CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.  MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 112 Asset liquidity risk is the risk that market conditions may reduce an entity’s ability to liquidate, pledge and/or finance certain assets and thereby substantially reduce the liquidity value of such assets.
Drivers of contingent liquidity risk include general market disruptions as well as specific issues regarding the credit quality and/or valuation of a security or loan, issuer or borrower and/or asset class.
Funding liquidity risk is the risk that market conditions and/or entity-specific events may reduce an entity’s ability to raise funds from depositors and/or wholesale market counterparties.
Drivers of funding liquidity may be idiosyncratic or systemic, reflecting impediments to operations and/or undermining of market confidence.
Factors Affecting Liquidity Given the composition of their assets and borrowing sources, contingent liquidity at both CBNA and CBPA would be materially affected by such events as deterioration of financing markets for high-quality securities (e. g. , mortgage-backed securities and other instruments issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”)), by any incapacitation of the Federal Home Loan Banks (“FHLBs”) to provide collateralized advances and/or by a refusal of the Federal Reserve Board to act as lender of last resort in systemic stress.
Given the quality of our free securities, the positive track record of the FHLBs in stress and the commitment of the Federal Reserve Board to continue as lender of last resort in systemic stress scenarios, we view contingent liquidity risk at our banking subsidiaries, both CBNA and CBPA, to be relatively modest.
Given the structure of their balance sheets, funding liquidity of CBNA and CBPA would be materially affected by an adverse idiosyncratic event (e. g. , a major loss, causing a perceived or actual deterioration in its financial condition), an adverse systemic event (e. g. , default or bankruptcy of a significant capital markets participant), or a combination of both (e. g. , the financial crisis of 2008-2010).
However, during the financial crisis, our banking subsidiaries reduced their dependence on unsecured wholesale funding to virtually zero.
Consequently, and despite ongoing exposure to a variety of idiosyncratic and systemic events, we view our funding liquidity risk to be relatively modest.
An additional variable affecting our access, and the access of our banking subsidiaries, to unsecured wholesale market funds and to large denomination (i. e. , uninsured) customer deposits is the credit ratings assigned by such agencies as Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch.
The following table presents our credit ratings:
## Table 0 ##
NR = Not rated Changes in our public credit ratings could affect both the cost and availability of our wholesale funding.
As a result and in order to maintain a conservative funding profile, our banking subsidiaries continue to minimize reliance on unsecured wholesale funding.
At December 31, 2014, the majority of wholesale funding consisted of secured borrowings using high-quality liquid securities sold under agreements to repurchase (repurchase agreements) and FHLB advances secured primarily by high-quality residential loan collateral.
Our dependence on short-term, unsecured and credit-sensitive funding continues to be relatively low.
Existing and evolving regulatory liquidity requirements represent another key driver of systemic liquidity conditions and liquidity management practices.
The Federal Reserve Board evaluates our liquidity as part of the supervisory process, and the Federal Reserve Board recently issued regulations that will require us to conduct regular liquidity stress testing over various time horizons and to maintain a buffer of highly liquid assets sufficient to cover expected net cash outflows and projected loss or
CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 171 NOTE 4 - LOANS AND LEASES A summary of the loans and leases portfolio follows:
## Table 1 ##
(1) The Company's SBO portfolio consists of home equity loans and lines that were originally serviced by others.
The Company now services a portion of this portfolio internally.
(2) Excluded from the table above are loans held for sale totaling $281 million as of December 31, 2014 and $1.3 billion as of December 31, 2013.
The December 31, 2013 loans held for sale balance primarily related to the Chicago Divestiture.
For further discussion, see Note 17 “Divestitures and Branch Assets and Liabilities Held for Sale.
” (3) Mortgage loans serviced for others by the Company's subsidiaries are not included above, and amounted to $17.9 billion and $18.7 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Loans held for sale totaled $256 million and $176 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and consisted primarily of residential mortgages originated for sale.
Other loans held for sale totaled $25 million and $1.1 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
The other loans held for sale balance at December 31, 2013 primarily related to the Company's sale of certain assets and liabilities associated with its Chicago-area retail branches (the “Chicago Divestiture”).
See Note 17 “Divestitures and Branch Assets and Liabilities Held for Sale.
” Loans pledged as collateral for FHLB borrowed funds totaled $22.0 billion and $19.0 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
This collateral consists primarily of residential mortgages and home equity loans.
Loans pledged as collateral to support the contingent ability to borrow at the FRB discount window, if necessary, totaled $11.8 billion and $13.9 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company purchased a portfolio of residential loans with an outstanding principal balance of $1.9 billion, a portfolio of auto loans with an outstanding principal balance of $1.7 billion, a portfolio of student loans with an outstanding principal balance of $59 million.
Additionally, the Company purchased a portfolio of performing commercial loans to customers in the oil and gas industry from RBS with an outstanding principal balance of $417 million.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company purchased a portfolio of residential loans with an outstanding principal balance of $912 million.
