Investments in Qualified Special Purpose Entities and Variable Interest Entities
## Table 0 ##
*	Total	QSPEs	represent	6.1%	of	total	debt	and	perpetual	securities	in	2009	and	6.4%	in	2008.
**	Total	VIEs	represent	4.2%	of	total	debt	and	perpetual	securities	in	2009	and	4.7%	in	2008.
QSPEs We have no equity interests in any of the QSPEs in which we invest, nor do we have control over these entities.
Therefore, our loss exposure is limited to the cost of our investment.
See Note 1 for a discussion of changes in accounting for our QSPEs under the provisions of amended FASB guidance, effective for us on January 1, 2010.
VIEs Under accounting guidance in effect on December 31, 2009, we evaluate our involvement with VIEs at inception to determine our beneficial interests in the VIE and, accordingly, our beneficiary status.
As a condition to our involvement or investment in a VIE, we enter into certain protective rights and covenants that preclude changes in the structure of the VIE that would alter the creditworthiness of our investment or our beneficial interest in the VIE.
We would re-evaluate our beneficiary status should a reconsideration event occur.
According to GAAP, reconsideration events include changes to a VIE’s design or structure, contractual arrangements, and/or its equity at risk.
Due to the static nature of these VIEs and our protective rights entered into as a condition of investing in the VIEs, there are few, if any, scenarios that would constitute a reconsideration event in our VIEs.
To date, we have not had any reconsideration events in any of our VIEs.
If we determine that we own less than 50% of the variable interest created by a VIE, we are not considered to be a primary beneficiary of the VIE and therefore are not required to consolidate the VIE.
Our involvement with all of the VIEs in which we have an interest is passive in nature, and we are not the arranger of these entities.
Except as relates to our review and evaluation of the structure of these VIEs in the normal course of our investment decision-making process, we have not been involved in establishing these entities.
We have not been nor are we required to purchase the securities issued in the future by any of these VIEs.
Our ownership interest in the VIEs is limited to holding the obligations issued by them.
All of the VIEs in which we invest are static with respect to funding and have no ongoing forms of funding after the initial funding date.
We have no direct or contingent obligations to fund the limited activities of these VIEs, nor do we have any direct or indirect financial guarantees related to the limited activities of these VIEs.
We have not provided any assistance or any other type of financing support to any of the VIEs we invest in, nor do we have any intention to do so in the future.
The weightedaverage lives of our notes are very similar to the underlying collateral held by these VIEs where applicable.
Our risk of loss related to our interests in any of our VIEs is limited to our investment in the debt securities issued by them.
VIEs – Consolidated We are substantively the only investor in the consolidated VIEs listed in the table above.
As the sole investor in these VIEs, we absorb or participate in greater than 50%, if not all, of the variability created by these VIEs and are therefore considered to be the primary beneficiary of the VIEs that we consolidate.
The activities of these VIEs are limited to holding debt securities and utilizing the cash flows from the debt securities to service our investments therein.
The terms of the debt securities held by these VIEs mirror the terms of the notes held by Aflac.
Our loss exposure to these VIEs is limited to the cost of our investment.
VIEs – Not Consolidated We also have interests in VIEs that we are not required to consolidate as reflected in the above table.
Included in the VIEs that we do not consolidate are CDOs issued through VIEs originated by third parties.
These VIEs combine highly rated underlying assets as collateral for the CDOs with CDSs to produce an investment security that consists of multiple asset tranches with varying levels of subordination within the VIE.
The underlying collateral assets and funding of these VIEs are generally static in nature.
These VIEs are limited to holding the underlying collateral and CDS contracts on specific corporate entities and utilizing the cash flows from the collateral and CDS contracts to service our investment therein.
The underlying collateral and the reference corporate entities covered by the CDS contracts are all investment grade at the time of issuance.
These VIEs do not rely on outside or ongoing sources of funding to support
NEDOI for three such permitted practices.
These permitted practices, which do not impact the calculation of net income on a statutory basis or prevent the triggering of a regulatory event in the Company’s risk-based capital calculation, are as follows: ?
Aflac has reported as admitted assets the refundable lease deposits on the leases of commercial office space which house Aflac Japan’s sales operations.
These lease deposits are unique and part of the ordinary course of doing business in the country of Japan; these assets would be non-admitted under SAP.  ?
Aflac utilizes book value accounting for certain guaranteed separate account funding agreements instead of fair value accounting as required by SAP.
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the underlying separate account assets had unrealized losses of $98 million and $150 million, respectively.  ?
In 2009, Aflac was granted permission to utilize the services of two Japanese rating agencies – Rating and Investment Information, Incorporated (R&I) and Japan Credit Rating Agency, Limited (JCR) – for rating Aflac’s investment holdings in Tohoku Electric Power Company Incorporated (Tohoku).
The securities issued by Tohoku are no longer rated by an NAIC Acceptable Rating Organization (ARO), causing NAIC rating downgrades only due to lack of coverage by these organizations.
For 2009, there was no impact on surplus due to unrealized losses for this permitted practice as the fair value of these investments exceeds book/adjusted carrying value.
There was also no impact on surplus from the calculation of the Asset Valuation Reserve (AVR) on these investments due to the large amount of realized capital losses already in the calculation.
A reconciliation of the Company’s capital and surplus between SAP and practices permitted by the state of Nebraska is shown below:
## Table 1 ##
As determined on a U. S.  statutory accounting basis, Aflac’s net income was $1.4 billion in 2009, $1.2 billion in 2008 and $1.8 billion in 2007.
Capital and surplus was $5.8 billion at December 31, 2009 and $4.6 billion at December 31, 2008.
