NOTE 7 – DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS We use derivatives to manage the risk of changes in market prices for natural gas, power, and uranium, as well as the risk of changes in rail transportation surcharges through fuel oil hedges.
Such price fluctuations may cause the following: ‰ an unrealized appreciation or depreciation of our contracted commitments to purchase or sell when purchase or sale prices under the commitments are compared with current commodity prices; ‰ market values of natural gas and uranium inventories that differ from the cost of those commodities in inventory; and ‰ actual cash outlays for the purchase of these commodities that differ from anticipated cash outlays.
The derivatives that we use to hedge these risks are governed by our risk management policies for forward contracts, futures, options, and swaps.
Our net positions are continually assessed within our structured hedging programs to determine whether new or offsetting transactions are required.
The goal of the hedging program is generally to mitigate financial risks while ensuring that sufficient volumes are available to meet our requirements.
Contracts we enter into as part of our risk management program may be settled financially, settled by physical delivery, or net settled with the counterparty.
The following table presents open gross commodity contract volumes by commodity type for derivative assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.
As of December 31, 2015, these contracts ran through October 2018, March 2021, May 2032, and January 2019 for fuel oils, natural gas, power, and uranium, respectively.
## Table 0 ##
(a) Fuel oils consist of heating oil and ultra-low-sulfur diesel.
(b) Not applicable.
Authoritative accounting guidance regarding derivative instruments requires that all contracts considered to be derivative instruments be recorded on the balance sheet at their fair values, unless the NPNS exception applies.
See Note 8 – Fair Value Measurements for discussion of our methods of assessing the fair value of derivative instruments.
Many of our physical contracts, such as our purchased power contracts, qualify for the NPNS exception to derivative accounting rules.
The revenue or expense on NPNS contracts is recognized at the contract price upon physical delivery.
If we determine that a contract meets the definition of a derivative and is not eligible for the NPNS exception, we review the contract to determine whether it qualifies for hedge accounting.
We also consider whether gains or losses resulting from such derivatives qualify for regulatory deferral.
Derivative contracts that qualify for regulatory deferral are recorded at fair value, with changes in fair value recorded as regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities in the period in which the change occurs.
We believe derivative losses and gains deferred as regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities are probable of recovery or refund through future rates charged to customers.
Regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities are amortized to operating income as related losses and gains are reflected in rates charged to customers.
Therefore, gains and losses on these derivatives have no effect on operating income.
As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, all contracts that qualify for hedge accounting receive regulatory deferral.
Authoritative accounting guidance permits companies to offset fair value amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash collateral (a receivable) or the obligation to return cash collateral (a liability) against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments that are executed with the same counterparty under a master netting arrangement or similar agreement.
The Ameren Companies did not elect to adopt this guidance for any eligible derivative instruments.
ITEM 7 / ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT exposure from unexpected events for a reinsurer.
In addition, credit executives within ERM review reinsurer exposures and credit limits and approve reinsurer credit limits above specified levels.
Finally, even where we conclude that uncollateralized credit risk is acceptable, we require collateral from active reinsurance counterparties where it is necessary for our subsidiaries to recognize the reinsurance recoverable assets for statutory accounting purposes.
At December 31, 2014, we held $7.4 billion of collateral, in the form of funds withheld, securities in reinsurance trust accounts and/or irrevocable letters of credit, in support of reinsurance recoverable assets from unaffiliated reinsurers.
We believe that no exposure to a single reinsurer represents an inappropriate concentration of risk to AIG, nor is our business substantially dependent upon any single reinsurance contract.
The following table presents information for each reinsurer representing in excess of five percent of our total reinsurance recoverable assets:
## Table 1 ##
(a) The financial strength ratings reflect the ratings of the various reinsurance subsidiaries of the companies listed as of February 10, 2015.
(b) Total reinsurance assets include both the Non-Life Insurance Companies and the Life Insurance Companies reinsurance recoverable.
(c) Excludes collateral held in excess of applicable balances.
(d) Includes $1.5 billion recoverable under the 2011 retroactive reinsurance transaction pursuant to which a large portion of the Non-Life Insurance Companies net domestic asbestos liabilities were transferred to NICO.
Does not include reinsurance assets ceded to other reinsurers for which NICO has assumed the collection risk.
See Liability for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses — Transfer of Domestic Asbestos Liabilities.
At December 31, 2014, we had no significant general reinsurance recoverable due from any individual reinsurer that was financially troubled.
Reinsurer capital levels continued to increase in 2014, thereby increasing the industry’s underwriting capacity.
This increased capacity has resulted in increased competition and lower rates for 2015 renewals.
Reduced profitability associated with lower rates could potentially result in reduced capacity or rating downgrades for some reinsurers.
The RCD, in conjunction with the credit executives within ERM, reviews these developments, monitors compliance with credit triggers that may require the reinsurer to post collateral, and seeks to use other appropriate means to mitigate any material risks arising from these developments.