In addition to the $1.0 billion loans sold as part of the Chicago Divestiture, the Company sold portfolios of residential mortgage loans with outstanding principal balances of $126 million and student loans of $357 million as well as commercial loans with an outstanding principal balance of $301 million during the year ended December 31, 2014.
The Company had no sale transactions during the year ended December 31, 2013.
CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
## Table 2 ##
(1) As discussed in Note 5 “Allowance for Credit Losses, Nonperforming Assets, and Concentrations of Credit Risk” to our audited Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 — Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, included in this report, the ALLL is reviewed separately for commercial and retail loans, and the ALLL for each includes an adjustment for a qualitative allowance that includes certain risks, factors and events that might not be measured in the statistical analysis.
As a result of this adjustment, the unallocated allowance was absorbed into the separately measured commercial and retail qualitative allowance during 2013.
As of December 31, 2017, we enhanced the method for assessing various qualitative risks, factors and events that may not be measured in the modeled results.
The qualitative allowance is presented within each loan class beginning in 2017, and prior periods have not been reclassified to conform to the current presentation.
(2) During December 2016, changes to the incurred loss period were reflected as components of the provision for retail property secured products.
During December 2013, we updated our estimate of the incurred loss period for certain residential mortgages.
This change reflected an analysis of defaulted borrowers and aligned to management’s view that incurred but unrealized losses emerge differently during various points of an economic/business cycle.
Operating profit for the segment increased 10% in 2009 compared to 2008.
The growth in operating profit primarily was due to increases in Air Mobility and Other Aeronautics Programs.
The $70 million increase in Air Mobility’s operating profit primarily was due to the higher volume on C-130J deliveries and C-130 support programs.
In Other Aeronautics Programs, operating profit increased $120 million, which mainly was attributable to improved performance in sustainment activities and higher volume on P-3 programs.
Additionally, the increase in operating profit included the favorable restructuring of a P-3 modification contract in 2009.
Combat Aircraft’s operating profit decreased $22 million during the year primarily due to a reduction in the level of favorable performance adjustments on F-16 programs in 2009 compared to 2008 and lower volume on other combat aircraft programs.
These decreases more than offset increased operating profit resulting from higher volume and improved performance on the F-35 program and an increase in the level of favorable performance adjustments on the F-22 program in 2009 compared to 2008.
The remaining change in operating profit is attributable to a decrease in other income, net, between the comparable periods.
Backlog increased in 2010 compared to 2009 mainly due to orders exceeding sales on the C-130J, F-35 and C-5 programs, which partially were offset by higher sales volume compared to new orders on the F-22 program in 2010.
Backlog decreased in 2009 compared to 2008 mainly due to sales exceeding orders on the F-22 and F-35 programs, which partially were offset by orders exceeding sales on the C-130J and C-5 programs.
We expect Aeronautics will have sales growth in the upper single digit percentage range for 2011 as compared to 2010.
This increase primarily is driven by growth on F-35 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contracts, C-130J and C-5 RERP programs that will more than offset a decline on the F-22 program.
Operating profit is projected to increase at a mid single digit percentage rate above 2010 levels, resulting in a decline in operating margins between the years.
Similar to the relationship of operating margins from 2009 to 2010 discussed above, the expected operating margin decrease from 2010 to 2011 reflects the trend of Aeronautics performing more development and initial production work on the F-35 program and is performing less work on more mature programs such as the F-22 and F-16, even though sales are expected to increase in 2011 relative to 2010.
Electronic Systems Our Electronic Systems business segment manages complex programs and designs, develops, produces, and integrates hardware and software solutions to ensure the mission readiness of armed forces and government agencies worldwide.
The segment’s three lines of business are Mission Systems & Sensors (MS2), Missiles & Fire Control (M&FC), and Global Training & Logistics (GT&L).
With such a broad portfolio of programs to provide products and services, many of its activities involve a combination of both development and production contracts with varying delivery schedules.
Some of its more significant programs, including the THAAD system, the Aegis Weapon System, and the Littoral Combat Ship program, demonstrate the diverse products and services Electronic Systems provides.
Electronic Systems’ operating results included the following:
## Table 3 ##
Net sales for Electronic Systems increased by 6% in 2010 compared to 2009.
Sales increased in all three lines of business during the year.
The $421 million increase at GT&L primarily was due to growth on readiness and stability operations, which partially was offset by lower volume on simulation & training programs.
The $316 million increase at M&FC primarily was due to higher volume on tactical missile and air defense programs, which partially was offset by a decline in volume on fire control systems.
The $94 million increase at MS2 mainly was due to higher volume on surface naval warfare, ship & aviation systems, and radar systems programs, which partially was offset by lower volume on undersea warfare programs.
Net sales for Electronic Systems increased by 6% in 2009 compared to 2008.
Sales increases in M&FC and GT&L more than offset a decline in MS2.
