Entergy Arkansas, Inc.  and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis Entergy Arkansas’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
## Table 0 ##
See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.
Entergy Arkansas has a credit facility in the amount of $150 million scheduled to expire in August 2022.
Entergy Arkansas also has a $20 million credit facility scheduled to expire in April 2018. ?
?The $150 million credit facility permits the issuance of letters of credit against $5 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility.
As of December 31, 2017, there were no cash borrowings and no letters of credit outstanding under the credit facilities.
In addition, Entergy Arkansas is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO.
As of December 31, 2017, a $1 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy Arkansas’s uncommitted letter of credit facility.
See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the credit facilities.
The Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity has a credit facility in the amount of $80 million scheduled to expire in May 2019. ?
?As of December 31, 2017, $50 million in letters of credit to support a like amount of commercial paper issued and $24.9 million in loans were outstanding under the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility.
See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility.
Entergy Arkansas obtained authorizations from the FERC through October 2019 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $250 million at any time outstanding and borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entity.
See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s short-term borrowing limits.
The long-term securities issuances of Entergy Arkansas are limited to amounts authorized by the APSC, and the current authorization extends through December 2018.
State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery Retail Rates 2015 Base Rate Filing In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs.
The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million.
The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity.
In September 2015 the APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity.
In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity.
A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million.
The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance.
A settlement hearing was held in January 2016.
In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that reduced the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million.
The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016.
The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016.
In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the
MetLife, Inc.  Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued) American Life’s life insurance and annuity contracts (“Covered Payments”) for any tax periods beginning on January 1, 2005 and ending on December 31, 2013 (the “Deferral Period”).
The Closing Agreement requires that American Life submit a plan to the IRS within 90 days after the close of the Acquisition, indicating the steps American Life will take (on a country by country basis) to ensure that no substantial amount of U. S.  withholding tax will arise from Covered Payments made by American Life’s foreign branches to foreign customers after the Deferral Period.
Such plan, which was submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on January 29, 2011, involves the transfer of businesses from certain of the foreign branches of American Life to one or more existing or newly-formed subsidiaries of MetLife, Inc.  or American Life.
A liability of $277 million was recognized in purchase accounting as of November 1, 2010, for the anticipated and estimated costs associated with restructuring American Life’s foreign branches into subsidiaries in connection with the Closing Agreement.
Current and Deferred Income Tax The future tax effects of temporary differences between financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities are measured at the balance sheet dates and are recorded as deferred income tax assets and liabilities, with certain exceptions such as certain temporary differences relating to goodwill under purchase accounting.
For federal income tax purposes, MetLife, Inc.  and ALICO Holdings are expected to make Section 338 elections with respect to American Life and certain of its subsidiaries.
In addition, MetLife, Inc.  and AIG are expected to make a Section 338 election with respect to DelAm.
Under such elections, the U. S.  tax basis of the assets deemed acquired and liabilities assumed of ALICO were adjusted as of the Acquisition Date to reflect the consequences of the Section 338 elections.
The reversal of temporary differences (between financial reporting and U. S.  tax bases of assets and liabilities) of American Life’s foreign branches, post-branch restructuring, in connection with the Closing Agreement (i. e. , generally, after the end of the Deferral Period) is not expected to result in any direct U. S.  tax effect.
Thus, as of November 1, 2010, American Life reduced its net deferred tax asset of $425 million by $671 million that reflects the amount of U. S.  deferred tax asset that is expected to reverse post-branch restructuring.
Therefore, American Life recognized a U. S.  net deferred tax liability of approximately $246 million in purchase accounting.
As of the Acquisition Date, ALICO’s current and deferred income tax liabilities are provisional and not yet finalized.
Current income taxes may be adjusted pending the resolution of the tax value of MetLife, Inc.  securities delivered to ALICO Holdings as part of the purchase consideration on the Acquisition Date, the amount of taxes resulting from the Section 338 elections and the filing of income tax returns.
Deferred income taxes may be adjusted as a result of changes in estimates and assumptions relating to the reversal of U. S.  temporary differences prior to the completion of the anticipated restructuring of American Life’s foreign branches, the filing of income tax returns and as additional information becomes available during the measurement period.
We expect to finalize these amounts as soon as possible but no later than one year from the Acquisition Date.
Revenues and Earnings of ALICO The following table presents information for ALICO that is included in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations from the Acquisition Date through November 30, 2010:
## Table 1 ##
Supplemental Pro Forma Information (unaudited) The following table presents unaudited supplemental pro forma information as if the Acquisition had occurred on January 1, 2010 for the year ended December 31, 2010 and on January 1, 2009 for the year ended December 31, 2009.
