ANALOG DEVICES, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) As of October 31, 2009, the total notional amount of these undesignated hedges was $38 million.
The fair value of these hedging instruments in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet as of October 31, 2009 was immaterial.
Interest Rate Exposure Management — On June 30, 2009, the Company entered into interest rate swap transactions related to its outstanding notes where the Company swapped the notional amount of its $375 million of fixed rate debt at 5.0% into floating interest rate debt through July 1, 2014.
Under the terms of the swaps, the Company will (i) receive on the $375 million notional amount a 5.0% annual interest payment that is paid in two installments on the 1st of every January and July, commencing January 1, 2010 through and ending on the maturity date; and (ii) pay on the $375 million notional amount an annual three-month LIBOR plus 2.05% (2.34% as of October 31, 2009) interest payment, payable in four installments on the 1st of every January, April, July and October, commencing on October 1, 2009 and ending on the maturity date.
The LIBOR based rate is set quarterly three months prior to the date of the interest payment.
The Company designated these swaps as fair value hedges.
The fair value of the swaps at inception were zero and subsequent changes in the fair value of the interest rate swaps were reflected in the carrying value of the interest rate swaps on the balance sheet.
The carrying value of the debt on the balance sheet was adjusted by an equal and offsetting amount.
The gain or loss on the hedged item (that is fixedrate borrowings) attributable to the hedged benchmark interest rate risk and the offsetting gain or loss on the related interest rate swaps as of October 31, 2009 is as follows:
## Table 0 ##
The amounts earned and owed under the swap agreements are accrued each period and are reported in interest expense.
There was no ineffectiveness recognized in any of the periods presented.
The market risk associated with the Company’s derivative instruments results from currency exchange rate or interest rate movements that are expected to offset the market risk of the underlying transactions, assets and liabilities being hedged.
The counterparties to the agreements relating to the Company’s derivative instruments consist of a number of major international financial institutions with high credit ratings.
The Company does not believe that there is significant risk of nonperformance by these counterparties because the Company continually monitors the credit ratings of such counterparties.
Furthermore, none of the Company’s derivative transactions are subject to collateral or other security arrangements and none contain provisions that are dependent on the Company’s credit ratings from any credit rating agency.
While the contract or notional amounts of derivative financial instruments provide one measure of the volume of these transactions, they do not represent the amount of the Company’s exposure to credit risk.
The amounts potentially subject to credit risk (arising from the possible inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts) are generally limited to the amounts, if any, by which the counterparties’ obligations under the contracts exceed the obligations of the Company to the counterparties.
As a result of the above considerations, the Company does not consider the risk of counterparty default to be significant.
The Company records the fair value of its derivative financial instruments in the consolidated financial statements in other current assets, other assets or accrued liabilities, depending on their net position, regardless of the purpose or intent for holding the derivative contract.
Changes in the fair value of the derivative financial instruments are either recognized periodically in earnings or in shareholders’ equity as a component of OCI.
Changes in the fair value of cash flow hedges are recorded in OCI and reclassified into earnings when the underlying contract matures.
Changes in the fair values of derivatives not qualifying for hedge accounting are reported in earnings as they occur.
The total notional amount of derivative instruments designated as hedging instruments as of October 31, 2009 is as follows: $375 million of interest rate swap agreements accounted as fair value hedges, and $128.0 million of
tracts of $6.2 billion, commitments to purchase securities of $7.9 billion and commitments to purchase loans of $14.3 billion.
The most significant of our vendor contracts include communication services, processing services and software contracts.
Other long-term liabilities include our contractual funding obligations related to the Qualified Pension Plans, Nonqualified Pension Plans and Postretirement Health and Life Plans (the Plans).
Obligations to the Plans are based on the current and projected obligations of the Plans, performance of the Plans’ assets and any participant contributions, if applicable.
During 2008 and 2007, we contributed $1.6 billion and $243 million to the Plans, and we expect to make at least $229 million of contributions during 2009.
The following table does not include UTBs of $3.5 billion associated with FIN 48 and tax-related interest and penalties of $677 million.
Debt, lease, equity and other obligations are more fully discussed in Note 12 – Short-term Borrowings and Long-term Debt and Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The Plans and UTBs are more fully discussed in Note 16 – Employee Benefit Plans and Note 18 – Income Taxes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Table 9 presents total long-term debt and other obligations at December 31, 2008.
