THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Management’s Discussion and Analysis Scenario Analyses.
We conduct various scenario analyses including as part of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests (DFAST), as well as our resolution and recovery planning.
See “Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital — Equity Capital Management” below for further information about these scenario analyses.
These scenarios cover short-term and long-term time horizons using various macroeconomic and firm-specific assumptions, based on a range of economic scenarios.
We use these analyses to assist us in developing our longer-term balance sheet management strategy, including the level and composition of assets, funding and equity capital.
Additionally, these analyses help us develop approaches for maintaining appropriate funding, liquidity and capital across a variety of situations, including a severely stressed environment.
Balance Sheet Allocation In addition to preparing our consolidated statements of financial condition in accordance with U. S.  GAAP, we prepare a balance sheet that generally allocates assets to our businesses, which is a non-GAAP presentation and may not be comparable to similar non-GAAP presentations used by other companies.
We believe that presenting our assets on this basis is meaningful because it is consistent with the way management views and manages risks associated with our assets and better enables investors to assess the liquidity of our assets.
The table below presents our balance sheet allocation.
## Table 0 ##
The following is a description of the captions in the table above: ‰ Global Core Liquid Assets and Cash.
We maintain liquidity to meet a broad range of potential cash outflows and collateral needs in a stressed environment.
See “Liquidity Risk Management” below for details on the composition and sizing of our “Global Core Liquid Assets” (GCLA).
In addition to our GCLA, we maintain other unrestricted operating cash balances, primarily for use in specific currencies, entities, or jurisdictions where we do not have immediate access to parent company liquidity.
‰ Secured Client Financing.
We provide collateralized financing for client positions, including margin loans secured by client collateral, securities borrowed, and resale agreements primarily collateralized by government obligations.
We segregate cash and securities for regulatory and other purposes related to client activity.
Securities are segregated from our own inventory as well as from collateral obtained through securities borrowed or resale agreements.
Our secured client financing arrangements, which are generally short-term, are accounted for at fair value or at amounts that approximate fair value, and include daily margin requirements to mitigate counterparty credit risk.
‰ Institutional Client Services.
In Institutional Client Services, we maintain inventory positions to facilitate market making in fixed income, equity, currency and commodity products.
Additionally, as part of marketmaking activities, we enter into resale or securities borrowing arrangements to obtain securities or use our own inventory to cover transactions in which we or our clients have sold securities that have not yet been purchased.
The receivables in Institutional Client Services primarily relate to securities transactions.
‰ Investing & Lending.
In Investing & Lending, we make investments and originate loans to provide financing to clients.
These investments and loans are typically longerterm in nature.
We make investments, directly and indirectly through funds that we manage, in debt securities, loans, public and private equity securities, infrastructure, real estate entities and other investments.
We also make unsecured loans to individuals through our online platform.
Debt includes $14.23 billion and $17.29 billion as of December 2016 and December 2015, respectively, of direct loans primarily extended to corporate and private wealth management clients that are accounted for at fair value.
Loans receivable is comprised of loans held for investment that are accounted for at amortized cost net of allowance for loan losses.
See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about loans receivable.
At November 30, 2009, we owned 82,703 homesites and had access to an additional 21,173 homesites through either option contracts with third parties or agreements with unconsolidated entities in which we have investments.
At November 30, 2009, 2% of the homesites we owned were subject to home purchase contracts.
Our backlog of sales contracts was 1,631 homes ($479.6 million) at November 30, 2009, compared to 1,599 homes ($456.3 million) at November 30, 2008.
Non-GAAP Financial Measure Gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments is a non-GAAP financial measure, and is defined by us as sales of homes revenue less cost of homes sold excluding valuation adjustments recorded during the period.
Management finds this to be an important and useful measure in evaluating our performance because it discloses the profit we generate on homes we actually delivered during the period, as our valuation adjustments generally relate to inventory that we did not deliver during the period.
Gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments also is important to our management, because it assists our management in making strategic decisions regarding our construction pace, product mix and product pricing based upon the profitability we generated on homes we actually delivered during previous periods.
We believe investors also find gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments to be important and useful because it discloses a profitability measure on homes we actually delivered in a period that can be compared to the profitability on homes we delivered in a prior period without regard to the variability of valuation adjustments recorded from period to period.
In addition, to the extent that our competitors provide similar information, disclosure of our gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments helps readers of our financial statements compare our ability to generate profits with regard to the homes we deliver in a period to our competitors’ ability to generate profits with regard to the homes they deliver in the same period.
Although management finds gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments to be an important measure in conducting and evaluating our operations, this measure has limitations as an analytical tool as it is not reflective of the actual profitability generated by our company during the period.
This is because it excludes charges we recorded relating to inventory that was impaired during the period.
In addition, because gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments is a financial measure that is not calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), it may not be completely comparable to similarly titled measures of our competitors due to differences in methods of calculation and charges being excluded.
Our management compensates for the limitations of using gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments by using this non-GAAP measure only to supplement our GAAP results in order to provide a more complete understanding of the factors and trends affecting our operations.
In order to analyze our overall performance and actual profitability relative to our homebuilding operations, we also compare our gross margins on home sales during the period, inclusive of valuation adjustments, with the same measure during prior comparable periods.
Due to the limitations discussed above, gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments should not be viewed in isolation as it is not a substitute for GAAP measures of gross margins.
The table set forth below reconciles our gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008 to our gross margins on home sales for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008:
## Table 1 ##
completion deadlines or declines in the market value of collateral below required amounts) or technical monetary defaults against the real estate developers.
In most instances, those asserted defaults are resolved by modifications of the loan terms, additional equity investments or other concessions by the borrowers.
In addition, in some instances, real estate developers, including joint ventures in which we have interests, are forced to request temporary waivers of covenants in loan documents or modifications of loan terms, which are often, but not always obtained.
However, in some instances developers, including joint ventures in which we have interests, are not able to meet their monetary obligations to lenders, and are thus declared in default.
Because we sometimes guarantee all or portions of the obligations to lenders of joint ventures in which we have interests, when these joint ventures default on their obligations, lenders may or may not have claims against us.
Normally, we do not make payments with regard to guarantees of joint venture obligations while the joint ventures are contesting assertions regarding sums due to their lenders.
When it is determined that a joint venture is obligated to make a payment that we have guaranteed and the joint venture will not be able to make that payment, we accrue the amounts probable to be paid by us as a liability.
Although we generally fulfill our guarantee obligations within a reasonable time after we determine that we are obligated with regard to them, at any point in time it is likely that we will have some balance of unpaid guarantee liability.
At both November 30, 2012 and 2011, we had no liabilities accrued for unpaid guarantees of joint venture indebtedness on our consolidated balance sheet.
The following table summarizes the principal maturities of our Lennar Homebuilding unconsolidated entities (“JVs”) debt as per current debt arrangements as of November 30, 2012 and does not reflect estimates of future cash payments that will be made to reduce debt balances.
Many JV loans have extension options in the loan agreements that would allow the loans to be extended into future years.
## Table 2 ##
(1) Excludes unconsolidated joint venture assets where the joint venture has no debt.
(2) Represents land seller debt and other debt.
The following table is a breakdown of the assets, debt and equity of the Lennar Homebuilding unconsolidated joint ventures by partner type as of November 30, 2012:
## Table 3 ##
LENNAR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS-(Continued) establishment of a trend and adjusts its historical information accordingly in order to develop assumptions on the projected absorption pace in the cash flow model for a community.
In order to determine the assumed sales prices included in its cash flow models, the Company analyzes the historical sales prices realized on homes it delivered in the community and other comparable communities in the geographical area as well as the sales prices included in its current backlog for such communities.
In addition, the Company considers internal and external market studies and trends, which generally include, but are not limited to, statistics on sales prices in neighboring communities and sales prices on similar products in non-neighboring communities in the geographic area where the community is located.