## Table 2 ##
The pro forma information was derived from the historical financial information of MetLife and ALICO, reflecting the results of operations of MetLife and ALICO for 2010 and 2009.
The historical financial information has been adjusted to give effect to the pro forma events that are directly attributable to the Acquisition and factually supportable and expected to have a continuing impact on the combined results.
Discontinued operations and the related earnings per share have been excluded from the presentation as they are non-recurring in nature.
The pro forma information is not intended to reflect the results of operations of the combined company that would have resulted had the Acquisition been effective during the periods presented or the results that may be obtained by the combined company in the future.
The pro forma information does not reflect future events that may occur after the Acquisition, including, but not limited to, expense efficiencies or revenue enhancements arising from the Acquisition and also does not give effect to certain one-time charges that MetLife expects to incur such as restructuring and integration costs.
MetLife, Inc.  Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued) The December 31, 2009 table reflects rating agency designations assigned by nationally recognized rating agencies including Moody’s, S&P and Fitch.
The NAIC rating distribution of the Company’s holdings of CMBS was as follows a
## Table 3 ##
Concentrations of Credit Risk (Fixed Maturity Securities) — ABS.
The Company’s holdings in ABS were $14.3 billion and $13.2 billion at estimated fair value at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
The Company’s ABS are diversified both by collateral type and by issuer.
The following table presents the collateral type and certain other information about ABS held by the Company at:
## Table 4 ##
The Company had ABS supported by sub-prime mortgage loans with estimated fair values of $1,119 million and $1,044 million and unrealized losses of $317 million and $593 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Approximately 54% of this portfolio was rated Aa or better, of which 88% was in vintage year 2005 and prior at December 31, 2010.
Approximately 61% of this portfolio was rated Aa or better, of which 91% was in vintage year 2005 and prior at December 31, 2009.
These older vintages from 2005 and prior benefit from better underwriting, improved enhancement levels and higher residential property price appreciation.
Approximately 66% and 73% of this portfolio was rated NAIC 2 or better at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Concentrations of Credit Risk (Equity Securities).
The Company was not exposed to any concentrations of credit risk in its equity securities holdings of any single issuer greater than 10% of the Company’s equity or 1% of total investments at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
Maturities of Fixed Maturity Securities.
The amortized cost and estimated fair value of fixed maturity securities, by contractual maturity date (excluding scheduled sinking funds), were as follows at
## Table 5 ##
Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities due to the exercise of call or prepayment options.
Fixed maturity securities not due at a single maturity date have been included in the above table in the year of final contractual maturity.
RMBS, CMBS and ABS are shown separately in the table, as they are not due at a single maturity
MetLife, Inc.  Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued) action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v.  Sun Life Assurance Co.  (Super.
Ct. , Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.
Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in this lawsuit.
MLIC is currently not a party to the Kang v.  Sun Life lawsuit.
Italy Fund Redemption Suspension Complaints and Litigation.
As a result of suspension of withdrawals and diminution in value in certain funds offered within certain unit-linked policies sold by the Italian branch of Alico Life International, Ltd.  (“ALIL”), a number of policyholders invested in those funds have either commenced or threatened litigation against ALIL, alleging misrepresentation, inadequate disclosures and other related claims.
These policyholders contacted ALIL beginning in July 2009 alleging that the funds operated at variance to the published prospectus and that prospectus risk disclosures were allegedly wrong, unclear, and misleading.
The limited number of lawsuits that have been filed to date have either been resolved or are proceeding through litigation.
In March 2010, ALIL learned that the public prosecutor in Milan had opened a formal investigation into the actions of ALIL employees, as well as of employees of ALIL’s major distributor, based upon a policyholder complaint.
The complaint filed by the policyholder has now been withdrawn.
ALIL is cooperating with the Italian and Irish regulatory authorities, which have jurisdiction in connection with this matter.
The Stock Purchase Agreement includes a provision pursuant to which the Holding Company and certain related parties may seek indemnification for liabilities in excess of an agreed upon amount arising out of certain specified policyholder claims and governmental investigations in connection with the above-mentioned unit-linked policies.
See also “Indemnification Assets and Contingent Consideration” in Note 2.
Summary Putative or certified class action litigation and other litigation and claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, mortgage lending bank, employer, investor, investment advisor and taxpayer.
Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.
It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or provide reasonable ranges of potential losses of all pending investigations and legal proceedings.
