BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued) Note 4—Trading Account Assets and Liabilities The Corporation engages in a variety of trading-related activities that are either for clients or its own account.
The following table presents the fair values of the components of Trading Account Assets and Liabilities at December 31, 2005 and 2004.
## Table 0 ##
(1) Includes $22.1 billion and $17.3 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004 of government-sponsored enterprise obligations that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S.  government.
(2) Includes $1.4 billion and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004 of government-sponsored enterprise obligations that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S.  government.
Note 5—Derivatives The Corporation designates a derivative as held for trading, an economic hedge not designated as a SFAS 133 hedge, or a qualifying SFAS 133 hedge when it enters into the derivative contract.
The designation may change based upon management’s reassessment or changing circumstances.
Derivatives utilized by the Corporation include swaps, financial futures and forward settlement contracts, and option contracts.
A swap agreement is a contract between two parties to exchange cash flows based on specified underlying notional amounts, assets and/or indices.
Financial futures and forward settlement contracts are agreements to buy or sell a quantity of a financial instrument, index, currency or commodity at a predetermined future date, and rate or price.
An option contract is an agreement that conveys to the purchaser the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a quantity of a financial instrument (including another derivative financial instrument), index, currency or commodity at a predetermined rate or price during a period or at a time in the future.
Option agreements can be transacted on organized exchanges or directly between parties.
The Corporation also provides credit derivatives to customers who wish to increase or decrease credit exposures.
In addition, the Corporation utilizes credit derivatives to manage the credit risk associated with the loan portfolio.
Credit Risk Associated with Derivative Activities Credit risk associated with derivatives is measured as the net replacement cost in the event the counterparties with contracts in a gain position to the Corporation completely fail to perform under the terms of those contracts.
In managing derivative credit risk, both the current exposure, which is the replacement cost of contracts on the measurement date, as well as an estimate of the potential change in value of contracts over their remaining lives are considered.
The Corporation’s derivative activities are primarily with financial institutions and corporations.
To minimize credit risk, the Corporation enters into legally enforceable master netting agreements, which reduce risk by permitting the closeout and netting of transactions with the same counterparty upon occurrence of certain events.
In addition, the Corporation reduces credit risk by obtaining collateral from counterparties.
The determination of the need for and the levels of collateral will vary based on an assessment of the credit risk of the counterparty.
Generally, the Corporation accepts collateral in the form of cash, U. S.  Treasury securities and other marketable securities.
The Corporation held $24.9 billion of collateral on derivative positions, of which $17.1 billion could be applied against credit risk at December 31, 2005.
Credit card loans are generally charged off at 180 days past due or 60 days from notification of bankruptcy filing and are not classified as nonperforming.
Unsecured consumer loans and deficiencies in non-real estate secured loans and leases are charged off at 120 days past due and are generally not classified as nonperforming.
Real estate secured consumer loans are placed on nonaccrual and are classified as nonperforming no later than 90 days past due.
The amount deemed uncollectible on real estate secured loans is charged off at 180 days past due.
Table 9 presents consumer net charge-offs and net charge-off ratios on the held portfolio for 2005 and 2004.
Table 9 Consumer Net Charge-offs and Net Charge-off Ratios(1)
## Table 1 ##
(1) Percentage amounts are calculated as net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans and leases during the year for each loan category.
As presented in Table 9, consumer net charge-offs from on-balance sheet loans increased $1.5 billion to $4.2 billion in 2005.
Of these increased amounts, $1.3 billion was related to credit card net charge-offs.
Higher credit card net charge-offs were driven by an increase in bankruptcy net charge-offs of $578 million resulting from changes in bankruptcy legislation, organic portfolio growth and seasoning, increases effective in 2004 in credit card minimum payment requirements, the impact of the FleetBoston portfolio and new advances on accounts for which previous loan balances were sold to the securitization trusts.
The increase in direct/indirect consumer charge-offs was driven primarily by the growth and seasoning of the auto loan portfolio.
