Entergy Corporation Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 73 (a) Consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds, certain series of which are secured by non-interest bearing first mortgage bonds.
(b) The bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% of the principal amount outstanding on September 1, 2005 and can then be remarketed.
(c) The bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% of the principal amount outstanding on September 1, 2004 and can then be remarketed.
(d) The bonds had a mandatory tender date of October 1, 2003.
Entergy Louisiana purchased the bonds from the holders, pursuant to the mandatory tender provision, and has not remarketed the bonds at this time.
Entergy Louisiana used a combination of cash on hand and short-term borrowing to buy-in the bonds.
(e) On June 1, 2002, Entergy Louisiana remarketed $55 million St.  Charles Parish Pollution Control Revenue Refunding Bonds due 2030, resetting the interest rate to 4.9% through May 2005.
(f) The bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% of the principal amount outstanding on June 1, 2005 and can then be remarketed.
(g) Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Entergy's nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the DOE for spent nuclear fuel disposal service.
The contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to April 7, 1983.
Entergy Arkansas is the only Entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee, plus accrued interest, in long-term debt.
(h) The fair value excludes lease obligations, long-term DOE obligations, and other long-term debt and includes debt due within one year.
It is determined using bid prices reported by dealer markets and by nationally recognized investment banking firms.
The annual long-term debt maturities (excluding lease obligations) for debt outstanding as of December 31, 2003, for the next five years are as follows:
## Table 0 ##
In November 2000, Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business purchased the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants in a seller-financed transaction.
Entergy issued notes to NYPA with seven annual installments of approximately $108 million commencing one year from the date of the closing, and eight annual installments of $20 million commencing eight years from the date of the closing.
These notes do not have a stated interest rate, but have an implicit interest rate of 4.8%.
In accordance with the purchase agreement with NYPA, the purchase of Indian Point 2 resulted in Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business becoming liable to NYPA for an additional $10 million per year for 10 years, beginning in September 2003.
This liability was recorded upon the purchase of Indian Point 2 in September 2001, and is included in the note payable to NYPA balance above.
In July 2003, a payment of $102 million was made prior to maturity on the note payable to NYPA.
Under a provision in a letter of credit supporting these notes, if certain of the domestic utility companies or System Energy were to default on other indebtedness, Entergy could be required to post collateral to support the letter of credit.
Covenants in the Entergy Corporation notes require it to maintain a consolidated debt ratio of 65% or less of its total capitalization.
If Entergy's debt ratio exceeds this limit, or if Entergy or certain of the domestic utility companies default on other indebtedness or are in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, an acceleration of the notes' maturity dates may occur.
The following chart presents the Basel III minimum CET1 capital ratio during the transitional periods and on a fully phased-in basis under the Basel III rules currently in effect.
It is the Firm’s current expectation that its Basel III CET1 ratio will exceed the regulatory minimums, both during the transition period and upon full implementation in 2019 and thereafter.
## Table 1 ##
(a) G-SIB surcharge presented does not reflect the December 9,2014,U.
S. NPR.
On December 9, 2014, the Federal Reserve issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) that would establish a new capital surcharge across all tiers of regulatory capital for G-SIBs in the U. S. , including the Firm.
The Firm estimates its fully phased-in G-SIB surcharge (based upon data as of December 31, 2013) would be 4.5% under the NPR, compared to a fully phased-in G-SIB surcharge of 2.5% as estimated under the Basel III rules currently in effect.
Basel III Advanced Fully Phased-In Based on the U. S.  capital rules currently in effect, Basel III capital rules will become fully phased-in on January 1, 2019, at which point the Firm will continue to calculate its capital ratios under both the Basel III Standardized and Advanced Approaches, and the Firm will continue to have its capital adequacy evaluated against the approach that results in the lower ratio.
While the Firm has recently imposed Basel III Standardized Fully Phased-In RWA limits on the lines of business in adapting its capital framework, the Firm currently expects to manage each of the businesses (including line of business equity allocations), as well as the corporate functions, primarily on a Basel III Advanced Fully Phased-In basis.
The Firm’s capital, RWA and capital ratios that are presented under Basel III Advanced Fully Phased-In (and CET1 under Basel I as of December 31, 2013), are nonGAAP financial measures.
However, such measures are used by bank regulators, investors and analysts to assess the Firm’s capital position and to compare the Firm’s capital to that of other financial services companies.
The Firm’s estimates of its Basel III Advanced Fully PhasedIn capital, RWA and capital ratios and of the Firm’s, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
’s, and Chase Bank USA, N. A.
’s SLRs reflect management’s current understanding of the U. S.  Basel III rules based on the current published rules and on the application of such rules to the Firm’s businesses as currently conducted.
