American International Group, Inc. , and Subsidiaries Foreign Life Insurance & Retirement Services Sales and Deposits* First year premium, single premium and annuity deposits for Foreign Life Insurance & Retirement Services were as follows:
## Table 0 ##
* Excludes operations in Brazil.2008 and 2007 Comparison First year premium sales in 2008 declined compared to 2007 primarily due to decreases in life insurance and personal accident sales.
In Japan, life insurance sales were lower due to reduced levels of increasing term sales and lower sales in the fourth quarter of 2008 related to AIG’s liquidity issues.
Also in Japan, personal accident sales declined in the direct marketing distribution channel due to lower response rates resulting from market saturation.
In Taiwan, regular premium life insurance sales declined due to a shift in sales to investment-linked and variable annuity products.
These declines were partially offset by increases in group products sales, particularly in Japan, Australia and the Middle East.
Single premium sales in 2008 declined compared to 2007 primarily due to lower guaranteed income bond deposits in the U. K.  which fell as customers shifted to variable annuity products during the first three quarters of the year and which were significantly negatively affected in the fourth quarter by AIG’s liquidity issues.
Single premium sales in Asia also dropped as customers became concerned about declining equity markets, particularly in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and China.
A new single premium personal accident and health product launched in Japan during the first quarter of 2008 continues to perform well and sales, which started through banks, are being expanded to the agency channels.
Annuity deposits decreased in 2008 compared to 2007 as the decline in individual variable annuity deposits more than offset the increase in individual fixed annuity deposits.
Investment-linked deposits in the U. K.  decreased significantly in the fourth quarter of 2008 due to the AIG liquidity issues.
Individual variable annuity deposits in Taiwan increased in 2008 compared to 2007 due to the launch of a new variable annuity product.
In Japan, individual fixed annuity deposits increased in 2008 compared to 2007 due primarily to a favorable exchange rate environment for non-yen denominated products.
However, AIG’s liquidity issues and the planned disposition of AIG’s Japan life operations negatively affected deposits in the fourth quarter of 2008 as banks suspended the distribution of AIG products.
While some banks in Japan have resumed sales of annuity products, most have not.
AIG has, therefore, increased sales of annuity deposits through agents.2007 and 2006 Comparison First year premium sales in 2007 increased compared to 2006 in both U. S.  dollar terms and original currency primarily due to strong investment-oriented product sales in Southeast Asia.
This increase was partially offset by declines in Japan resulting from the suspension of increasing term sales and lower personal accident production resulting from changes in local tax regulations.
Single premium sales in 2007 increased dramatically compared to 2006, driven primarily by guaranteed income bond sales in the U. K.  and investment-oriented product sales in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Annuity deposits declined in 2007 compared to 2006.
Individual fixed annuity deposits were negatively affected by an unfavorable exchange rate environment and a shift to variable annuity products.
Individual variable annuity deposits declined in 2007 compared to 2006 in both Europe and Japan.
In Europe, lower deposits reflected the effect of tax law changes that reduced tax benefits to policyholders.
In Japan, lower sales resulted from increased
American International Group, Inc. , and Subsidiaries ?
Approximately $379 million relates to the decline in fair value of a transaction in the regulatory capital portfolio where AIGFP no longer believes the credit default swap is used by the counterparty to obtain regulatory capital relief.
See Critical Accounting Estimates — Valuation of Level 3 Assets and Liabilities and Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of AIGFP’s super senior credit default swap portfolio.
During 2008, AIGFP recognized a loss of $888 million on credit derivatives which are not included in the super senior credit default swap portfolio, compared to a net gain of $370 million in 2007.
The following table presents AIGFP’s credit valuation adjustment gains (losses) for the year ended December 31, 2008 (excluding intercompany transactions):
## Table 1 ##
* Includes super senior credit default swap portfolio Capital Markets’ operating loss for 2008 includes a loss of $9.3 billion representing the effect of changes in credit spreads on the valuation of AIGFP’s assets and liabilities, including $185 million of gains reflected in the unrealized market valuation loss on super senior credit default swaps.
Historically, AIG’s credit spreads and those on AIGFP’s assets moved in a similar fashion.
This relationship began to diverge during second quarter of 2008 and continued to diverge through the end of the year.
