ABIOMED, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued) Note 12.
Stock Award Plans and Stock Based Compensation (Continued) Compensation expense recognized related to the Company’s ESPP was approximately $0.1 million for each of the years ended March 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 respectively.
The fair value of shares issued under the employee stock purchase plan was estimated on the commencement date of each offering period using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following assumptions:
## Table 0 ##
Note 13.
Capital Stock In August 2008, the Company issued 2,419,932 shares of its common stock at a price of $17.3788 in a public offering, which resulted in net proceeds to the Company of approximately $42.0 million, after deducting offering expenses.
In March 2007, the Company issued 5,000,000 shares of common stock in a public offering, and in April 2007, an additional 80,068 shares of common stock were issued in connection with the offering upon the partial exercise of the underwriters’ over-allotment option.
The Company has authorized 1,000,000 shares of Class B Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value, of which the Board of Directors can set the designation, rights and privileges.
No shares of Class B Preferred Stock have been issued or are outstanding.
Note 14.
Income Taxes Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to tax benefit carryforwards and to differences between the financial statement amounts of assets and liabilities and their respective tax basis.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates.
A valuation reserve is established if it is more likely than not that all or a portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized.
The tax benefit associated with the stock option compensation deductions will be credited to equity when realized.
At March 31, 2009, the Company had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, of approximately $145.1 million and $97.1 million, respectively, which begin to expire in fiscal 2010.
Additionally, at March 31, 2009, the Company had federal and state research and development credit carryforwards of approximately $8.1 million and $4.2 million, respectively, which begin to expire in fiscal 2010.
The Company acquired Impella, a German-based company, in May 2005.
Impella had pre-acquisition net operating losses of approximately $18.2 million at the time of acquisition (which is denominated in Euros and is subject to foreign exchange remeasurement at each balance sheet date presented), and has since incurred net operating losses in each fiscal year since the acquisition.
During fiscal 2008, the Company determined that approximately $1.2 million of pre-acquisition operating losses could not be utilized.
The utilization of pre-acquisition net operating losses of Impella in future periods is subject to certain statutory approvals and business requirements.
Due to uncertainties surrounding the Company’s ability to generate future taxable income to realize these assets, a full valuation allowance has been established to offset the Company’s net deferred tax assets and liabilities.
Additionally, the future utilization of the Company’s NOL and research and development credit carry forwards to offset future taxable income may be subject to a substantial annual limitation under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code due to ownership changes that have occurred previously or that could occur in the future.
Ownership changes, as defined in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, can limit the amount of net operating loss carry forwards and research and development credit carry forwards that a company can use each year to offset future taxable income and taxes payable.
The Company believes that all of its federal and state NOL’s will be available for carryforward to future tax periods, subject to the statutory maximum carryforward limitation of any annual NOL.
Any future potential limitation to all or a portion of the NOL or research and development credit carry forwards, before they can be utilized, would reduce the Company’s gross deferred tax assets.
The Company will monitor subsequent ownership changes, which could impose limitations in the future.
Collateralized Debt Obligation Vehicles CDO vehicles hold diversified pools of fixed-income securities, typically corporate debt or asset-backed securities, which they fund by issuing multiple tranches of debt and equity securities.
Synthetic CDOs enter into a portfolio of credit default swaps to synthetically create exposure to fixed-income securities.
CLOs are a subset of CDOs which hold pools of loans, typically corporate loans or commercial mortgages.
CDOs are typically managed by third-party portfolio managers.
The Corporation transfers assets to these CDOs, holds securities issued by the CDOs and may be a derivative counterparty to the CDOs, including a credit default swap counterparty for synthetic CDOs.
The Corporation has also entered into total return swaps with certain CDOs whereby the Corporation absorbs the economic returns generated by specified assets held by the CDO.
The Corporation receives fees for structuring CDOs and providing liquidity support for super senior tranches of securities issued by certain CDOs.
No third parties provide a significant amount of similar commitments to these CDOs.
The table below summarizes select information related to CDO vehicles in which the Corporation held a variable interest at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
## Table 1 ##
(1) Maximum loss exposure is net of credit protection purchased from the CDO with which the Corporation has involvement but has not been reduced to reflect the benefit of insurance purchased from other third parties.
The Corporation’s maximum loss exposure of $6.8 billion at December 31, 2010 includes $1.8 billion of super senior CDO exposure, $2.2 billion of exposure to CDO financing facilities and $2.8 billion of other non-super senior exposure.
