D. R.  HORTON, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) and $157.9 million as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Depreciation expense was $53.2 million, $64.3 million and $56.5 million in fiscal 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Goodwill Goodwill represents the excess of purchase price over net assets acquired.
In accordance with SFAS No.142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” the Company tests goodwill for potential impairment annually as of September 30 or more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances change that indicate the remaining balance of goodwill may not be recoverable.
In analyzing the potential impairment of goodwill, SFAS No.142 prescribes a two-step process that begins with the estimation of the fair value of the reporting units.
If the results of the first step indicate that impairment potentially exists, the second step is performed to measure the amount of the impairment, if any.
Impairment is determined to exist when the estimated fair value of goodwill is less than its carrying value.
See Note D.  Warranty Costs The Company typically provides its homebuyers a one-year comprehensive limited warranty for all parts and labor and a ten-year limited warranty for major construction defects.
Since the Company subcontracts its homebuilding work to subcontractors who typically provide it with an indemnity and a certificate of insurance prior to receiving payments for their work, claims relating to workmanship and materials are generally the primary responsibility of the subcontractors.
Warranty liabilities have been established by charging cost of sales for each home delivered.
The amounts charged are based on management’s estimate of expected warranty-related costs under all unexpired warranty obligation periods.
The Company’s warranty liability is based upon historical warranty cost experience in each market in which it operates and is adjusted as appropriate to reflect qualitative risks associated with the types of homes built and the geographic areas in which they are built.
Changes in the Company’s warranty liability were as follows:
## Table 0 ##
Insurance Claim Costs The Company has, and requires the majority of its subcontractors to have, general liability insurance (including construction defect coverage) and workers compensation insurance.
These insurance policies protect the Company against a portion of its risk of loss from claims, subject to certain self-insured retentions, deductibles and other coverage limits.
In certain states where the Company believes it is too difficult or expensive for subcontractors to obtain general liability insurance, the Company has waived its traditional subcontractor general liability insurance requirements to obtain lower bids from subcontractors.
The Company self-insures a portion of its overall risk, partially through the use of a captive insurance entity which issues a general liability policy to the Company, naming certain subcontractors as additional insureds.
The Company records expenses and liabilities related to the costs to cover its self-insured and deductible amounts under those policies and for any estimated costs of potential claims and lawsuits (including expected legal costs) in excess of its coverage limits or not covered by such policies, based on an analysis of the Company’s historical
Homebuilding Operating Margin Analysis
## Table 1 ##
Home Sales Gross Profit Gross profit from home sales decreased by 23%, to $571.3 million in 2011, from $744.0 million in 2010, and, as a percentage of home sales revenues, decreased 120 basis points, to 16.1%.
The reduction in gross profit from home sales was primarily due to the increased levels of incentives and discounts needed to sell homes in the current year, which narrowed the range between our selling prices and costs of our homes in most of our markets.
The prior year benefitted from the federal homebuyer tax credit, which created demand for our homes without the need for us to provide as many incentives and discounts.
To the extent we utilize sales incentives and price adjustments to increase the level of home closings, gross profit percentages will continue to be impacted.
Land Sales Revenue Land sales revenues decreased slightly to $7.3 million in 2011, from $7.4 million in 2010.
Fluctuations in revenues from land sales are a function of how we manage our inventory levels in various markets.
We generally purchase land and lots with the intent to build and sell homes on them; however, we occasionally purchase land that includes commercially zoned parcels which we typically sell to commercial developers, and we also sell residential lots or land parcels to manage our land and lot supply.
Land and lot sales occur at unpredictable intervals and varying degrees of profitability.
Therefore, the revenues and gross profit from land sales fluctuate from period to period.
As of September 30, 2011, we had $26.3 million of land held for sale that we expect to sell in the next twelve months.
Inventory Impairments and Land Option Cost Write-offs During fiscal 2011, when we performed our quarterly inventory impairment analyses by reviewing the performance and outlook for all of our communities, the assumptions utilized reflected our expectation of continued challenging conditions and uncertainties in the homebuilding industry and in our markets.
