business risk loss.
An additional example of
STATE STREET CORPORATION NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) 167 With respect to the 5.25% subordinated bank notes due 2018, State Street Bank is required to make semiannual interest payments on the outstanding principal balance of the notes on April 15 and October 15 of each year, and the notes qualify for inclusion in tier 2 regulatory capital under current federal regulatory capital guidelines.
With respect to the 5.30% subordinated notes due 2016 and the floating-rate subordinated notes due 2015, State Street Bank is required to make semi-annual interest payments on the outstanding principal balance of the 5.30% subordinated notes on January 15 and July 15 of each year, and quarterly interest payments on the outstanding principal balance of the floating-rate notes on March 8, June 8, September 8 and December 8 of each year.
Each of the subordinated notes qualifies for inclusion in tier 2 regulatory capital under current federal regulatory capital guidelines.
Note 11.
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies Commitments: We had unfunded off-balance sheet commitments to extend credit totaling $21.30 billion and $17.86 billion as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
The potential losses associated with these commitments equal the gross contractual amounts, and do not consider the value of any collateral.
Approximately 75% of our unfunded commitments to extend credit expire within one year from the date of issue.
Since many of these commitments are expected to expire or renew without being drawn upon, the gross contractual amounts do not necessarily represent our future cash requirements.
Guarantees: Off-balance sheet guarantees are composed of indemnified securities financing, stable value protection, unfunded commitments to purchase assets, and standby letters of credit.
The potential losses associated with these guarantees equal the gross contractual amounts, and do not consider the value of any collateral.
The following table presents the aggregate gross contractual amounts of our off-balance sheet guarantees as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.
Amounts presented do not reflect participations to independent third parties.
## Table 2 ##
Indemnified Securities Financing On behalf of our clients, we lend their securities, as agent, to brokers and other institutions.
In most circumstances, we indemnify our clients for the fair market value of those securities against a failure of the borrower to return such securities.
We require the borrowers to maintain collateral in an amount equal to or in excess of 100% of the fair market value of the securities borrowed.
Securities on loan and the collateral are revalued daily to determine if additional collateral is necessary or if excess collateral is required to be returned to the borrower.
Collateral received in connection with our securities lending services is held by us as agent and is not recorded in our consolidated statement of condition.
The cash collateral held by us as agent is invested on behalf of our clients.
In certain cases, the cash collateral is invested in third-party repurchase agreements, for which we indemnify the client against loss of the principal invested.
We require the counterparty to the indemnified repurchase agreement to provide collateral in an amount equal to or in excess of 100% of the amount of the repurchase agreement.
In our role as agent, the indemnified repurchase agreements and the related collateral held by us are not recorded in our consolidated statement of condition.
STATE STREET CORPORATION NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) 204 services that we provide to our clients are parts of an integrated offering to these clients.
We price our products and services on the basis of overall client relationships and other factors; as a result, revenue may not necessarily reflect the stand-alone market price of these products and services within the business lines in the same way it would for separate business entities.
Generally, approximately 70% to 75% of our consolidated total revenue (fee revenue from investment servicing and investment management, as well as trading services and securities finance activities) is generated by these two business lines.
The remaining 25% to 30% is composed of processing fees and other revenue, net interest revenue, which is largely generated by our investment of client deposits, short-term borrowings and longterm debt in a variety of assets, and net gains (losses) related to investment securities.
These other revenue types are generally fully allocated to, or reside in, Investment Servicing and Investment Management.
Revenue and expenses are directly charged or allocated to our lines of business through management information systems.
Assets and liabilities are allocated according to policies that support management’s strategic and tactical goals.
Capital is allocated based on the relative risks and capital requirements inherent in each business line, along with management judgment.
Capital allocations may not be representative of the capital that might be required if these lines of business were separate business entities.
The following table provides a summary of our line of business results for the periods indicated.
The “Other” column for 2013 included net acquisition and restructuring costs of $104 million; certain provisions for litigation exposure and other costs of $65 million; and severance costs associated with reorganization of certain non-U.
S.  operations of $11 million.
The “Other” column for 2012 included the net realized loss from the sale of all of our Greek investment securities of $46 million; a benefit related to claims associated with the 2008 Lehman Brothers bankruptcy of $362 million; certain provisions for litigation exposure and other costs of $118 million; and acquisition and restructuring costs of $225 million.
The “Other” column for 2011 included acquisition and restructuring costs of $269 million.
The amounts in the “Other” columns were not allocated to State Street's business lines.
Results for 2012 reflect reclassifications, for comparative purposes, related to management changes in methodologies associated with allocations of capital and expenses reflected in results for 2013.
Results for 2011 were not adjusted for these reclassifications.
## Table 3 ##
SHAREHOLDER RETURN PERFORMANCE PRESENTATION The graph presented below compares the cumulative total shareholder return on State Street's common stock to the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index, the S&P Financial Index and the KBW Bank Index over a fiveyear period.
The cumulative total shareholder return assumes the investment of $100 in State Street common stock and in each index on December 31, 2008 at the closing price on the last trading day of 2008, and also assumes reinvestment of common stock dividends.
The S&P Financial Index is a publicly available measure of 81 of the Standard & Poor's 500 companies, representing 17 diversified financial services companies, 22 insurance companies, 19 real estate companies and 23 banking companies.
The KBW Bank Index seeks to reflect the performance of banks and thrifts that are publicly traded in the U. S. , and is composed of 24 leading national money center and regional banks and thrifts.