The increase in other consumer charge-offs was primarily driven by an increase in charge-offs for checking account overdraft balances due to deposit growth and a change in the fourth quarter of 2005 in our charge-off policy for overdraft balances from 120 days to 60 days.
Net losses for the managed credit card portfolio increased $1.3 billion to $4.1 billion, or 6.92 percent of total average managed credit card loans in 2005, compared to 5.62 percent of total average managed credit card loans in 2004.
Higher managed credit card net losses were driven by an increase in bankruptcy net losses resulting from the change in bankruptcy law, continued portfolio growth and seasoning, increases effective in 2004 in credit card minimum payment requirements and the impact of the FleetBoston portfolio.
As presented in Table 10, nonperforming consumer assets increased $39 million from December 31, 2004 to $846 million at December 31, 2005.
The increase was due to a $47 million increase in nonperforming consumer loans and leases to $785 million, representing 0.22 percent of outstanding consumer loans and leases at December 31, 2005 compared to $738 million, representing 0.23 percent of outstanding consumer loans and leases at December 31, 2004.
Nonperforming residential mortgages increased $16 million primarily due to modest portfolio growth, partially offset by sales of $112 million in 2005.
Nonperforming home equity lines increased $51 million due to the seasoning of the portfolio.
Other consumer nonperforming loans and leases fell $24 million due to the continued liquidation of the portfolios in our previously exited consumer businesses and a decline in foreign nonperforming loans and leases.
Broadbased loan growth offset the increase in nonperforming consumer loans resulting in an improvement in the nonperforming ratios.
Nonperforming residential mortgage loans decreased $1.7 billion compared to December 31, 2010 as outflows outpaced new inflows, which continued to slow in 2011 due to favorable delinquency trends.
Accruing loans past due 30 days or more decreased $1.2 billion to $4.0 billion at December 31, 2011.
At December 31, 2011, $11.4 billion, or 71 percent, of the nonperforming residential mortgage loans were 180 days or more past due and had been written down to the estimated fair value of the collateral less estimated costs to sell.
Net charge-offs increased $162 million to $3.8 billion in 2011, or 2.27 percent of total average residential mortgage loans, compared to 1.86 percent for 2010.
This increase in net charge-offs for 2011 was primarily driven by further deterioration in home prices on loans greater than 180 days past due which were written down to the estimated fair value of the collateral less estimated costs to sell, partially offset by favorable delinquency trends.
Net charge-off ratios were further impacted by lower loan balances primarily due to paydowns and charge-offs outpacing new originations.
Loans in the residential mortgage portfolio with certain characteristics have greater risk of loss than others.
These characteristics include loans with a high refreshed LTV, loans originated at the peak of home prices in 2006 and 2007, interestonly loans and loans to borrowers located in California and Florida where we have concentrations and where significant declines in home prices have been experienced.
Although the following disclosures address each of these risk characteristics separately, there is significant overlap in loans with these characteristics, which contributed to a disproportionate share of the losses in the portfolio.
The residential mortgage loans with all of these higher risk characteristics comprised six percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both December 31, 2011 and 2010, but accounted for 23 percent of the residential mortgage net chargeoffs in 2011 and 26 percent in 2010.
Residential mortgage loans with a greater than 90 percent but less than 100 percent refreshed LTV represented 11 percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both December 31, 2011 and 2010.
Loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent represented 26 percent and 24 percent of the residential mortgage loan portfolio at December 31, 2011 and 2010.
Of the loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent, 92 percent and 88 percent were performing at December 31, 2011 and 2010.
Loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent reflect loans where the outstanding carrying value of the loan is greater than the most recent valuation of the property securing the loan.
The majority of these loans have a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent due primarily to home price deterioration over the past several years.
Loans to borrowers with refreshed FICO scores below 620 represented 15 percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both December 31, 2011 and 2010.
Of the $158.5 billion and $180.1 billion in total residential mortgage loans outstanding at December 31, 2011 and 2010, as shown in Table 24, 40 percent and 38 percent were originated as interest-only loans.