As we continue to evaluate the strength of the economy (measured largely in terms of job growth), the level of underlying demand for new homes and our operating performance, the level of impairments in future quarters will fluctuate and may increase.
As of September 30, 2011, we evaluated communities with a combined carrying value of $391.5 million for impairment.
The analysis of the majority of these communities assumed that sales prices in future periods will be equal to or lower than current sales order prices in each community, or in comparable communities, in order to generate an acceptable absorption rate.
For a minority of communities that we do not intend to develop or operate in current market conditions, some increases over current sales prices were assumed.
While it is difficult to determine a timeframe for a given community in the current market conditions, we estimated the remaining lives of these communities to range from six months to in excess of ten years.
In performing this analysis, we utilized a range of discount rates for communities of
increases occurred in this market.
Our overall net sales volume growth moderated in the second half of the year which we believe was due in part to the impact of increases in mortgage interest rates and higher home prices, as well as our efforts to align our sales pace with our construction activities in many of our communities.
The average price of our net sales orders increased 15% to $261,400 in 2013, from $228,200 in 2012, resulting from our ability to raise sales prices in many of our communities as demand for new homes improved and the relative supply of homes for sale declined in many of our markets.
A small increase in the average size of our homes sold was also a contributing factor.
Our sales order cancellation rate was 24% in both fiscal 2013 and 2012.
Our cancellation rates in the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2013 were 24% and 31%, respectively, which were higher than the same periods of 2012, as potential buyers adjusted to the impact of higher mortgage interest rates and home prices.
## Table 2 ##
Sales Order Backlog Our homes in backlog at September 30, 2013 increased 13% from the prior year, with more homes in backlog in most regions due to increases in net sales orders as compared with the prior year.
Homes Closed and Home Sales Revenue Fiscal Year Ended September 30
## Table 3 ##
Home Sales Revenue Revenues from home sales increased 43%, to $6,024.8 million (24,155 homes closed) in 2013 from $4,218.4 million (18,890 homes closed) in 2012.
During fiscal 2013, home sales revenues increased in all of our market regions, resulting from increases in the number of homes closed and increases in average selling prices due to favorable housing market conditions and our increased inventory investments.
The following table shows the current credit risk of derivative receivables after netting adjustments, and the current liquidity risk of derivative payables after netting adjustments, as of December 31, 2010 and 2009.
## Table 4 ##
In addition to the collateral amounts reflected in the table above, at December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Firm had received liquid securities and other cash collateral in the amount of $16.5 billion and $15.5 billion, respectively, and had posted $10.9 billion and $11.7 billion, respectively.
The Firm also receives and delivers collateral at the initiation of derivative transactions, which is available as security against potential exposure that could arise should the fair value of the transactions move in the Firm’s or client’s favor, respectively.
Furthermore, the Firm and its counterparties hold collateral related to contracts that have a non-daily call frequency for collateral to be posted, and collateral that the Firm or a counterparty has agreed to return but has not yet settled as of the reporting date.
At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Firm had received $18.0 billion and $16.9 billion, respectively, and delivered $8.4 billion and $5.8 billion, respectively, of such additional collateral.
These amounts were not netted against the derivative receivables and payables in the table above, because, at an individual counterparty level, the collateral exceeded the fair value exposure at December 31, 2010 and 2009.  Credit derivatives Credit derivatives are financial instruments whose value is derived from the credit risk associated with the debt of a third-party issuer (the reference entity) and which allow one party (the protection purchaser) to transfer that risk to another party (the protection seller).
Credit derivatives expose the protection purchaser to the creditworthiness of the protection seller, as the protection seller is required to make payments under the contract when the reference entity experiences a credit event, such as a bankruptcy, a failure to pay its obligation or a restructuring.
The seller of credit protection receives a premium for providing protection but has the risk that the underlying instrument referenced in the contract will be subject to a credit event.
