THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Management’s Discussion and Analysis The table below presents our average monthly assets under supervision by asset class.
## Table 0 ##
Operating Environment.
During 2017, Investment Management operated in an environment characterized by generally higher asset prices, resulting in appreciation in both equity and fixed income assets.
In addition, our longterm assets under supervision increased from net inflows primarily in fixed income and alternative investment assets.
These increases were partially offset by net outflows in liquidity products.
As a result, the mix of average assets under supervision during 2017 shifted slightly from liquidity products to long-term assets under supervision as compared to the mix at the end of 2016.
In the future, if asset prices decline, or investors favor assets that typically generate lower fees or investors withdraw their assets, net revenues in Investment Management would likely be negatively impacted.
Following a challenging first quarter of 2016, market conditions improved during the remainder of 2016 with higher asset prices resulting in full year appreciation in both equity and fixed income assets.
Also, our assets under supervision increased during 2016 from net inflows, primarily in fixed income assets, and liquidity products.
The mix of our average assets under supervision shifted slightly compared with 2015 from long-term assets under supervision to liquidity products.
Management fees were impacted by many factors, including inflows to advisory services and outflows from actively-managed mutual funds.2017 versus 2016.
Net revenues in Investment Management were $6.22 billion for 2017, 7% higher than 2016, due to higher management and other fees, reflecting higher average assets under supervision, and higher transaction revenues.
During the year, total assets under supervision increased $115 billion to $1.49 trillion.
Longterm assets under supervision increased $128 billion, including net market appreciation of $86 billion, primarily in equity and fixed income assets, and net inflows of $42 billion (which includes $20 billion of inflows in connection with the Verus acquisition and $5 billion of equity asset outflows in connection with the Australian divestiture), primarily in fixed income and alternative investment assets.
Liquidity products decreased $13 billion (which includes $3 billion of inflows in connection with the Verus acquisition).
Operating expenses were $4.80 billion for 2017, 3% higher than 2016, primarily due to increased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting higher net revenues.
Pre-tax earnings were $1.42 billion in 2017, 25% higher than 2016.2016 versus 2015.
Net revenues in Investment Management were $5.79 billion for 2016, 7% lower than 2015.
This decrease primarily reflected significantly lower incentive fees compared with a strong 2015.
In addition, management and other fees were slightly lower, reflecting shifts in the mix of client assets and strategies, partially offset by the impact of higher average assets under supervision.
During 2016, total assets under supervision increased $127 billion to $1.38 trillion.
Long-term assets under supervision increased $75 billion, including net inflows of $42 billion, primarily in fixed income assets, and net market appreciation of $33 billion, primarily in equity and fixed income assets.
In addition, liquidity products increased $52 billion.
Operating expenses were $4.65 billion for 2016, 4% lower than 2015, due to decreased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting lower net revenues.
Pre-tax earnings were $1.13 billion in 2016, 17% lower than 2015.
Geographic Data See Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements for a summary of our total net revenues, pre-tax earnings and net earnings by geographic region.
ferred capital debt securities, as issuances of FDIC-guaranteed debt and non-FDIC guaranteed debt in both the U. S.  and European markets were more than offset by redemptions.
Cash proceeds resulted from an increase in securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements, partly attributable to favorable pricing and to financing the increased size of the Firm’s AFS securities portfolio; and the issuance of $5.8 billion of common stock.
There were no repurchases in the open market of common stock or the warrants during 2009.