Many of our lending relationships contain funded and unfunded elements.
The funded portion is reflected on our balance sheet.
For lending relationships carried at historical cost, the unfunded component of these commitments is not recorded on our balance sheet until a draw is made under the credit facility; however, a reserve is established for probable losses.
For lending commitments for which we have elected to account for under SFAS 159, the fair value of the commitment is recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities.
For more information on these commitments and guarantees, including equity commitments, see Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
For more information on the adoption of SFAS 159, see Note 19 – Fair Value Disclosures to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
We enter into commitments to extend credit such as loan commitments, SBLCs and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of our customers.
For a summary of the total unfunded, or off-balance sheet, credit extension commitment amounts by expiration date, see the table in Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Other Commitments We provided support to cash funds managed within GWIM by purchasing certain assets at fair value and by committing to provide a limited amount of capital to the funds.
For more information, see Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Fair Values of Level 3 Assets and Liabilities Financial assets and liabilities whose values are based on prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both unobservable and are significant to the overall fair value measurement are classified as Level 3 under the fair value hierarchy established in SFAS 157.
The Level 3 financial assets and liabilities include private equity investments, consumer MSRs, ABS, highly structured, complex or long-dated derivative contracts and certain CDOs, for which there is not an active market for identical assets from which to determine fair value or where sufficient, current market information about similar assets to use as observable, corroborated data for all significant inputs into a valuation model is not available.
In these cases, the fair values of these Level 3 financial assets and liabilities are determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, a net asset value approach for certain structured securities, or similar techniques, for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation.
Valuations of products using models or other techniques are sensitive to assumptions used for the significant inputs.
Where market data is available, the inputs used for valuation reflect that information as of our valuation date.
Inputs to valuation models are considered unobservable if they are supported by little or no market activity.
In periods of extreme volatility, lessened liquidity or in illiquid markets, there may be more variability in market pricing or a lack of market data to use in the valuation process.
An illiquid market is one in which little or no observable activity has occurred or one that lacks willing buyers or willing sellers.
Fair value adjustments include adjustments for counterparties’ credit risk as well as our own credit risk and liquidity as appropriate, to determine a fair value measurement.
Judgment is then applied in formulating those inputs.
Our valuation risk, however, is mitigated through valuation adjustments for particular inputs, performance of stress testing of those inputs to understand the impact that varying assumptions may have on the valuation and other review processes performed to ensure appropriate valuation.
For example, at December 31, 2008, classified within Level 3 are $2.4 billion of AFS debt securities, $887 million of trading account assets and $934 million of net derivative assets associated with our CDO exposure.
Substantially all of these AFS debt securities were acquired as a result of our liquidity obligations to certain CDOs.
For more information regarding our CDO exposure, the types of assets underlying these exposures (e. g. , percentage of subprime assets and vintages) and related valuation techniques see our CDO exposure discussion on page 41.
Consumer MSRs are also included in Level 3 assets as valuing these MSRs requires significant management judgment and estimation.
The Corporation uses an option-adjusted spread (OAS) valuation approach to determine the fair value of MSRs which factors in prepayment risk.
This approach consists of projecting servicing cash flows under multiple inter
## Table 1 ##
(1) Obligations that are legally binding agreements whereby we agree to purchase products or services with a specific minimum quantity defined at a fixed, minimum or variable price over a specified period of time are defined as purchase obligations
Table 32 Net Credit Default Protection by Credit Exposure Debt Rating (1)
## Table 2 ##
(1) In order to mitigate the cost of purchasing credit protection, credit exposure can be added by selling credit protection.
The distribution of debt rating for net notional credit default protection purchased is shown as a negative and the net notional credit protection sold is shown as a positive amount.
(2) The Corporation considers ratings of BBB- or higher to meet the definition of investment grade.
(3) In addition to names which have not been rated, “NR” includes $948 million and $550 million in net credit default swaps index positions at December 31, 2008 and 2007.
While index positions are principally investment grade, credit default swaps indices include names in and across each of the ratings categories.
In addition to our net notional credit default protection purchased to cover the funded and unfunded portion of certain credit exposures, credit derivatives are used for market-making activities for clients and establishing proprietary positions intended to profit from directional or relative value changes.
We execute the majority of our credit derivative positions in the over-the-counter market with large, international financial institutions, including broker/dealers and to a lesser degree with a variety of other investors.