The actual impact on the Firm’s capital ratios and SLR as of the effective date of the rules may differ from the Firm’s current estimates depending on changes the Firm may make to its businesses in the future, further implementation guidance from the regulators, and regulatory approval of certain of the Firm’s internal risk models (or, alternatively, regulatory disapproval of the Firm’s internal risk models that have previously been conditionally approved).
The following table presents the estimated Basel III Advanced Fully Phased-In Capital ratios for JPMorgan Chase at December 31, 2014.
Also included in the table are the regulatory minimum ratios currently expected to be in effect beginning January 1, 2019.
(a) Represents the minimum capital ratios applicable to the Firm under fully phased-in Basel III rules currently in effect.
(b) Represents the minimum Basel III Fully Phased-In capital ratios applicable to the Firm under the PCA requirements of FDICIA.
Difference between aggregate fair value and aggregate remaining contractual principal balance outstanding The following table reflects the difference between the aggregate fair value and the aggregate remaining contractual principal balance outstanding as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, for loans, long-term debt and long-term beneficial interests for which the fair value option has been elected.
## Table 2 ##
(a) There were no performing loans that were ninety days or more past due as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
(b) Remaining contractual principal is not applicable to nonprincipal-protected notes.
Unlike principal-protected structured notes, for which the Firm is obligated to return a stated amount of principal at the maturity of the note, nonprincipal-protected structured notes do not obligate the Firm to return a stated amount of principal at maturity, but to return an amount based on the performance of an underlying variable or derivative feature embedded in the note.
However, investors are exposed to the credit risk of the Firm as issuer for both nonprincipal-protected and principal protected notes.
(c) Where the Firm issues principal-protected zero-coupon or discount notes, the balance reflected as the remaining contractual principal is the final principal payment at maturity.
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the contractual amount of letters of credit for which the fair value option was elected was $4.5 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively, with a corresponding fair value of $(147) million and $(99) million, respectively.
For further information regarding off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, see Note 29.
Structured note products by balance sheet classification and risk component The table below presents the fair value of the structured notes issued by the Firm, by balance sheet classification and the primary risk to which the structured notes’ embedded derivative relates.
## Table 3 ##
Consumer, excluding credit card, loan portfolio Consumer loans, excluding credit card loans, consist primarily of residential mortgages, home equity loans and lines of credit, auto loans, business banking loans, and student and other loans, with a focus on serving the prime consumer credit market.
The portfolio also includes home equity loans secured by junior liens, prime mortgage loans with an interest-only payment period, and certain paymentoption loans originated by Washington Mutual that may result in negative amortization.
The table below provides information about retained consumer loans, excluding credit card, by class.
## Table 4 ##
Delinquency rates are a primary credit quality indicator for consumer loans.
Loans that are more than 30 days past due provide an early warning of borrowers who may be experiencing financial difficulties and/or who may be unable or unwilling to repay the loan.
As the loan continues to age, it becomes more clear that the borrower is likely either unable or unwilling to pay.
In the case of residential real estate loans, late-stage delinquencies (greater than 150 days past due) are a strong indicator of loans that will ultimately result in a foreclosure or similar liquidation transaction.
In addition to delinquency rates, other credit quality indicators for consumer loans vary based on the class of loan, as follows: ?
For residential real estate loans, including both non-PCI and PCI portfolios, the current estimated LTV ratio, or the combined LTV ratio in the case of junior lien loans, is an indicator of the potential loss severity in the event of default.
Additionally, LTV or combined LTV can provide insight into a borrower’s continued willingness to pay, as the delinquency rate of high-LTV loans tends to be greater than that for loans where the borrower has equity in the collateral.
The geographic distribution of the loan collateral also provides insight as to the credit quality of the portfolio, as factors such as the regional economy, home price changes and specific events such as natural disasters, will affect credit quality.
The borrower’s current or “refreshed” FICO score is a secondary credit-quality indicator for certain loans, as FICO scores are an indication of the borrower’s credit payment history.
Thus, a loan to a borrower with a low FICO score (660 or below) is considered to be of higher risk than a loan to a borrower with a high FICO score.
Further, a loan to a borrower with a high LTV ratio and a low FICO score is at greater risk of default than a loan to a borrower that has both a high LTV ratio and a high FICO score.  ?
For scored auto, scored business banking and student loans, geographic distribution is an indicator of the credit performance of the portfolio.
Similar to residential real estate loans, geographic distribution provides insights into the portfolio performance based on regional economic activity and events.  ?
Risk-rated business banking and auto loans are similar to wholesale loans in that the primary credit quality indicators are the risk rating that is assigned to the loan and whether the loans are considered to be criticized and/or nonaccrual.
Risk ratings are reviewed on a regular and ongoing basis by Credit Risk Management and are adjusted as necessary for updated information about borrowers’ ability to fulfill their obligations.
For further information about risk-rated wholesale loan credit quality indicators, see page 255 of this Note.