While AIG’s credit spreads widened significantly during 2008, the credit spreads on the ABS and CDO products, which represent a significant portion of AIGFP’s investment portfolio, widened even more.
The losses on AIGFP’s assets more than offset the net gain on its liabilities that was driven by the significant widening in AIG’s credit spreads.
The net gain on AIGFP’s liabilities was reduced by the effect of posting collateral and the early terminations of GIAs, term notes and hybrid term notes.
Included in the 2008 operating loss is the transition amount of $291 million related to the adoption of FAS 157 and FAS 159.
The most significant component of Capital Markets operating expenses is compensation.
Due to the significant losses recognized by AIGFP during 2008, the entire amount of $563 million accrued under AIGFP’s various deferred compensation plans and special incentive plan was reversed in 2008.
Total compensation expense in 2008 was $426 million including retention awards.2007 and 2006 Comparison Capital Markets reported an operating loss in 2007 compared to operating income in 2006, primarily due to fourth quarter 2007 unrealized market valuation losses related to AIGFP’s super senior credit default swap portfolio principally written on multi-sector CDOs and an other-than-temporary impairment charge on AIGFP’s investment portfolio of CDOs of ABS.
These losses were partially offset by the effect of applying hedge accounting to certain hedging activities beginning in 2007, as described below, and net unrealized market gains related to certain credit default swaps purchased against the AAA to BBB-rated risk layers on portfolios of reference obligations.
AIGFP experienced higher transaction flow in 2007 in its rate and currency products which contributed to its revenues.
Included in AIGFP’s net operating loss was a net unrealized market valuation gain of $401 million on certain credit default swaps and embedded credit derivatives in credit-linked notes in 2007.
In these transactions, AIGFP purchased protection at the AAA - to BBB-rated risk layers on portfolios of reference obligations that include multisector CDO obligations.
The following table presents the gross liability (before discount), reinsurance recoverable and net liability recorded at each year-end and the reestimation of these amounts as of December 31, 2008:
## Table 2 ##
Analysis of Consolidated Losses and Loss Expense Reserve Development Excluding Asbestos and Environmental Losses and Loss Expense Reserve Development The following table presents for each calendar year the losses and loss expense reserves and the development thereof excluding those with respect to asbestos and environmental claims.
See also Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Operating Review — General Insurance Operations — Liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense.
## Table 3 ##
American International Group, Inc. , and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued) Asia, the election more effectively aligns changes in the fair value of assets with a commensurate change in the fair value of policyholders’ liabilities.
For the single premium life products in Japan, the fair value option election allows AIG to economically hedge the inherent market risks associated with this business in an efficient and effective manner through the use of derivative instruments.
The hedging program, which was completely implemented in the third quarter of 2008, results in an accounting presentation for this business that more closely reflects the underlying economics and the way the business is managed, with the change in the fair value of derivatives and underlying assets largely offsetting the change in fair value of the policy liabilities.
AIG did not elect the fair value option for other liabilities classified in policyholder contract deposits because other contracts do not share the same contract features that created the disparity between the accounting presentation and the economic performance.
(c) Not included in the table above were losses of $44.6 billion for the year ended December 31, 2008, that were primarily due to changes in the fair value of derivatives, trading securities and certain other invested assets for which the fair value option under FAS 159 was not elected.
Included in this amount were unrealized market valuation losses of $28.6 billion for the year ended December 31, 2008, related to AIGFP’s super senior credit default swap portfolio.
Interest income and expense and dividend income on assets and liabilities elected under the fair value option are recognized and classified in the consolidated statement of income (loss) depending on the nature of the instrument and related market conventions.
For AIGFP related activity, interest, dividend income, and interest expense are included in other income.
Otherwise, interest and dividend income are included in net investment income in the consolidated statement of income (loss).
See Note 1(a) herein for additional information about AIG’s policies for recognition, measurement, and disclosure of interest and dividend income and interest expense.
During 2008, AIG recognized a gain of $84 million, attributable to the observable effect of changes in credit spreads on AIG’s own liabilities for which the fair value option was elected.
AIG calculates the effect of these credit spread changes using discounted cash flow techniques that incorporate current market interest rates, AIG’s observable credit spreads on these liabilities and other factors that mitigate the risk of nonperformance such as collateral posted.