In some of the matters referred to previously, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought.
Although in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known by the Company’s management, in its opinion, the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are not likely to have such an effect.
However, given the large and/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.
Insolvency Assessments Most of the jurisdictions in which the Company is admitted to transact business require insurers doing business within the jurisdiction to participate in guaranty associations, which are organized to pay contractual benefits owed pursuant to insurance policies issued by impaired, insolvent or failed insurers.
These associations levy assessments, up to prescribed limits, on all member insurers in a particular state on the basis of the proportionate share of the premiums written by member insurers in the lines of business in which the impaired, insolvent or failed insurer engaged.
Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets.
In addition, Japan has established a Policyholder Protection Commission as a contingency to protect policyholders against the insolvency of life insurance companies in Japan through assessments to companies licensed to provide life insurance.
Assets and liabilities held for insolvency assessments were as follows:

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>(In Thousands)</td></tr><tr><td>-$166,137</td><td>-$51,232</td><td>-$52,742</td><td>$2,218</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> ALICO’s Operations   Included in MetLife’s   Results for the   Year Ended December 31, 2010  (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenues</td><td>$950</td></tr><tr><td>Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax</td><td>$-2</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Years Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> 2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">(In millions, except</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">per share data)</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenues</td><td>$64,680</td><td>$54,282</td></tr><tr><td>Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, attributable to common shareholders</td><td>$3,888</td><td>$-1,353</td></tr><tr><td>Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, attributable to common shareholders per common share:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basic</td><td>$3.60</td><td>$-1.29</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted</td><td>$3.57</td><td>$-1.29</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2010</td><td> 2009</td></tr><tr><td>NAIC 1</td><td>93.7%</td><td>96.0%</td></tr><tr><td>NAIC 2</td><td>3.2%</td><td>2.8%</td></tr><tr><td>NAIC 3</td><td>1.8%</td><td>1.0%</td></tr><tr><td>NAIC 4</td><td>1.0%</td><td>0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>NAIC 5</td><td>0.3%</td><td>0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>NAIC 6</td><td>—%</td><td>—%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2010</td><td colspan="2"> 2009</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Estimated </td><td></td><td> Estimated </td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Fair </td><td>% of</td><td> Fair </td><td> % of </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Value</td><td>Total</td><td> Value</td><td> Total</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>By collateral type:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit card loans</td><td>$6,027</td><td>42.2%</td><td>$7,057</td><td>53.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Student loans</td><td>2,416</td><td>16.9</td><td>1,855</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>RMBS backed bysub-primemortgage loans</td><td>1,119</td><td>7.8</td><td>1,044</td><td>7.9</td></tr><tr><td>Automobile loans</td><td>605</td><td>4.2</td><td>963</td><td>7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other loans</td><td>4,123</td><td>28.9</td><td>2,243</td><td>17.1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$14,290</td><td>100.0%</td><td>$13,162</td><td>100.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Portion rated Aaa/AAA</td><td>$10,411</td><td>72.9%</td><td>$9,354</td><td>71.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Portion rated NAIC 1</td><td>$13,136</td><td>91.9%</td><td>$11,573</td><td>87.9%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> 2010</td><td colspan="2"> 2009</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td> Estimated </td><td></td><td> Estimated </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Amortized </td><td> Fair </td><td> Amortized </td><td> Fair </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Cost</td><td> Value</td><td> Cost</td><td> Value</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Due in one year or less</td><td>$8,593</td><td>$8,715</td><td>$6,845</td><td>$6,924</td></tr><tr><td>Due after one year through five years</td><td>65,378</td><td>67,040</td><td>38,408</td><td>39,399</td></tr><tr><td>Due after five years through ten years</td><td>77,054</td><td>80,163</td><td>40,448</td><td>41,568</td></tr><tr><td>Due after ten years</td><td>89,577</td><td>91,668</td><td>67,838</td><td>66,947</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>240,602</td><td>247,586</td><td>153,539</td><td>154,838</td></tr><tr><td>RMBS, CMBS and ABS</td><td>79,406</td><td>79,698</td><td>76,170</td><td>72,804</td></tr><tr><td>Total fixed maturity securities</td><td>$320,008</td><td>$327,284</td><td>$229,709</td><td>$227,642</td></tr></table>

Question: In the year with lowest amount of Portion rated NAIC , what's the increasing rate of RMBS backed bysub-primemortgage loans ?
Answer: 0.07184
Reasoning program: subtract(1119,1044), divide(#0,1044)