This exposure is calculated on a gross basis and does not reflect any benefit from insurance purchased from third parties other than the CDO itself.
Net of purchased insurance but including securities retained from liquidations of CDOs, the Corporation’s net exposure to super senior CDOrelated positions was $1.2 billion at December 31, 2010.
The CDO financing facilities, which are consolidated, obtain funding from third parties for CDO positions which are principally classified in trading account assets on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The CDO financing facilities’ longterm debt at December 31, 2010 totaled $2.6 billion, all of which has recourse to the general credit of the Corporation.
At December 31, 2010, the Corporation had $951 million notional amount of super senior CDO liquidity exposure, including derivatives and other exposures with third parties that hold super senior cash positions on the Corporation’s behalf and to certain synthetic CDOs through which the Corporation is obligated to purchase super senior CDO securities at par value if the CDOs need cash to make payments due under credit default swaps written by the CDO vehicles.
Liquidity-related commitments also include $1.7 billion notional amount of derivative contracts with unconsolidated special purpose entities (SPEs), principally CDO vehicles, which hold non-super senior CDO debt securities or other debt securities on the Corporation’s behalf.
These derivatives comprise substantially all of the $1.7 billion notional amount of derivative contracts through which the Corporation obtains funding from third-party SPEs, as described in Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies.
The Corporation’s $2.7 billion of aggregate liquidity exposure to CDOs at December 31, 2010 is included in the table above to the extent that the Corporation sponsored the CDO vehicle or the liquidity exposure is more than insignificant compared to total assets of the CDO vehicle.
Liquidity exposure included in the table is reported net of previously recorded losses.
The Corporation’s maximum exposure to loss is significantly less than the total assets of the CDO vehicles in the table above because the Corporation typically has exposure to only a portion of the total assets.
The Corporation has also purchased credit protection from some of the same CDO vehicles in which it invested, thus reducing the Corporation’s maximum exposure to loss.
warranties for first-lien residential mortgage loans sold directly to the GSEs in 2010 and 2009, and for other loans sold directly to the GSEs and not covered by these agreements.
The Corporation believes its predictive repurchase models, utilizing its historical repurchase experience with the GSEs while considering current developments, including the recent agreements, projections of future defaults, as well as certain assumptions regarding economic conditions, home prices and other matters, allows it to reasonably estimate the liability for representations and warranties on loans sold to the GSEs.
However, future provisions for representations and warranties liability to the GSEs may be affected if actual experience is different from the Corporation’s historical experience with the GSEs or the Corporation’s projections of future defaults and assumptions regarding economic conditions, home prices and other matters that are incorporated in the provision calculation.
Although experience with non-GSE claims remains limited, the Corporation expects additional activity in this area going forward and the volume of repurchase claims from monolines, whole-loan investors and investors in private-label securitizations could increase in the future.
It is reasonably possible that future losses may occur and the Corporation’s estimate is that the upper range of possible loss related to non-GSE sales could be $7 billion to $10 billion over existing accruals.
This estimate does not represent a probable loss, is based on currently available information, significant judgment, and a number of assumptions that are subject to change.
A significant portion of this estimate relates to loans originated through legacy Countrywide, and the repurchase liability is generally limited to the original seller of the loan.
Future provisions and possible loss or range of loss may be impacted if actual results are different from the Corporation’s assumptions regarding economic conditions, home prices and other matters and may vary by counterparty.
The resolution of the repurchase claims process with the non-GSE counterparties will likely be a protracted process, and the Corporation will vigorously contest any request for repurchase if it concludes that a valid basis for repurchase claim does not exist.
NOTE 10 Goodwill and Intangible Assets Goodwill The table below presents goodwill balances by business segment at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
As discussed in more detail in Note 26 — Business Segment Information, on January 1, 2010, the Corporation realigned the former Global Banking and Global Markets business segments.
There was no impact on the reporting units used in goodwill impairment testing.
The reporting units utilized for goodwill impairment tests are the business segments or one level below the business segments as outlined in the following table.
Substantially all of the decline in goodwill in 2010 is the result of $12.4 billion of goodwill impairment charges, as described below.
No goodwill impairment was recognized in 2009.
The decline in GWIM was attributable to the sale of Columbia Management’s long-term asset management business.
## Table 2 ##
Global Card Services Impairment On July 21, 2010, the Financial Reform Act was signed into law.
Under the Financial Reform Act and its amendment to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Federal Reserve must adopt rules within nine months of enactment of the Financial Reform Act regarding the interchange fees that may be charged with respect to electronic debit transactions.