Because these transactions are executed in the over-the-counter market, we are subject to settlement risk.
We are also subject to credit risk in the event that these counterparties fail to perform under the terms of these contracts.
In most cases, credit derivative transactions are executed on a daily margin basis.
Therefore, events such as a credit downgrade (depending on the ultimate rating level) or a breach of credit covenants would typically require an increase in the amount of collateral required of the counterparty (where applicable), and/or allow us to take additional protective measures such as early termination of all trades.
Further, we enter into legally enforceable master netting agreements which reduce risk by permitting the closeout and netting of transactions with the same counterparty upon the occurrence of certain The notional amounts presented in Table 33 represent the total contract/notional amount of credit derivatives outstanding and includes both purchased and written protection.
The credit risk amounts are measured as the net replacement cost in the event the counterparties with contracts in a gain position to us fail to perform under the terms of those contracts.
We use the current mark-to-market value to represent credit exposure without giving consideration to future mark-to-market changes.
The credit risk amounts take into consideration the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements, and on an aggregate basis have been reduced by cash collateral applied against derivative assets.
The significant increase in credit spreads across nearly all major credit indices during 2008 drove the increase in counterparty credit risk for purchased protection.
The $1.0 trillion decrease in the contract/ notional value of credit derivatives was driven by our continued efforts to reduce aggregate positions to minimize market and operational risk.
For information on the performance risk of our written protection credit derivatives, see Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
## Table 3 ##
(1) Does not reflect any potential benefit from offsetting exposure to non-credit derivative products with the same counterparties that may be netted upon the occurrence of certain events, thereby reducing the Corporation’s overall exposure.
$47 million to $1.1 billion.
This is down from $459 million to $1.5 billion for the hypothetical scenarios for the 12 months ended December 31, 2007.
The results of these stress tests point to a decrease in risk taken during the 12 months ended December 31, 2008.
The acquisition of Merrill Lynch on January 1, 2009 increased our trading-related activities and exposure.
As such, during 2009 we will continue to refine the VAR calculations and develop a set of stress scenarios that will be regularly produced across the combined company for purposes of managing our overall risk profile.
As of January 1, 2009, we estimate that the VAR of the combined organizations would have been $274 million as compared to $138 million for the Corporation.
The combination of VAR measurements is not additive as there are both correlation and diversification effects that impact the results.
For stress testing, Merrill Lynch used similar shocks for hypothetical scenarios and as of January 1, 2009, we estimate that the combined largest loss among the hypothetical scenarios would have been $774 million.
Among the historical scenarios, comparable shocks were used to reflect the ongoing credit crisis related to the credit market disruptions, which had previously exhibited the largest loss among all historical scenarios at the Corporation.
As of January 1, 2009, we estimate that the combined loss from the historical credit crisis scenario would have been $1.1 billion.
For the Corporation, the loss from the historical credit crisis scenario would have been $579 million.
Interest Rate Risk Management for Nontrading Activities Interest rate risk represents the most significant market risk exposure to our nontrading exposures.
Our overall goal is to manage interest rate risk so that movements in interest rates do not adversely affect core net interest income – managed basis.
Interest rate risk is measured as the potential volatility in our core net interest income – managed basis caused by changes in market interest rates.
Client facing activities, primarily lending and deposit-taking, create interest rate sensitive positions on our balance sheet.
Interest rate risk from these activities, as well as the impact of changing market conditions, is managed through our ALM Simulations are used to estimate the impact on core net interest income – managed basis using numerous interest rate scenarios, balance sheet trends and strategies.
These simulations evaluate how these scenarios impact core net interest income – managed basis on short-term financial instruments, debt securities, loans, deposits, borrowings, and derivative instruments.
In addition, these simulations incorporate assumptions about balance sheet dynamics such as loan and deposit growth and pricing, changes in funding mix, and asset and liability repricing and maturity characteristics.
These simulations do not include the impact of hedge ineffectiveness.
Management analyzes core net interest income – managed basis forecasts utilizing different rate scenarios, with the base case utilizing the forward interest rates.
Management frequently updates the core net interest income – managed basis forecast for changing assumptions and differing outlooks based on economic trends and market conditions.
Thus, we continually monitor our balance sheet position in an effort to maintain an acceptable level of exposure to interest rate changes.
We prepare forward-looking forecasts of core net interest income – managed basis.