See Item 7.
MD&A – Critical Accounting Estimates – Reinsurance Assets for further discussion of reinsurance recoverable.
Life Insurance Companies Key Insurance Risks Life Insurance Companies manage these risks through product design, experience monitoring, pricing actions, risk limitations, reinsurance and active monitoring and management of the relationships between assets and liabilities, including hedging.
The emergence of significant adverse experience would require an adjustment to DAC and benefit reserves, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations for a particular period.
For a further discussion of this risk, see Item 1A.
Risk Factors — Business and Operations.
For Life Insurance Companies, insurance risks primarily include the following: ?
Mortality risk – represents the risk of loss arising from actual mortality rates being higher than expected mortality rates.
This risk could arise from pandemics or other events, including longer-term societal changes that cause higher than expected mortality.
This risk exists in a number of our product lines but is most significant for our life insurance products.  ?
Longevity risk – represents the risk of a change in value of a policy or benefit arising from actual mortality rates being lower than the expected mortality rates.
This risk could arise from longer-term societal health changes as well as other factors.
This risk exists in a number of our product lines but is most significant for our retirement, institutional and annuity products.  ?
Client behavioral risk including surrender/lapse risk – there are many assumptions made when products are sold including how long the contracts will persist.
Actual experience can vary significantly from these assumptions.
This risk is
Annuities The following table presents the results of operations of our Annuities segment on an operating basis:
## Table 2 ##
Annuities The following table presents the results of operations of our Annuities segment on an operating basis:
The increase in 2017 as compared to 2016 was primary due to the $160.0 million payment in 2017 to Concert and to increased outsourced services related to clinical trials.
Sales, General and Administrative Expenses

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="6">Quantity (in millions, except as indicated)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">2015</td><td colspan="3">2014</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity</td><td>Ameren Missouri</td><td>Ameren Illinois</td><td>Ameren</td><td>Ameren Missouri</td><td>Ameren Illinois</td><td>Ameren</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel oils (in gallons)<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>35(b)</td><td></td><td>35</td><td>50(b)</td><td></td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Natural gas (in mmbtu)</td><td>30</td><td>151</td><td>181</td><td>28</td><td>108</td><td>136</td></tr><tr><td>Power (in megawatthours)</td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Uranium (pounds in thousands)</td><td>494(b)</td><td></td><td>494</td><td>332(b)</td><td></td><td>332</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> At December 31, 2014</td><td></td><td rowspan="2">A.M. Best Rating<sup>(a)</sup></td><td rowspan="2">Gross Reinsurance Assets</td><td></td><td rowspan="2">Percent of Reinsurance Assets (b)</td><td></td><td rowspan="2">Uncollateralized Reinsurance Assets</td></tr><tr><td><i>(in millions)</i></td><td>S&P Rating<sup>(a)</sup></td><td></td><td>Collateral Held (c)</td></tr><tr><td>Reinsurer:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Swiss Reinsurance Group of Companies</td><td>AA-</td><td>A+</td><td>$2,366</td><td></td><td>10.8%</td><td>$742</td><td>$1,624</td></tr><tr><td>Berkshire Hathaway Group of Companies</td><td>AA+</td><td>A++</td><td>$1,920</td><td><sup>(d)</sup></td><td>8.7%</td><td>$1,547</td><td>$373</td></tr><tr><td>Munich Reinsurance Group of Companies</td><td>AA-</td><td>A+</td><td>$1,867</td><td></td><td>8.5%</td><td>$612</td><td>$1,255</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Years Ended December 31,</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td colspan="2">Change</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(in millions)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Revenues</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Management and financial advice fees</td><td>$756</td><td>$709</td><td>$47</td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td>Distribution fees</td><td>360</td><td>339</td><td>21</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Net investment income</td><td>941</td><td>1,036</td><td>-95</td><td>-9</td></tr><tr><td>Premiums</td><td>109</td><td>110</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>Other revenues</td><td>425</td><td>367</td><td>58</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenues</td><td>2,591</td><td>2,561</td><td>30</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Banking and deposit interest expense</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total net revenues</td><td>2,591</td><td>2,561</td><td>30</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Expenses</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Distribution expenses</td><td>439</td><td>420</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Interest credited to fixed accounts</td><td>556</td><td>653</td><td>-97</td><td>-15</td></tr><tr><td>Benefits, claims, losses and settlement expenses</td><td>463</td><td>498</td><td>-35</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of deferred acquisition costs</td><td>235</td><td>111</td><td>124</td><td>NM</td></tr><tr><td>Interest and debt expense</td><td>38</td><td>37</td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>General and administrative expense</td><td>227</td><td>213</td><td>14</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Total expenses</td><td>1,958</td><td>1,932</td><td>26</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Operating earnings</td><td>$633</td><td>$629</td><td>$4</td><td>1%</td></tr></table>

Question: In which years is Management and financial advice fees greater than Distribution fees?
Answer: 2014 2013