Residential real estate – excluding PCI loans The following table provides information by class for residential real estate – excluding retained PCI loans in the consumer, excluding credit card, portfolio segment.
The following factors should be considered in analyzing certain credit statistics applicable to the Firm’s residential real estate – excluding PCI loans portfolio: (i) junior lien home equity loans may be fully charged off when the loan becomes 180 days past due, and the value of the collateral does not support the repayment of the loan, resulting in relatively high charge-off rates for this product class; and (ii) the lengthening of loss-mitigation timelines may result in higher delinquency rates for loans carried at the net realizable value of the collateral that remain on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheets.
Note 28 – Regulatory capital The Federal Reserve establishes capital requirements, including well-capitalized standards, for the consolidated financial holding company.
The OCC establishes similar capital requirements and standards for the Firm’s national banks, including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.  and Chase Bank USA, N. A.  Basel III rules under the transitional Standardized and Advanced Approaches (“Basel III Standardized Transitional” and “Basel III Advanced Transitional,” respectively) became effective on January 1, 2014; December 31, 2013 data is based on Basel I rules.
Basel III establishes two comprehensive methodologies for calculating RWA (a Standardized approach and an Advanced approach) which include capital requirements for credit risk, market risk, and in the case of Basel III Advanced, also operational risk.
Key differences in the calculation of credit risk RWA between the Standardized and Advanced approaches are that for Basel III Advanced, credit risk RWA is based on risk-sensitive approaches which largely rely on the use of internal credit models and parameters, whereas for Basel III Standardized, credit risk RWA is generally based on supervisory risk- weightings which vary primarily by counterparty type and asset class.
Market risk RWA is calculated mostly consistent across Basel III Standardized and Basel III Advanced, both of which incorporate the requirements set forth in Basel 2.5.
For 2014, Basel III Standardized Transitional requires the Firm to calculate its capital ratios using the Basel III definition of capital divided by the Basel I definition of RWA, inclusive of Basel 2.5 for market risk.
Beginning in 2014, there are three categories of risk-based capital under the Basel III Transitional rules: Common Equity Tier 1 capital (“CET1 capital”), as well as Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital.
CET1 capital predominantly includes common stockholders’ equity (including capital for AOCI related to debt and equity securities classified as AFS as well as for defined benefit pension and OPEB plans), less certain deductions for goodwill, MSRs and deferred tax assets that arise from NOL and tax credit carryforwards.
Tier 1 capital is predominantly comprised of CET1 capital as well as perpetual preferred stock.
Tier 2 capital includes long-term debt qualifying as Tier 2 and qualifying allowance for credit losses.
Total capital is Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital.
On February 21, 2014, the Federal Reserve and the OCC informed the Firm and its national bank subsidiaries that they had satisfactorily completed the parallel run requirements and were approved to calculate capital under Basel III Advanced, in addition to Basel III Standardized, as of April 1, 2014.
In conjunction with its exit from the parallel run, the capital adequacy of the Firm and its national bank subsidiaries is evaluated against the Basel III approach (Standardized or Advanced) which results, for each quarter beginning with the second quarter of 2014, in the lower ratio (the “Collins Floor”), as required by the Collins Amendment of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The following tables present the regulatory capital, assets and risk-based capital ratios for JPMorgan Chase and its significant national bank subsidiaries under both Basel III Standardized Transitional and Basel III Advanced Transitional at December 31, 2014, and under Basel I at December 31, 2013.