The $429 million increase in sales at M&FC primarily was due to growth on tactical missile programs and fire control systems.
The $355 million increase at GT&L primarily was due to growth on simulation and training activities and readiness and stability operations.
The increase in simulation and training also included sales from the first quarter 2009 acquisition of Universal Systems and Technology, Inc.
The $55 million decrease at MS2 mainly was due to lower volume on ship & aviation systems and undersea warfare programs, which partially were offset by higher volume on radar systems and surface naval warfare programs.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">December 31, 2014</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Moody’s</td><td>Standard andPoor’s</td><td>Fitch</td></tr><tr><td>Citizens Financial Group, Inc.:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>NR</td><td>BBB+</td><td>BBB+</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>NR</td><td>A-2</td><td>F2</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated debt</td><td>NR</td><td>BBB</td><td>BBB</td></tr><tr><td>Citizens Bank, N.A.:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>A3</td><td>A-</td><td>BBB+</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>P-2</td><td>A-2</td><td>F2</td></tr><tr><td>Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>A3</td><td>A-</td><td>BBB+</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>P-2</td><td>A-2</td><td>F2</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">December 31,</td></tr><tr><td>(in millions)</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial</td><td>$31,431</td><td>$28,667</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate</td><td>7,809</td><td>6,948</td></tr><tr><td>Leases</td><td>3,986</td><td>3,780</td></tr><tr><td>Total commercial</td><td>43,226</td><td>39,395</td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgages</td><td>11,832</td><td>9,726</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans</td><td>3,424</td><td>4,301</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit</td><td>15,423</td><td>15,667</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans serviced by others<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1,228</td><td>1,492</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit serviced by others<sup>-1</sup></td><td>550</td><td>679</td></tr><tr><td>Automobile</td><td>12,706</td><td>9,397</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>2,256</td><td>2,208</td></tr><tr><td>Credit cards</td><td>1,693</td><td>1,691</td></tr><tr><td>Other retail</td><td>1,072</td><td>1,303</td></tr><tr><td>Total retail</td><td>50,184</td><td>46,464</td></tr><tr><td>Total loans and leases<sup>-2 (3)</sup></td><td>$93,410</td><td>$85,859</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">As of and for the Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td>(dollars in millions)</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>Total Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses—Ending:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial</td><td>541</td><td>458</td><td>$376</td><td>$388</td><td>$361</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate</td><td>121</td><td>92</td><td>111</td><td>61</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Leases</td><td>23</td><td>48</td><td>23</td><td>23</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative<sup>-1</sup></td><td>—</td><td>65</td><td>86</td><td>72</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Total commercial loans and leases</td><td>685</td><td>663</td><td>596</td><td>544</td><td>498</td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgages</td><td>44</td><td>42</td><td>46</td><td>63</td><td>104</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>39</td><td>50</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit</td><td>87</td><td>116</td><td>132</td><td>152</td><td>159</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans serviced by others</td><td>12</td><td>9</td><td>29</td><td>47</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit serviced by others</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>11</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Automobile</td><td>139</td><td>110</td><td>106</td><td>58</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>120</td><td>76</td><td>96</td><td>93</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>Credit cards</td><td>72</td><td>63</td><td>60</td><td>68</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Other retail</td><td>54</td><td>27</td><td>28</td><td>32</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative<sup>-1</sup></td><td>—</td><td>108</td><td>81</td><td>77</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>Total retail loans</td><td>551</td><td>573</td><td>620</td><td>651</td><td>723</td></tr><tr><td>Unallocated<sup>-1</sup>(Eliminated in 2013)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total allowance for loan and lease losses—ending</td><td>$1,236</td><td>$1,236</td><td>$1,216</td><td>$1,195</td><td>$1,221</td></tr><tr><td>Reserve for Unfunded Lending Commitments—Beginning</td><td>$72</td><td>$58</td><td>$61</td><td>$39</td><td>$40</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for unfunded lending commitments</td><td>16</td><td>14</td><td>-3</td><td>22</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>Reserve for unfunded lending commitments—ending</td><td>$88</td><td>$72</td><td>$58</td><td>$61</td><td>$39</td></tr><tr><td>Total Allowance for Credit Losses—Ending</td><td>$1,324</td><td>$1,308</td><td>$1,274</td><td>$1,256</td><td>$1,260</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><i>(In millions)</i></td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td><i>2008</i></td></tr><tr><td>Net sales</td><td>$14,363</td><td>$13,532</td><td>$12,803</td></tr><tr><td>Operating profit</td><td>1,712</td><td>1,660</td><td>1,583</td></tr><tr><td>Operating margin</td><td>11.9%</td><td>12.3%</td><td>12.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Backlog at year-end</td><td>23,200</td><td>23,100</td><td>23,500</td></tr></table>

Question: In which section the sum of retail loans has the highest value?
Answer: 2013