The following table presents the difference between fair values and the aggregate contractual principal amounts of mortgage and other loans receivable and long-term debt, for which the fair value option was elected:
## Table 4 ##
At December 31, 2008, there were no mortgage and other loans receivable for which the fair value option was elected, that were 90 days or more past due and in non-accrual status.
Fair Value Information about Financial Instruments Not Measured at Fair Value FAS 107, “Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments” (FAS 107), requires disclosure of fair value information about financial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate such fair value.
FAS 107 excludes certain financial instruments, including those related to insurance contracts and lease contracts.
Information regarding the estimation of fair value for financial instruments not carried at fair value is discussed below: ?
Mortgage and other loans receivable: Fair values of loans on real estate and collateral loans were estimated for disclosure purposes using discounted cash flow calculations based upon discount rates that
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis Results of operations for 2016 include: 1) $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair values; 2) a reduction of income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $238 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of a legal entity that owned one of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants; income tax benefits as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, including a $75 million tax benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of the Vidalia purchased power agreement and a $54 million net benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of proceeds received in 2010 for the financing of Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55; and 3) a reduction in expenses of $100 million ($64 million net-of-tax) due to the effects of recording in 2016 the final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs.
See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges, see Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the income tax items, and see Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.
Net Revenue Utility Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016
## Table 5 ##
The retail electric price variance is primarily due to: ?
the implementation of formula rate plan rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017 at Entergy Arkansas and an increase in base rates effective February 24, 2016, each as approved by the APSC.
A significant portion of the base rate increase was related to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016; ?
a provision recorded in 2016 related to the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding; ?
the implementation of the transmission cost recovery factor rider at Entergy Texas, effective September 2016, and an increase in the transmission cost recovery factor rider rate, effective March 2017, as approved by the PUCT; and ?
an increase in rates at Entergy Mississippi, as approved by the MPSC, effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016.
See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate proceedings and the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.
See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="4"> Percentage Increase (Decrease)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> Years Ended December 31,</td><td colspan="2"> 2008 vs 2007</td><td colspan="2"> 2007 vs 2006</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> Original </td><td></td><td> Original </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> 2008</td><td> 2007</td><td> 2006</td><td> U.S. $</td><td> Currency</td><td> U.S. $</td><td> Currency</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="7"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>First year premium</td><td>$4,815</td><td>$5,032</td><td>$4,542</td><td>-4%</td><td>-7%</td><td>11%</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Single premium</td><td>10,738</td><td>15,905</td><td>5,283</td><td>-32</td><td>-33</td><td>201</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>Annuity deposits</td><td>17,665</td><td>19,150</td><td>21,916</td><td>-8</td><td>-9</td><td>-13</td><td>-18</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td colspan="2">Counterparty Credit Valuation Adjustment on Assets</td><td colspan="2">AIG’s Own Credit Valuation Adjustment on Liabilities</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">(In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Trading securities</td><td>$-8,928</td><td>Term notes</td><td>$248</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and other assets</td><td>-61</td><td>Hybrid term notes</td><td>646</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative assets</td><td>-1,667</td><td>GIAs</td><td>-415</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Other liabilities</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Derivative liabilities*</td><td>860</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in assets</td><td>$-10,656</td><td>Decrease in liabilities</td><td>$1,394</td></tr><tr><td>Net pre-tax decrease to other income</td><td>$-9,262</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>1998</td><td>1999</td><td>2000</td><td>2001</td><td>2002</td><td>2003</td><td>2004</td><td>2005</td><td>2006</td><td>2007</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="11"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Gross