## Table 5 ##
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
(d)

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>(In Thousands)</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>$503,215</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>$462,420</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>$75,896</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>$624,539</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>$941,625</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Basel III Advanced Fully Phased-In December 31, 2014</td><td>Fully phased-in minimum capital ratios<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>Fully phased-in well-capitalized ratios<sup>(b)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Risk-based capital ratios:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CET1 capital</td><td>10.2%</td><td>9.5%</td><td>6.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 capital</td><td>11.4</td><td>11.0</td><td>8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital</td><td>12.8</td><td>13.0</td><td>10.0</td></tr><tr><td>Leverage ratio:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1</td><td>7.5</td><td>4.0</td><td>5.0</td></tr><tr><td>SLR</td><td>5.6</td><td>3.0</td><td>5.0</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">2014</td><td colspan="4">2013</td></tr><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>Contractual principal outstanding</td><td></td><td>Fair value</td><td>Fair value over/(under) contractual principal outstanding</td><td>Contractual principal outstanding</td><td></td><td>Fair value</td><td>Fair value over/(under) contractual principal outstanding</td></tr><tr><td>Loans<sup>(a)</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nonaccrual loans</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans reported as trading assets</td><td>$3,847</td><td></td><td>$905</td><td>$-2,942</td><td>$5,156</td><td></td><td>$1,491</td><td>$-3,665</td></tr><tr><td>Loans</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>7</td><td>—</td><td>209</td><td></td><td>154</td><td>-55</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>3,854</td><td></td><td>912</td><td>-2,942</td><td>5,365</td><td></td><td>1,645</td><td>-3,720</td></tr><tr><td>All other performing loans</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans reported as trading assets</td><td>37,608</td><td></td><td>35,462</td><td>-2,146</td><td>33,069</td><td></td><td>29,295</td><td>-3,774</td></tr><tr><td>Loans</td><td>2,397</td><td></td><td>2,389</td><td>-8</td><td>1,618</td><td></td><td>1,563</td><td>-55</td></tr><tr><td>Total loans</td><td>$43,859</td><td></td><td>$38,763</td><td>$-5,096</td><td>$40,052</td><td></td><td>$32,503</td><td>$-7,549</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Principal-protected debt</td><td>$14,660</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td><td>$15,484</td><td>$824</td><td>$15,797</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td><td>$15,909</td><td>$112</td></tr><tr><td>Nonprincipal-protected debt<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>14,742</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>12,969</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Total long-term debt</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$30,226</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$28,878</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term beneficial interests</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nonprincipal-protected debt<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$2,162</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$1,996</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Total long-term beneficial interests</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$2,162</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$1,996</td><td>NA</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">December 31, 2014</td><td colspan="4">December 31, 2013</td></tr><tr><td>(in millions)</td><td>Long-term debt</td><td>Other borrowed funds</td><td>Deposits</td><td>Total</td><td>Long-term debt</td><td>Other borrowed funds</td><td>Deposits</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Risk exposure</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate</td><td>$10,858</td><td>$460</td><td>$2,119</td><td>$13,437</td><td>$9,516</td><td>$615</td><td>$1,270</td><td>$11,401</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>4,023</td><td>450</td><td>—</td><td>4,473</td><td>4,248</td><td>13</td><td>—</td><td>4,261</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign exchange</td><td>2,150</td><td>211</td><td>17</td><td>2,378</td><td>2,321</td><td>194</td><td>27</td><td>2,542</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>12,348</td><td>12,412</td><td>4,415</td><td>29,175</td><td>11,082</td><td>11,936</td><td>3,736</td><td>26,754</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity</td><td>710</td><td>644</td><td>2,012</td><td>3,366</td><td>1,260</td><td>310</td><td>1,133</td><td>2,703</td></tr><tr><td>Total structured notes</td><td>$30,089</td><td>$14,177</td><td>$8,563</td><td>$52,829</td><td>$28,427</td><td>$13,068</td><td>$6,166</td><td>$47,661</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>Residential real estate – excluding PCI</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Home equity:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Senior lien</td><td>$16,367</td><td>$17,113</td></tr><tr><td>Junior lien</td><td>36,375</td><td>40,750</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgages:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prime, including option ARMs</td><td>104,921</td><td>87,162</td></tr><tr><td>Subprime</td><td>5,056</td><td>7,104</td></tr><tr><td>Other consumer loans</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Auto</td><td>54,536</td><td>52,757</td></tr><tr><td>Business banking</td><td>20,058</td><td>18,951</td></tr><tr><td>Student and other</td><td>10,970</td><td>11,557</td></tr><tr><td>Residential real estate – PCI</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Home equity</td><td>17,095</td><td>18,927</td></tr><tr><td>Prime mortgage</td><td>10,220</td><td>12,038</td></tr><tr><td>Subprime mortgage</td><td>3,673</td><td>4,175</td></tr><tr><td>Option ARMs</td><td>15,708</td><td>17,915</td></tr><tr><td>Total retained loans</td><td>$294,979</td><td>$288,449</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">JPMorgan Chase & Co.<sup>(d)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>(in millions,except ratios)</td><td>Basel III Standardized Transitional Dec 31,2014</td><td>Basel III Advanced Transitional Dec 31,2014</td><td>Basel I Dec 31,2013</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory capital</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CET1 capital</td><td>$164,764</td><td>$164,764</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 capital<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>186,632</td><td>186,632</td><td>$165,663</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital</td><td>221,563</td><td>211,022</td><td>199,286</td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Risk-weighted</td><td>1,472,602</td><td>1,608,240</td><td>1,387,863</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted average<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>2,465,414</td><td>2,465,414</td><td>2,343,713</td></tr><tr><td>Capital ratios<sup>(c)</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CET1</td><td>11.2%</td><td>10.2%</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>12.7</td><td>11.6</td><td>11.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>15.0</td><td>13.1</td><td>14.4</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 leverage</td><td>7.6</td><td>7.6</td><td>7.1</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the ratio of all Deposits that are smaller than 3000 to the sum of Deposits, in 2014?
Answer: 0.48441
Reasoning program: add(2119,2012), add(#0,17), divide(#1,8563)