The outstanding balance of interest-only residential mortgage loans that have entered the amortization period was $13.3 billion, or 21 percent, at December 31, 2011.
Residential mortgage loans that have entered the amortization period have experienced a higher rate of early stage delinquencies and nonperforming status compared to the residential mortgage portfolio as a whole.
As of December 31, 2011, $484 million, or four percent, of outstanding residential mortgages that had entered the amortization period were accruing past due 30 days or more compared to $4.0 billion, or two percent, of accruing past due 30 days or more for the entire residential mortgage portfolio.
In addition, at December 31, 2011, $2.0 billion, or 15 percent, of outstanding residential mortgages that had entered the amortization period were nonperforming compared to $16.0 billion, or 10 percent, of nonperforming loans for the entire residential mortgage portfolio.
Loans in our interest-only residential mortgage portfolio have an interest-only period of three to 10 years and more than 80 percent of these loans will not be required to make a fully-amortizing payment until 2015 or later.
Table 25 presents outstandings, nonperforming loans and net charge-offs by certain state concentrations for the residential mortgage portfolio.
The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) within California represented 12 percent and 13 percent of outstandings at December 31, 2011 and 2010, but comprised only seven percent of net charge-offs for both 2011 and 2010.
## Table 2 ##
(1) Outstandings and nonperforming amounts exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option at December 31, 2011.
There were no residential mortgage loans accounted for under the fair value option at December 31, 2010.
See Note 23 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option.
(2) Amount excludes the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage and fully-insured loan portfolios.
Third-party sales for the Engineered Products and Solutions segment improved 7% in 2016 compared with 2015, primarily attributable to higher third-party sales of the two acquired businesses ($457), primarily related to the aerospace end market, and increased demand from the industrial gas turbine end market, partially offset by lower volumes in the oil and gas end market and commercial transportation end market as well as pricing pressures in aerospace.
Third-party sales for this segment improved 27% in 2015 compared with 2014, largely attributable to the third-party sales ($1,310) of the three acquired businesses (see above), and higher volumes in this segment’s legacy businesses, both of which were primarily related to the aerospace end market.
These positive impacts were slightly offset by unfavorable foreign currency movements, principally driven by a weaker euro.
ATOI for the Engineered Products and Solutions segment increased $47, or 8%, in 2016 compared with 2015, primarily related to net productivity improvements across all businesses as well as the volume increase from both the RTI acquisition and organic revenue growth, partially offset by a lower margin product mix and pricing pressures in the aerospace end market.
ATOI for this segment increased $16, or 3%, in 2015 compared with 2014, principally the result of net productivity improvements across most businesses, a positive contribution from acquisitions, and overall higher volumes in this segment’s legacy businesses.
These positive impacts were partially offset by unfavorable price and product mix, higher costs related to growth projects, and net unfavorable foreign currency movements, primarily related to a weaker euro.
In 2017, demand in the commercial aerospace end market is expected to remain strong, driven by the ramp up of new aerospace engine platforms, somewhat offset by continued customer destocking and engine ramp-up challenges.
Demand in the defense end market is expected to grow due to the continuing ramp-up of certain aerospace programs.
Additionally, net productivity improvements are anticipated while pricing pressure across all markets is likely to continue.
Transportation and Construction Solutions
## Table 3 ##
The Transportation and Construction Solutions segment produces products that are used mostly in the nonresidential building and construction and commercial transportation end markets.
Such products include integrated aluminum structural systems, architectural extrusions, and forged aluminum commercial vehicle wheels, which are sold both directly to customers and through distributors.
A small part of this segment also produces aluminum products for the industrial products end market.
Generally, the sales and costs and expenses of this segment are transacted in the local currency of the respective operations, which are primarily the U. S.  dollar, the euro, and the Brazilian real.
Third-party sales for the Transportation and Construction Solutions segment decreased 4% in 2016 compared with 2015, primarily driven by lower demand from the North American commercial transportation end market, which was partially offset by rising demand from the building and construction end market.