Those rules will take effect one year after enactment of the Financial Reform Act.
The Financial Reform Act and the applicable rules are expected to materially reduce the future revenues generated by the debit card business of the Corporation.
The Corporation’s consumer and small business card products, including the debit card business, are part of an integrated platform within Global Card Services.
During the three months ended September 30, 2010, the Corporation’s estimate of revenue loss due to the Financial Reform Act was approximately $2.0 billion annually based on current volumes.
Accordingly, the Corporation performed an impairment test for Global Card Services during the three months ended September 30, 2010.
In step one of the impairment test, the fair value of Global Card Services was estimated under the income approach where the significant assumptions included the discount rate, terminal value, expected loss rates and expected new account growth.
The Corporation also updated its estimated cash flows to reflect the current strategic plan forecast and other portfolio assumptions.
Based on the results of step one of the impairment test, the Corporation determined that the carrying amount of Global Card Services, including goodwill, exceeded the fair value.
The carrying amount, fair value and goodwill for the Global Card Services reporting unit were $39.2 billion, $25.9 billion and $22.3 billion, respectively.
Accordingly, the Corporation performed step two of the goodwill impairment test for this reporting unit.
In step two, the Corporation compared the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill.
Under step two of the impairment test, significant assumptions in measuring the fair value of the assets and liabilities including discount rates, loss rates and interest rates were updated to reflect the current economic conditions.
Based on the results of this goodwill impairment test for Global Card Services, the carrying value of the goodwill assigned to the reporting unit exceeded the implied fair value by $10.4 billion.
Accordingly, the Corporation recorded a non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $10.4 billion to reduce the carrying value of goodwill in Global Card Services from $22.3 billion to $11.9 billion.
The goodwill impairment test included limited mitigation actions inGlobal Card Services to recapture lost revenue.
Although the Corporation has identified other potential mitigation actions, the impact of these actions going forward did not reduce the goodwill impairment charge because these actions are in the early stages of development and, additionally, certain of them may impact segments other than Global Card Services (e. g. , Deposits).
Due to the continued stress on Global Card Services as a result of the Financial Reform Act, the Corporation concluded that an additional impairment test should be performed for this reporting unit during the three months ended December 31, 2010.
In step one of the goodwill impairment test, the fair value of Global Card Services was estimated under the income approach.
The significant assumptions under the income approach included the discount rate, terminal value, expected loss rates and expected new account growth.
The carrying amount, fair value and goodwill for the Global Card Services reporting unit were $27.5 billion, $27.6 billion and $11.9 billion, respectively.
The estimated fair value as a percent of the carrying amount at December 31, 2010 was 100 percent.
Although the fair value exceeded the carrying amount in step one of the Global Card Services goodwill impairment test, to further substantiate the value of goodwill, the Corporation also performed the step two test for this reporting unit.
Under step two of the goodwill impairment test for this reporting unit, significant assumptions in measuring the fair value of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit including discount rates, loss rates and interest rates were updated to reflect the current economic conditions.
The results of step two of the goodwill impairment test indicated that the remaining balance of goodwill of $11.9 billion was not impaired as of December 31, 2010.
On December 16, 2010, the Federal Reserve released proposed regulations to implement the Durbin Amendment of the Financial Reform Act, which are scheduled to be effective July 21, 2011.
The proposed regulations included two alternative interchange fee standards that would apply to all covered issuers: one based on each issuer’s costs, with a safe harbor initially set at $0.07 per transaction and a cap initially set at $0.12 per transaction, and the other a stand-alone cap initially set at $0.12 per transaction.
Although the range of estimated revenue loss based on the proposed regulations was slightly higher than the Corporation’s original estimate of $2.0 billion, given the uncertainty around the potential outcome, the Corporation did not change the revenue loss estimate used in the goodwill impairment test during the three months ended December 31, 2010.
If the final Federal Reserve rule sets interchange fee standards that are significantly lower than the interchange fee assumptions the Corporation used in this goodwill impairment test, the Corporation will be required to per form an additional goodwill impairment test.
If the final interchange fee standards are at the lowest proposed fee alternative, the Corporation’s current estimate of the revenue loss could result in an additional goodwill impairment charge for Global Card Services.
In view of the uncertainty with model inputs including the final ruling, changes in the economic outlook and the corresponding impact to revenues and asset quality, and the impacts of mitigation actions, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of amounts of additional goodwill impairment, if any.