These baseline forecasts take into consideration expected future business growth, ALM positioning, and the direction of interest rate movements as implied by forward interest rates.
We then measure and evaluate the impact that alternative interest rate scenarios have to these static baseline forecasts in order to assess interest rate sensitivity under varied conditions.
The spot and 12-month forward monthly rates used in our respective baseline forecasts at December 31, 2008 and 2007 are shown in Table 40.
At December 31, 2008, the spread between the three-month LIBOR rate and the Federal Funds target rate had significantly widened since December 31, 2007.
We are typically asset sensitive to Federal Funds and Prime rates, and liability sensitive to LIBOR.
As the Federal Funds and LIBOR dislocation widens, the benefit to net interest income from lower rates is limited.
Subsequent to December 31, 2008, the spread between the three-month LIBOR rate and the Federal Funds target rate has narrowed.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>Income Statement Classification</td><td>Gain/(Loss) on   Swaps</td><td>Gain/(Loss)   on Note</td><td>Net Income   Effect</td></tr><tr><td>Other income</td><td>$6,109</td><td>$-6,109</td><td>$—</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5"> December 31, 2008</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> Due in 1 year or less</td><td> Due after 1 year through 3 years</td><td> Due after 3 years through 5 years</td><td> Due after 5 years</td><td> Total</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt and capital leases</td><td>$42,882</td><td>$76,433</td><td>$49,471</td><td>$99,506</td><td>$268,292</td></tr><tr><td>Purchase obligations<sup>-1</sup></td><td>19,326</td><td>7,743</td><td>1,198</td><td>144</td><td>28,411</td></tr><tr><td>Operating lease obligations</td><td>2,316</td><td>3,829</td><td>2,701</td><td>8,320</td><td>17,166</td></tr><tr><td>Other long-term liabilities</td><td>395</td><td>779</td><td>516</td><td>532</td><td>2,222</td></tr><tr><td> Total long-term debt and other obligations</td><td>$64,919</td><td>$88,784</td><td>$53,886</td><td>$108,502</td><td>$316,091</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td colspan="4">December 31</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2008</td><td colspan="2">2007</td></tr><tr><td>Ratings<sup>-2</sup></td><td>Net Notional</td><td>Percent</td><td>Net Notional</td><td>Percent</td></tr><tr><td>AAA</td><td>$30</td><td>-0.3%</td><td>$-13</td><td>0.2%</td></tr><tr><td>AA</td><td>-103</td><td>1.1</td><td>-92</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td>-2,800</td><td>29.0</td><td>-2,408</td><td>33.7</td></tr><tr><td>BBB</td><td>-4,856</td><td>50.2</td><td>-3,328</td><td>46.6</td></tr><tr><td>BB</td><td>-1,948</td><td>20.2</td><td>-1,524</td><td>21.3</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>-579</td><td>6.0</td><td>-180</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>CCC and below</td><td>-278</td><td>2.9</td><td>-75</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>NR<sup>-3</sup></td><td>880</td><td>-9.1</td><td>474</td><td>-6.6</td></tr><tr><td> Total net credit default protection</td><td>$-9,654</td><td>100.0%</td><td>$-7,146</td><td>100.0%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> December 31</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> 2008</td><td colspan="2">2007</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> Contract/Notional</td><td> Credit Risk<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Contract/Notional</td><td>Credit Risk<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Credit derivatives</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td> Purchased protection:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit default swaps</td><td>$1,025,876</td><td>$11,772</td><td>$1,490,641</td><td>$6,822</td></tr><tr><td>Total return swaps</td><td>6,575</td><td>1,678</td><td>13,551</td><td>671</td></tr><tr><td> Total purchased protection</td><td>1,032,451</td><td>13,450</td><td>1,504,192</td><td>7,493</td></tr><tr><td> Written protection:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit default swaps</td><td>1,000,034</td><td>–</td><td>1,517,305</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Total return swaps</td><td>6,203</td><td>–</td><td>24,884</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Total written protection</td><td>1,006,237</td><td>–</td><td>1,542,189</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Total credit derivatives</td><td>$2,038,688</td><td>$13,450</td><td>$3,046,381</td><td>$7,493</td></tr></table>

Question: What's the average of the Total net credit default protection in the years where AAA is positive? (in million)
Answer: 1206.75
Reasoning program: divide(9654,const_8)