## Table 4 ##

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>PAYMENTS DUE BY PERIOD</td></tr><tr><td>As of December 31, 2013(In millions)</td><td>Total</td><td>Less than 1year</td><td>1-3years</td><td>4-5years</td><td>Over 5years</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$10,630</td><td>$1,015</td><td>$2,979</td><td>$2,260</td><td>$4,376</td></tr><tr><td>Operating leases</td><td>923</td><td>208</td><td>286</td><td>209</td><td>220</td></tr><tr><td>Capital lease obligations</td><td>1,051</td><td>99</td><td>185</td><td>169</td><td>598</td></tr><tr><td>Total contractual cash obligations</td><td>$12,604</td><td>$1,322</td><td>$3,450</td><td>$2,638</td><td>$5,194</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">Estimated Sensitivity ofEconomic Value of Equity</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td colspan="2">December 31,2013</td><td colspan="2">December 31,2012</td></tr><tr><td>Rate change:</td><td>Exposure</td><td>% of Tier 1/Tier 2 Capital</td><td>Exposure</td><td>% of Tier 1/Tier 2 Capital</td></tr><tr><td>+200 bps shock</td><td>$2,359</td><td>-14.9%</td><td>$-2,542</td><td>-17.0%</td></tr><tr><td>–200 bps shock</td><td>1,149</td><td>7.2</td><td>41</td><td>0.3</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Indemnified securities financing</td><td>$320,078</td><td>$302,341</td></tr><tr><td>Stable value protection</td><td>24,906</td><td>33,512</td></tr><tr><td>Asset purchase agreements</td><td>4,685</td><td>5,063</td></tr><tr><td>Standby letters of credit</td><td>4,612</td><td>4,552</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">InvestmentServicing</td><td colspan="3">InvestmentManagement</td><td colspan="3">Other</td><td colspan="3">Total</td></tr><tr><td>Years Ended December 31,</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions,except where otherwise noted)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fee revenue:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Servicing fees</td><td>$4,819</td><td>$4,414</td><td>$4,382</td><td>$—</td><td>$—</td><td>$—</td><td>$—</td><td>$—</td><td>$—</td><td>$4,819</td><td>$4,414</td><td>$4,382</td></tr><tr><td>Management fees</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,106</td><td>993</td><td>917</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,106</td><td>993</td><td>917</td></tr><tr><td>Trading services</td><td>994</td><td>912</td><td>1,131</td><td>67</td><td>98</td><td>89</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,061</td><td>1,010</td><td>1,220</td></tr><tr><td>Securities finance</td><td>324</td><td>363</td><td>333</td><td>35</td><td>42</td><td>45</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>359</td><td>405</td><td>378</td></tr><tr><td>Processing fees and other</td><td>238</td><td>259</td><td>284</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>245</td><td>266</td><td>297</td></tr><tr><td>Total fee revenue</td><td>6,375</td><td>5,948</td><td>6,130</td><td>1,215</td><td>1,140</td><td>1,064</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>7,590</td><td>7,088</td><td>7,194</td></tr><tr><td>Net interest revenue</td><td>2,221</td><td>2,464</td><td>2,231</td><td>82</td><td>74</td><td>102</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2,303</td><td>2,538</td><td>2,333</td></tr><tr><td>Gains (losses) related to investment securities, net</td><td>-9</td><td>69</td><td>67</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-46</td><td>—</td><td>-9</td><td>23</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenue</td><td>8,587</td><td>8,481</td><td>8,428</td><td>1,297</td><td>1,214</td><td>1,166</td><td>—</td><td>-46</td><td>—</td><td>9,884</td><td>9,649</td><td>9,594</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for loan losses</td><td>6</td><td>-3</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>-3</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total expenses</td><td>6,176</td><td>6,041</td><td>5,890</td><td>836</td><td>864</td><td>899</td><td>180</td><td>-19</td><td>269</td><td>7,192</td><td>6,886</td><td>7,058</td></tr><tr><td>Income before income tax expense</td><td>$2,405</td><td>$2,443</td><td>$2,538</td><td>$461</td><td>$350</td><td>$267</td><td>$-180</td><td>$-27</td><td>$-269</td><td>$2,686</td><td>$2,766</td><td>$2,536</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax margin</td><td>28%</td><td>29%</td><td>30%</td><td>36%</td><td>29%</td><td>23%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>27%</td><td>29%</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>Average assets (in billions)</td><td>$203.24</td><td>$190.09</td><td>$170.45</td><td>$3.76</td><td>$3.72</td><td>$4.36</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$207.00</td><td>$193.81</td><td>$174.81</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>2008</td><td>2009</td><td>2010</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>State Street Corporation</td><td>$100</td><td>$111</td><td>$118</td><td>$105</td><td>$125</td><td>$198</td></tr><tr><td>S&P 500 Index</td><td>100</td><td>126</td><td>146</td><td>149</td><td>172</td><td>228</td></tr><tr><td>S&P Financial Index</td><td>100</td><td>117</td><td>132</td><td>109</td><td>141</td><td>191</td></tr><tr><td>KBW Bank Index</td><td>100</td><td>98</td><td>121</td><td>93</td><td>122</td><td>168</td></tr></table>

Question: what percent increase would shareholders receive between 2008 and 2013?
Answer: 0.98
Reasoning program: subtract(198,100), divide(#0,100)