In 2008, net cash provided by financing activities was $247.8 billion due to: growth in wholesale deposits, in particular, interest- and noninterest-bearing deposits in TSS (driven by both new and existing clients, and due to the deposit inflows related to the heightened volatility and credit concerns affecting the global markets that began in the third quarter of 2008), as well as increases in AM and CB (due to organic growth); proceeds of $25.0 billion from the issuance of preferred stock and the Warrant to the U. S.  Treasury under the Capital Purchase Program; additional issuances of common stock and preferred stock used for general corporate purposes; an increase in other borrowings due to nonrecourse secured advances under the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston AML Facility to fund the purchase of asset-backed commercial paper from money market mutual funds; increases in federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements in connection with higher client demand for liquidity and to finance growth in the Firm’s AFS securities portfolio; and a net increase in long-term debt due to a combination of non-FDIC guaranteed debt and trust preferred capital debt securities issued prior to December 4, 2008, and the issuance of $20.8 billion of FDIC-guaranteed long-term debt issued during the fourth quarter of 2008.
The fourth-quarter FDIC-guaranteed debt issuance was offset partially by maturities of non-FDIC guaranteed long-term debt during the same period.
The increase in long-term debt (including trust preferred capital debt securities) was used primarily to fund certain illiquid assets held by the parent holding company and to build liquidity.
Cash was also used to pay dividends on common and preferred stock.
The Firm did not repurchase any shares of its common stock during 2008.
In 2007, net cash provided by financing activities was $184.1 billion due to a net increase in wholesale deposits from growth in business volumes, in particular, interest-bearing deposits at TSS, AM and CB; net issuances of long-term debt (including trust preferred capital debt securities) primarily to fund certain illiquid assets held by the parent holding company and build liquidity, and by IB from client-driven structured notes transactions; and growth in commercial paper issuances and other borrowed funds due to growth in the volume of liability balances in sweep accounts in TSS and CB, and to fund trading positions and to further build liquidity.
Cash was used to repurchase common stock and pay dividends on common stock.
Credit ratings The cost and availability of financing are influenced by credit ratings.
Reductions in these ratings could have an adverse effect on the Firm’s access to liquidity sources, increase the cost of funds, trigger additional collateral or funding requirements and decrease the number of investors and counterparties willing to lend to the Firm.
Additionally, the Firm’s funding requirements for VIEs and other third-party commitments may be adversely affected.
For additional information on the impact of a credit ratings downgrade on the funding requirements for VIEs, and on derivatives and collateral agreements, see Special-purpose entities on pages 86–87 and Ratings profile of derivative receivables marked to market (“MTM”), and Note 5 on page 111 and pages 175–183, respectively, of this Annual Report.
Critical factors in maintaining high credit ratings include a stable and diverse earnings stream, strong capital ratios, strong credit quality and risk management controls, diverse funding sources, and disciplined liquidity monitoring procedures.
The credit ratings of the parent holding company and each of the Firm’s significant banking subsidiaries as of January 15, 2010, were as follows.
## Table 1 ##
Ratings actions affecting the Firm On March 4, 2009, Moody’s revised the outlook on the Firm to negative from stable.
This action was the result of Moody’s view that the Firm’s ability to generate capital would be adversely affected by higher credit costs due to the global recession.
The rating action by Moody’s in the first quarter of 2009 did not have a material impact on the cost or availability of the Firm’s funding.
At December 31, 2009, Moody’s outlook remained negative.
Ratings from S&P and Fitch on JPMorgan Chase and its principal bank subsidiaries remained unchanged at December 31, 2009, from December 31, 2008.
At December 31, 2009, S&P’s outlook remained negative, while Fitch’s outlook remained stable.
Following the Firm’s earnings release on January 15, 2010, S&P and Moody’s announced that their ratings on the Firm remained unchanged.
If the Firm’s senior long-term debt ratings were downgraded by one additional notch, the Firm believes the incremental cost of funds or loss of funding would be manageable, within the context of current market conditions and the Firm’s liquidity resources.
JPMorgan Chase’s unsecured debt does not contain requirements that would call for an acceleration of payments, maturities or changes in the structure of the existing debt, provide any limitations on future borrowings or require additional collateral, based on unfavorable
Management’s discussion and analysis JPMorgan Chase & Co. /2009 Annual Report 122 Residential real estate loan modification activities: During 2009, the Firm reviewed its residential real estate portfolio to identify homeowners most in need of assistance, opened new regional counseling centers, hired additional loan counselors, introduced new financing alternatives, proactively reached out to borrowers to offer pre-qualified modifications, and commenced a new process to independently review each loan before moving it into the foreclosure process.