Third-party sales for this segment decreased 7% in 2015 compared with 2014, primarily driven by unfavorable foreign currency movements, principally caused by a weaker euro and Brazilian real, and lower volume related to the building and construction end market, somewhat offset by higher volume related to the commercial transportation end market.
ATOI for the Transportation and Construction Solutions segment increased $10, or 6%, in 2016 compared with 2015, principally driven by net productivity improvements across all businesses and growth in the building and construction segment, partially offset by lower demand in the North American heavy duty truck and Brazilian markets.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> December 31 </td></tr><tr><td> (Dollars in millions)</td><td> 2005 </td><td>2004 </td></tr><tr><td> Trading account assets</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate securities, trading loans and other</td><td>$46,554</td><td>$35,227</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and agency securities<sup>-1</sup></td><td>31,091</td><td>20,462</td></tr><tr><td>Equity securities</td><td>31,029</td><td>19,504</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage trading loans and asset-backed securities</td><td>12,290</td><td>9,625</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign sovereign debt</td><td>10,743</td><td>8,769</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$131,707</td><td>$93,587</td></tr><tr><td> Trading account liabilities</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and agency securities<sup>-2</sup></td><td>$23,179</td><td>$14,332</td></tr><tr><td>Equity securities</td><td>11,371</td><td>8,952</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign sovereign debt</td><td>8,915</td><td>4,793</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate securities and other</td><td>7,407</td><td>8,538</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage trading loans and asset-backed securities</td><td>18</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$50,890</td><td>$36,654</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2005</td><td colspan="2">2004(Restated)</td></tr><tr><td> (Dollars in millions)</td><td> Amount </td><td>Percent</td><td>Amount </td><td>Percent </td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgage</td><td>$27</td><td>0.02%</td><td>$36</td><td>0.02%</td></tr><tr><td>Credit card</td><td>3,652</td><td>6.76</td><td>2,305</td><td>5.31</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines</td><td>31</td><td>0.05</td><td>15</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Direct/Indirect consumer</td><td>248</td><td>0.55</td><td>208</td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>Other consumer</td><td>275</td><td>3.99</td><td>193</td><td>2.51</td></tr><tr><td> Total consumer</td><td>$4,233</td><td>1.26%</td><td>$2,757</td><td>0.93%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Table 25</td><td colspan="6">Residential Mortgage State Concentrations</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">December 31</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Outstandings<sup>-1</sup></td><td colspan="2">Nonperforming<sup>-1</sup></td><td colspan="2">Net Charge-offs</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td>California</td><td>$54,203</td><td>$63,677</td><td>$5,606</td><td>$6,389</td><td>$1,326</td><td>$1,392</td></tr><tr><td>Florida</td><td>12,338</td><td>13,298</td><td>1,900</td><td>2,054</td><td>595</td><td>604</td></tr><tr><td>New York</td><td>11,539</td><td>12,198</td><td>838</td><td>772</td><td>106</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td>7,525</td><td>8,466</td><td>425</td><td>492</td><td>55</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia</td><td>5,709</td><td>6,441</td><td>399</td><td>450</td><td>64</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Other U.S./Non-U.S.</td><td>67,156</td><td>76,056</td><td>6,802</td><td>7,534</td><td>1,686</td><td>1,506</td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgage loans<sup>-2</sup></td><td>$158,470</td><td>$180,136</td><td>$15,970</td><td>$17,691</td><td>$3,832</td><td>$3,670</td></tr><tr><td>Fully-insured loan portfolio</td><td>93,854</td><td>67,245</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Countrywide purchased credit-impaired residential mortgage loan portfolio</td><td>9,966</td><td>10,592</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total residential mortgage loan portfolio</td><td>$262,290</td><td>$257,973</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Third-party sales</td><td>$1,802</td><td>$1,882</td><td>$2,021</td></tr><tr><td>ATOI</td><td>$176</td><td>$166</td><td>$180</td></tr></table>

Question: In the year with the most Residential mortgage loans, what is the growth rate of Total residential mortgage loan portfolio?
Answer: 0.01673
Reasoning program: subtract(262290,257973), divide(#0,257973)