Liability, End of Year</td><td>$36,973</td><td>$37,278</td><td>$39,222</td><td>$42,629</td><td>$48,173</td><td>$53,387</td><td>$63,431</td><td>$79,279</td><td>$82,263</td><td>$87,929</td><td>$91,832</td></tr><tr><td>Reinsurance Recoverable, End of Year</td><td>10,658</td><td>10,567</td><td>12,251</td><td>15,201</td><td>17,327</td><td>15,643</td><td>14,624</td><td>19,693</td><td>17,369</td><td>16,212</td><td>16,803</td></tr><tr><td>Net Liability, End of Year</td><td>26,315</td><td>26,711</td><td>26,971</td><td>27,428</td><td>30,846</td><td>37,744</td><td>48,807</td><td>59,586</td><td>64,894</td><td>71,717</td><td>75,029</td></tr><tr><td>Reestimated Gross Liability</td><td>55,592</td><td>61,885</td><td>68,507</td><td>73,240</td><td>74,920</td><td>75,807</td><td>76,619</td><td>82,943</td><td>82,923</td><td>88,264</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Reestimated Reinsurance Recoverable</td><td>19,431</td><td>20,717</td><td>22,740</td><td>23,437</td><td>23,360</td><td>20,937</td><td>19,001</td><td>21,701</td><td>18,159</td><td>16,391</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Reestimated Net Liability</td><td>36,161</td><td>41,168</td><td>45,767</td><td>49,803</td><td>51,560</td><td>54,870</td><td>57,618</td><td>61,242</td><td>64,764</td><td>71,873</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cumulative Gross</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Redundancy/(Deficiency)</td><td>-18,619</td><td>-24,607</td><td>-29,285</td><td>-30,611</td><td>-26,747</td><td>-22,420</td><td>-13,188</td><td>-3,664</td><td>-660</td><td>-335</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> 1998</td><td> 1999</td><td> 2000</td><td> 2001</td><td> 2002</td><td> 2003</td><td> 2004</td><td> 2005</td><td> 2006</td><td> 2007</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="11"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Net Reserves Held</td><td>$24,554</td><td>$24,745</td><td>$24,829</td><td>$25,286</td><td>$28,650</td><td>$35,559</td><td>$45,742</td><td>$55,227</td><td>$60,451</td><td>$67,597</td><td>$71,062</td></tr><tr><td>Discount (in Reserves Held)</td><td>897</td><td>1,075</td><td>1,287</td><td>1,423</td><td>1,499</td><td>1,516</td><td>1,553</td><td>2,110</td><td>2,264</td><td>2,429</td><td>2,574</td></tr><tr><td>Net Reserves Held (Undiscounted)</td><td>25,451</td><td>25,820</td><td>26,116</td><td>26,709</td><td>30,149</td><td>37,075</td><td>47,295</td><td>57,337</td><td>62,715</td><td>70,026</td><td>73,636</td></tr><tr><td>Paid (Cumulative) as of:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>One year later</td><td>7,084</td><td>8,195</td><td>9,515</td><td>10,861</td><td>10,632</td><td>11,999</td><td>14,718</td><td>15,047</td><td>14,356</td><td>16,183</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Two years later</td><td>12,190</td><td>14,376</td><td>16,808</td><td>17,801</td><td>18,283</td><td>21,419</td><td>23,906</td><td>24,367</td><td>23,535</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Three years later</td><td>16,214</td><td>19,490</td><td>21,447</td><td>23,430</td><td>25,021</td><td>28,129</td><td>30,320</td><td>31,163</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Four years later</td><td>19,732</td><td>22,521</td><td>25,445</td><td>28,080</td><td>29,987</td><td>32,686</td><td>35,481</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Five years later</td><td>21,630</td><td>25,116</td><td>28,643</td><td>31,771</td><td>33,353</td><td>36,601</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Six years later</td><td>23,282</td><td>27,266</td><td>31,315</td><td>34,238</td><td>36,159</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seven years later</td><td>24,753</td><td>29,162</td><td>33,051</td><td>36,353</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eight years later</td><td>26,017</td><td>30,279</td><td>34,543</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nine years later</td><td>26,832</td><td>31,469</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ten years later</td><td>27,661</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> Fair Value at   December 31,   2008</td><td> Principal Amount   Due Upon Maturity</td><td>Difference</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(In millions)</td></tr><tr><td> Assets:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other loans receivable</td><td>$131</td><td>$244</td><td>$-113</td></tr><tr><td> Liabilities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt</td><td>$21,285</td><td>$16,827</td><td>$4,458</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Amount (In Millions)</td></tr><tr><td>2016 net revenue</td><td>$6,179</td></tr><tr><td>Retail electric price</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory credit resulting from reduction of thefederal corporate income tax rate</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>Grand Gulf recovery</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Volume/weather</td><td>-61</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>2017 net revenue</td><td>$6,318</td></tr></table>

Question: What will Gross Liability be like in 2009 if it continues to grow at the same rate as it did in 2008? (in million)
Answer: 95908.2
Reasoning program: subtract(91832,87929), divide(#0,87929), add(#1,const_1), multiply(#2,91832)