Net assets of the insurance subsidiaries aggregated $10.1 billion at December 31, 2009, on a GAAP basis, compared with $8.0 billion a year ago.
Aflac Japan accounted for $6.7 billion, or 66.7%, of net assets at December 31, 2009, compared with $5.9 billion, or 73.7%, at December 31, 2008.
Reconciliations of Aflac’s net assets on a GAAP basis to capital and surplus determined on a Nebraska statutory accounting basis as of December 31 were as follows:
## Table 2 ##
Aflac Japan must report its results of operations and financial position to the Japanese Financial Services Agency (FSA) on a Japanese regulatory accounting basis as prescribed by the FSA.
Capital and surplus (unaudited) of Aflac Japan, based on Japanese regulatory accounting practices, aggregated $1.9 billion at December 31, 2009, and $2.0 billion at December 31, 2008.
Japanese regulatory accounting practices differ in many respects from U. S.  GAAP.
Under Japanese regulatory accounting practices, policy acquisition costs are charged off immediately; deferred income tax liabilities are recognized on a different basis; policy benefit and claim reserving methods and assumptions are different; the carrying value of securities transferred to held to maturity is different; policyholder protection corporation obligations are not accrued; and premium income is recognized on a cash basis.
The Parent Company depends on its subsidiaries for cash flow, primarily in the form of dividends and management fees.
Consolidated retained earnings in the accompanying financial statements largely represent the undistributed earnings of our insurance subsidiary.
Amounts available for dividends, management fees and other payments to the Parent Company by its insurance subsidiary may fluctuate due to different accounting methods required by regulatory authorities.
These payments are also subject to various regulatory restrictions and approvals related to safeguarding the interests of insurance policyholders.
Our insurance subsidiary must maintain adequate risk-based capital for U. S.  regulatory authorities and our Japan branch must maintain adequate solvency margins for Japanese regulatory authorities.
Additionally, the maximum amount of dividends that can be paid to the Parent Company by Aflac without prior approval of Nebraska’s director of insurance is the greater of the net income from operations, which excludes net realized investment gains, for the previous year determined under statutory accounting principles, or 10%
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 five-year period.
The cumulative total shareholder return assumes the investment of $100 in State Street common stock and in each index on December 31, 2012.
It also assumes reinvestment of common stock dividends.
The S&P Financial Index is a publicly available, capitalization-weighted index, comprised of 67 of the Standard & Poor’s 500 companies, representing 27 diversified financial services companies, 23 insurance companies, and 17 banking companies.
The KBW Bank Index is a modified cap-weighted index consisting of 24 exchange-listed stocks, representing national money center banks and leading regional institutions.
## Table 3 ##

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> 2009</td><td colspan="3">2008</td></tr><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td> Amortized Cost</td><td></td><td> Fair Value</td><td>Amortized Cost</td><td></td><td>Fair Value</td></tr><tr><td> QSPEs:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total QSPEs</td><td>$4,405</td><td> *</td><td>$4,089</td><td>$4,458</td><td>*</td><td>$4,372</td></tr><tr><td> VIEs:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Consolidated:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total VIEs consolidated</td><td>$1,809</td><td> </td><td>$1,522</td><td>$1,842</td><td></td><td>$1,392</td></tr><tr><td>Not consolidated:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CDOs</td><td>498</td><td> </td><td>464</td><td>908</td><td></td><td>433</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>727</td><td> </td><td>689</td><td>517</td><td></td><td>499</td></tr><tr><td>Total VIEs not consolidated</td><td>1,225</td><td> </td><td>1,153</td><td>1,425</td><td></td><td>932</td></tr><tr><td>Total VIEs</td><td>$3,034</td><td> **</td><td>$2,675</td><td>$3,267</td><td>**</td><td>$2,324</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>Capital and surplus, Nebraska state basis</td><td>$5,768</td><td>$4,601</td></tr><tr><td> State Permitted Practice:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Refundable lease deposits—Japan</td><td>-46</td><td>-49</td></tr><tr><td>Separate Account Funding Agreements</td><td>-98</td><td>-150</td></tr><tr><td>Capital and surplus, NAIC basis</td><td>$5,624</td><td>$4,402</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>Net assets on GAAP basis</td><td>$10,086</td><td>$7,985</td></tr><tr><td>Adjustment of carrying values of investments</td><td>990</td><td>1,835</td></tr><tr><td>Elimination of deferred policy acquisition cost asset</td><td>-8,395</td><td>-8,111</td></tr><tr><td>Adjustment to policy liabilities</td><td>2,348</td><td>2,474</td></tr><tr><td>Adjustment to deferred income taxes</td><td>695</td><td>593</td></tr><tr><td>Other, net</td><td>44</td><td>-175</td></tr><tr><td>Capital and surplus, Nebraska state basis</td><td>$5,768</td><td>$4,601</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td><td>2017</td></tr><tr><td>State Street Corporation</td><td>$100</td><td>$159</td><td>$172</td><td>$148</td><td>$178</td><td>$227</td></tr><tr><td>S&P 500 Index</td><td>100</td><td>132</td><td>151</td><td>153</td><td>171</td><td>208</td></tr><tr><td>S&P Financial Index</td><td>100</td><td>136</td><td>156</td><td>154</td><td>189</td><td>230</td></tr><tr><td>KBW Bank Index</td><td>100</td><td>138</td><td>151</td><td>151</td><td>195</td><td>231</td></tr></table>

Question: If Amortized Costdevelops with the same increasing rate in 2009, what will it reach in 2010? (in million)
Answer: 9507.36
Reasoning program: subtract(const_1,0.047216157205240174), exp(#0,const_2), multiply(#1,10473)