The Firm is both a purchaser and seller of protection in the credit derivatives market and uses these derivatives for two primary purposes.
First, in its capacity as a market-maker in the dealer/client business, the Firm actively risk manages a portfolio of credit derivatives by purchasing and selling credit protection, predominantly on corporate debt obligations, to meet the needs of customers.
As a seller of protection, the Firm’s exposure to a given reference entity may be offset partially, or entirely, with a contract to purchase protection from another counterparty on the same or similar reference entity.
Second, the Firm uses credit derivatives to mitigate credit risk associated with its overall derivative receivables and traditional commercial credit lending exposures (loans and unfunded commitments) as well as to manage its exposure to residential and commercial mortgages.
See Note 3 on pages 170– 187 of this Annual Report for further information on the Firm’s mortgage-related exposures.
In accomplishing the above, the Firm uses different types of credit derivatives.
Following is a summary of various types of credit derivatives.
Credit default swaps Credit derivatives may reference the credit of either a single reference entity (“single-name”) or a broad-based index.
The Firm purchases and sells protection on both single- name and indexreference obligations.
Single-name CDS and index CDS contracts are OTC derivative contracts.
Single-name CDS are used to manage the default risk of a single reference entity, while index CDS contracts are used to manage the credit risk associated with the broader credit markets or credit market segments.
Like the S&P 500 and other market indices, a CDS index comprises a portfolio of CDS across many reference entities.
New series of CDS indices are periodically established with a new underlying portfolio of reference entities to reflect changes in the credit markets.
If one of the reference entities in the index experiences a credit event, then the reference entity that defaulted is removed from the index.
CDS can also be referenced against specific portfolios of reference names or against customized exposure levels based on specific client demands: for example, to provide protection against the first $1 million of realized credit losses in a $10 million portfolio of exposure.
Such structures are commonly known as tranche CDS.
For both single-name CDS contracts and index CDS contracts, upon the occurrence of a credit event, under the terms of a CDS contract neither party to the CDS contract has recourse to the reference entity.
The protection purchaser has recourse to the protection seller for the difference between the face value of the CDS contract and the fair value of the reference obligation at the time of settling the credit derivative contract, also known as the recovery value.
The protection purchaser does not need to hold the debt instrument of the underlying reference entity in order to receive amounts due under the CDS contract when a credit event occurs.
Credit-related notes A credit-related note is a funded credit derivative where the issuer of the credit-related note purchases from the note investor credit protection on a referenced entity.
Under the contract, the investor pays the issuer the par value of the note at the inception of the transaction, and in return, the issuer pays periodic payments to the investor, based on the credit risk of the referenced entity.
The issuer also repays the investor the par value of the note at maturity unless the reference entity experiences a specified credit event.
If a credit event

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">September 30,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">(In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Warranty liability, beginning of year</td><td>$116.0</td><td>$130.4</td></tr><tr><td>Warranties issued</td><td>29.3</td><td>51.0</td></tr><tr><td>Changes in liability for pre-existing warranties</td><td>-19.8</td><td>-12.3</td></tr><tr><td>Settlements made</td><td>-42.1</td><td>-53.1</td></tr><tr><td>Warranty liability, end of year</td><td>$83.4</td><td>$116.0</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Percentages of Related Revenues Fiscal Year Ended September 30,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gross profit — Home sales</td><td>16.1%</td><td></td><td>17.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Gross profit — Land/lot sales</td><td>5.5%</td><td></td><td>37.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of inventory impairments and land option cost write-offs ontotal homebuilding gross profit</td><td>-1.3%</td><td></td><td>-1.