When analyzing its historical sales prices and corresponding market studies, the Company also places greater emphasis on more current metrics and trends such as future forecasted sales prices in neighboring communities as well as future forecasted sales prices for similar products in non-neighboring communities.
Generally, if the Company notices a variation from historical results over a span of two fiscal quarters, the Company considers such variation to be the establishment of a trend and adjusts its historical information accordingly in order to develop assumptions on the projected sales prices in the cash flow model for a community.
In order to arrive at the Company's assumed costs to build and deliver homes, the Company generally assumes a cost structure reflecting contracts currently in place with its vendors adjusted for any anticipated cost reduction initiatives or increases in cost structure.
Those costs assumed are used in the cash flow model for the Company's communities.
Since the estimates and assumptions included in the Company's cash flow models are based upon historical results and projected trends, they do not anticipate unexpected changes in market conditions or strategies that may lead the Company to incur additional impairment charges in the future.
Using all available information, the Company calculates its best estimate of projected cash flows for each community.
While many of the estimates are calculated based on historical and projected trends, all estimates are subjective and change from market to market and community to community as market and economic conditions change.
The determination of fair value also requires discounting the estimated cash flows at a rate the Company believes a market participant would determine to be commensurate with the inherent risks associated with the assets and related estimated cash flow streams.
The discount rate used in determining each asset's fair value depends on the community's projected life and development stage.
The Company generally uses a discount rate of approximately 20%, subject to the perceived risks associated with the community's cash flow streams relative to its inventory.
The Company estimates the fair value of inventory evaluated for impairment based on market conditions and assumptions made by management at the time the inventory is evaluated, which may differ materially from actual results if market conditions or assumptions change.
For example, changes in market conditions and other specific developments or changes in assumptions may cause the Company to re-evaluate its strategy regarding previously impaired inventory, as well as inventory not currently impaired but for which indicators of impairment may arise if market deterioration occurs, and certain other assets that could result in further valuation adjustments and/or additional write-offs of option deposits and pre-acquisition costs due to abandonment of those options contracts.
As ofNovember 30,2015, the Company reviewed its communities for potential indicators of impairments and identified 13 homebuilding communities with 931 homesites and a carrying value of $121.7 million as having potential indicators of impairment.
Of those communities, the Company recorded valuation adjustments of $8.1 million on 209 homesites in 5 communities with a carrying value of $19.4 million.
As of November 30, 2014, the Company reviewed its communities for potential indicators of impairments and identified 26 homebuilding communities with 1,774 homesites and a carrying value of$145.3 million as having potential indicators of impairment.
Of those communities, the Company recorded valuation adjustments of$2.9 million on 120 homesites in one community with a carrying value of $8.1 million.