Home Loans & Insurance Impairment During the three months ended December 31, 2010, the Corporation performed an impairment test for the Home Loans & Insurance reporting unit as it was likely that there was a decline in its fair value as a result of increased uncertainties, including existing and potential litigation exposure and other potential risks, higher current servicing costs including loss mitigation efforts, foreclosure related issues and the redeployment of centralized sales resources to address servicing needs.
In step one of the goodwill impairment test, the fair value of Home Loans & Insurance was estimated based on a combination of the market approach and the income approach.
Under the market approach valuation, significant assumptions included market multiples and a control premium.
The significant assumptions for the valuation of Home Loans & Insurance under the income approach included cash flow estimates, the discount rate and the terminal value.
These assumptions were updated to reflect the current strategic plan forecast and to address the increased uncertainties referenced above.
Based on the results of step one of the impairment test, the Corporation determined that the carrying amount of Home Loans & Insurance, including goodwill, exceeded the fair value.
The carrying amount, fair value and goodwill for the Home Loans & Insurance reporting unit were $24.7 billion, $15.1 billion and $4.8 billion, respectively.
Accordingly, the Corporation per formed step two of the goodwill impairment test for this reporting unit.
In step two, the Corporation compared the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill.
Under step two of the goodwill impairment test, significant assumptions in measuring the fair value of the assets and liabilities of the reporting Intangible Assets unit including discount rates, loss rates and interest rates were updated to reflect the current economic conditions.
Based on the results of step two of the impairment test, the carrying value of the goodwill assigned to Home Loans & Insurance exceeded the implied fair value by $2.0 billion.
Accordingly, the Corporation recorded a non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $2.0 billion as of December 31, 2010 to reduce the carrying value of goodwill in the Home Loans & Insurance reporting unit.
Intangible Assets The table below presents the gross carrying amounts and accumulated amortization related to intangible assets at December 31, 2010 and 2009.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-free interest rate</td><td>1.01%</td><td>4.61%</td><td>4.84%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected life (years)</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Expected volatility</td><td>67.2%</td><td>45.2%</td><td>39.8%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="6"> December 31</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> 2010</td><td colspan="3">2009</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> Consolidated</td><td> Unconsolidated</td><td> Total</td><td>Consolidated</td><td>Unconsolidated</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td> Maximum loss exposure<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$2,971</td><td>$3,828</td><td>$6,799</td><td>$3,863</td><td>$6,987</td><td>$10,850</td></tr><tr><td>On-balance sheet assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trading account assets</td><td>$2,485</td><td>$884</td><td>$3,369</td><td>$2,785</td><td>$1,253</td><td>$4,038</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative assets</td><td>207</td><td>890</td><td>1,097</td><td>–</td><td>2,085</td><td>2,085</td></tr><tr><td>Available-for-saledebt securities</td><td>769</td><td>338</td><td>1,107</td><td>1,414</td><td>368</td><td>1,782</td></tr><tr><td>All other assets</td><td>24</td><td>123</td><td>147</td><td>–</td><td>166</td><td>166</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$3,485</td><td>$2,235</td><td>$5,720</td><td>$4,199</td><td>$3,872</td><td>$8,071</td></tr><tr><td>On-balance sheet liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Derivative liabilities</td><td>$–</td><td>$58</td><td>$58</td><td>$–</td><td>$781</td><td>$781</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt</td><td>3,162</td><td>–</td><td>3,162</td><td>2,753</td><td>–</td><td>2,753</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$3,162</td><td>$58</td><td>$3,220</td><td>$2,753</td><td>$781</td><td>$3,534</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets of VIEs</td><td>$3,485</td><td>$43,476</td><td>$46,961</td><td>$4,199</td><td>$56,590</td><td>$60,789</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> December 31</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> 2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>$17,875</td><td>$17,875</td></tr><tr><td>Global Card Services</td><td>11,889</td><td>22,292</td></tr><tr><td>Home Loans & Insurance</td><td>2,796</td><td>4,797</td></tr><tr><td>Global Commercial Banking</td><td>20,656</td><td>20,656</td></tr><tr><td>Global Banking & Markets</td><td>10,682</td><td>10,252</td></tr><tr><td>Global Wealth & Investment Management</td><td>9,928</td><td>10,411</td></tr><tr><td>All Other</td><td>35</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td> Total goodwill</td><td>$73,861</td><td>$86,314</td></tr></table>

Question: What's the average of Trading account assets of consolidated in 2010 and 2009? (in millions)
Answer: 2635
Reasoning program: add(2485,2785), divide(#0,const_2)