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Gross profit — Total homebuilding</td><td>14.8%</td><td></td><td>15.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Selling, general and administrative expense</td><td>13.5%</td><td></td><td>12.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense</td><td>1.4%</td><td></td><td>2.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Loss on early retirement of debt, net</td><td>0.3%</td><td></td><td>0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Other (income)</td><td>-0.2%</td><td></td><td>-0.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Income (loss) before income taxes</td><td>-0.2%</td><td></td><td>1.8%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="9">Sales Order Backlog As of September 30,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Homes in Backlog</td><td colspan="3">Value (In millions)</td><td colspan="3">Average Selling Price</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>%Change</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>%Change</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>%Change</td></tr><tr><td>East</td><td>782</td><td>663</td><td>18%</td><td>$226.3</td><td>$170.5</td><td>33%</td><td>$289,400</td><td>$257,200</td><td>13%</td></tr><tr><td>Midwest</td><td>456</td><td>425</td><td>7%</td><td>159.4</td><td>127.4</td><td>25%</td><td>349,600</td><td>299,800</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>2,810</td><td>2,209</td><td>27%</td><td>703.7</td><td>465.0</td><td>51%</td><td>250,400</td><td>210,500</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>South Central</td><td>2,697</td><td>2,232</td><td>21%</td><td>595.8</td><td>433.5</td><td>37%</td><td>220,900</td><td>194,200</td><td>14%</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>475</td><td>699</td><td>-32%</td><td>96.1</td><td>134.9</td><td>-29%</td><td>202,300</td><td>193,000</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>West</td><td>985</td><td>1,012</td><td>-3%</td><td>428.8</td><td>336.6</td><td>27%</td><td>435,300</td><td>332,600</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>8,205</td><td>7,240</td><td>13%</td><td>$2,210.1</td><td>$1,667.9</td><td>33%</td><td>$269,400</td><td>$230,400</td><td>17%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="9">Homes Closed and Home Sales Revenue Fiscal Year Ended September 30,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Homes Closed</td><td colspan="3">Value (In millions)</td><td colspan="3">Average Selling Price</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>%Change</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>%Change</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>%Change</td></tr><tr><td>East</td><td>2,505</td><td>2,187</td><td>15%</td><td>$667.8</td><td>$542.4</td><td>23%</td><td>$266,600</td><td>$248,000</td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td>Midwest</td><td>1,449</td><td>1,164</td><td>24%</td><td>471.3</td><td>339.3</td><td>39%</td><td>325,300</td><td>291,500</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>6,807</td><td>4,682</td><td>45%</td><td>1,520.4</td><td>930.7</td><td>63%</td><td>223,400</td><td>198,800</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>South Central</td><td>7,609</td><td>6,300</td><td>21%</td><td>1,520.8</td><td>1,158.4</td><td>31%</td><td>199,900</td><td>183,900</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>1,605</td><td>1,442</td><td>11%</td><td>327.7</td><td>269.4</td><td>22%</td><td>204,200</td><td>186,800</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>West</td><td>4,180</td><td>3,115</td><td>34%</td><td>1,516.8</td><td>978.2</td><td>55%</td><td>362,900</td><td>314,000</td><td>16%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>24,155</td><td>18,890</td><td>28%</td><td>$6,024.8</td><td>$4,218.4</td><td>43%</td><td>$249,400</td><td>$223,300</td><td>12%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Derivative receivables</td><td>Derivative payables</td></tr><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td>Gross derivative fair value</td><td>$1,529,412</td><td>$1,565,518</td><td>$1,485,109</td><td>$1,519,183</td></tr><tr><td>Netting adjustment –offsettingreceivables/payables</td><td>-1,376,969</td><td>-1,419,840</td><td>-1,376,969</td><td>-1,419,840</td></tr><tr><td>Netting adjustment – cashcollateral received/paid</td><td>-71,962</td><td>-65,468</td><td>-38,921</td><td>-39,218</td></tr><tr><td>Carrying value onConsolidated BalanceSheets</td><td>$80,481</td><td>$80,210</td><td>$69,219</td><td>$60,125</td></tr></table>

Question: for 2010 , how much in billions would the credit risk balance be reduced if the table considered all other collateral?
Answer: 34.5
Reasoning program: add(16.5,18.0)