The table below summarizes the most significant unobservable inputs used in the Company's discounted cash flow model to determine the fair value of its communities for which the Company recorded valuation adjustments during the years ended November 30,2015,2014 and 2013:

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>As of December</td></tr><tr><td><i>$ in millions</i></td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>Global Core Liquid Assets (GCLA)</td><td>$226,066</td><td>$199,120</td></tr><tr><td>Other cash</td><td>9,088</td><td>9,180</td></tr><tr><td>GCLA and cash</td><td>235,154</td><td>208,300</td></tr><tr><td>Secured client financing</td><td>199,387</td><td>221,325</td></tr><tr><td>Inventory</td><td>206,988</td><td>208,836</td></tr><tr><td>Secured financing agreements</td><td>65,606</td><td>63,495</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables</td><td>29,592</td><td>39,976</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional Client Services</td><td>302,186</td><td>312,307</td></tr><tr><td>Public equity</td><td>3,224</td><td>3,991</td></tr><tr><td>Private equity</td><td>18,224</td><td>16,985</td></tr><tr><td>Debt</td><td>21,675</td><td>23,216</td></tr><tr><td>Loans receivable</td><td>49,672</td><td>45,407</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>5,162</td><td>4,646</td></tr><tr><td>Investing & Lending</td><td>97,957</td><td>94,245</td></tr><tr><td>Total inventory and relatedassets</td><td>400,143</td><td>406,552</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>25,481</td><td>25,218</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$860,165</td><td>$861,395</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> Years Ended November 30,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> 2010</td><td> 2009</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> (In thousands)</td></tr><tr><td>Sales of homes</td><td>$2,631,314</td><td>2,776,850</td><td>4,150,717</td></tr><tr><td>Cost of homes sold</td><td>2,113,393</td><td>2,524,850</td><td>3,641,090</td></tr><tr><td>Gross margins on home sales</td><td>517,921</td><td>252,000</td><td>509,627</td></tr><tr><td>Valuation adjustments to finished homes, CIP and land on which we intend to build homes</td><td>44,717</td><td>180,239</td><td>195,518</td></tr><tr><td>Gross margins on homes sales excluding valuation adjustments</td><td>$562,638</td><td>432,239</td><td>705,145</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td colspan="6">Principal Maturities of Unconsolidated JVs by Period</td></tr><tr><td>(In thousands)</td><td>Total JVAssets -1</td><td>Total JVDebt</td><td>2013</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td><td>Thereafter</td><td>OtherDebt -2</td></tr><tr><td>Net recourse debt to Lennar</td><td></td><td>49,889</td><td>16,298</td><td>4,461</td><td>1,870</td><td>27,260</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Reimbursement agreements</td><td></td><td>16,826</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>16,826</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum recourse debt exposure to Lennar</td><td>$1,843,163</td><td>66,715</td><td>16,298</td><td>4,461</td><td>18,696</td><td>27,260</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Debt without recourse to Lennar</td><td>961,755</td><td>693,088</td><td>98,898</td><td>26,993</td><td>58,316</td><td>479,025</td><td>29,856</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$2,804,918</td><td>759,803</td><td>115,196</td><td>31,454</td><td>77,012</td><td>506,285</td><td>29,856</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(Dollars in thousands)</td><td>Total JVAssets</td><td>MaximumRecourseDebtExposureto Lennar</td><td>ReimbursementAgreements</td><td>NetRecourseDebt toLennar</td><td>Total DebtWithoutRecourseto Lennar</td><td>Total JVDebt</td><td>Total JVEquity</td><td>JV Debtto TotalCapitalRatio</td><td>RemainingHomes/Homesitesin JV</td></tr><tr><td>Partner Type:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial</td><td>$2,414,209</td><td>44,327</td><td>16,826</td><td>27,501</td><td>535,939</td><td>580,266</td><td>1,520,323</td><td>28%</td><td>39,248</td></tr><tr><td>Land Owners/Developers</td><td>406,695</td><td>17,928</td><td>—</td><td>17,928</td><td>84,898</td><td>102,826</td><td>287,192</td><td>26%</td><td>14,482</td></tr><tr><td>Strategic</td><td>112,594</td><td>1,960</td><td>—</td><td>1,960</td><td>11,342</td><td>13,302</td><td>97,582</td><td>12%</td><td>2,018</td></tr><tr><td>Other Builders</td><td>266,846</td><td>2,500</td><td>—</td><td>2,500</td><td>31,053</td><td>33,553</td><td>224,948</td><td>13%</td><td>4,630</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$3,200,344</td><td>66,715</td><td>16,826</td><td>49,889</td><td>663,232</td><td>729,947</td><td>2,130,045</td><td>26%</td><td>60,378</td></tr><tr><td>Land seller debt and other debt</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>29,856</td><td>29,856</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total JV debt</td><td></td><td>66,715</td><td>16,826</td><td>49,889</td><td>693,088</td><td>759,803</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Question: Between 2013,2014 and 2015, for which year is Debt without recourse to Lennar in terms of Principal Maturities of Unconsolidated JVs by Period the least ?
Answer: 2014