In addition, during the first quarter of 2009, the U. S.  Treasury introduced the MHA programs, which are designed to assist eligible homeowners in a number of ways, one of which is by modifying the terms of their mortgages.
The Firm is participating in the MHA programs while continuing to expand its other loss-mitigation efforts for financially distressed borrowers who do not qualify for the MHA programs.
The MHA programs and the Firm’s other loss-mitigation programs for financially troubled borrowers generally represent various concessions such as term extensions, rate reductions and deferral of principal payments that would have otherwise been required under the terms of the original agreement.
When the Firm modifies home equity lines of credit in troubled debt restructurings, future lending commitments related to the modified loans are canceled as part of the terms of the modification.
Under all of these programs, borrowers must make at least three payments under the revised contractual terms during a trial modification period and be successfully re-underwritten with income verification before their loans can be permanently modified.
The Firm’s loss-mitigation programs are intended to minimize economic loss to the Firm, while providing alternatives to foreclosure.
The success of these programs is highly dependent on borrowers’ ongoing ability and willingness to repay in accordance with the modified terms and could be adversely affected by additional deterioration in the economic environment or shifts in borrower behavior.
For both the Firm’s on-balance sheet loans and loans serviced for others, approximately 600,000 mortgage modifications had been offered to borrowers in 2009.
Of these, 89,000 have achieved permanent modification.
Substantially all of the loans contractually modified to date were modified under the Firm’s other loss mitigation programs.
The following table presents information relating to restructured on-balance sheet residential real estate loans for which concessions have been granted to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty as of December 31, 2009.
Modifications of purchased credit-impaired loans continue to be accounted for and reported as purchased credit-impaired loans, and the impact of the modification is incorporated into the Firm’s quarterly assessment of whether a probable and/or significant change in estimated future principal cash flows has occurred.
Modifications of loans other than purchased credit-impaired are generally accounted for and reported as troubled debt restructurings.
Restructured residential real estate loans(a)
## Table 2 ##
(a) Restructured residential real estate loans were immaterial at December 31, 2008.
(b) Amounts represent the carrying value of restructured residential real estate loans.
(c) Amounts represent the unpaid principal balance of restructured purchased credit-impaired loans.
(d) Nonperforming loans modified in a troubled debt restructuring may be returned to accrual status when repayment is reasonably assured and the borrower has made a minimum of six payments under the new terms.
Real estate owned (“REO”): As part of the residential real estate foreclosure process, loans are written down to the fair value of the underlying real estate asset, less costs to sell.
In those instances where the Firm gains title, ownership and possession of individual properties at the completion of the foreclosure process, these REO assets are managed for prompt sale and disposition at the best possible economic value.
Any further gains or losses on REO assets are recorded as part of other income.
Operating expense, such as real estate taxes and maintenance, are charged to other expense.
REO assets declined from year-end 2008 as a result of the foreclosure moratorium in early 2009 and the subsequent increase in loss mitigation activities.
It is anticipated that REO assets will increase over the next several quarters, as loans moving through the foreclosure process are expected to increase.
The calculation of the allowance for loan losses to total retained loans, excluding both home lending purchased credit-impaired loans and loans held by the Washington Mutual Master Trust, is presented below.
## Table 3 ##
The following table presents the allowance for credit losses by business segment at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
## Table 4 ##
Provision for credit losses The managed provision for credit losses was $38.5 billion for the year ended December 31, 2009, up by $13.9 billion from the prior year.
The prior-year included a $1.5 billion charge to conform Washington Mutual’s allowance for loan losses, which affected both the consumer and wholesale portfolios.
For the purpose of the following analysis, this charge is excluded.
The consumer-managed provision for credit losses was $34.5 billion for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared with $20.4 billion in the prior year, reflecting an increase in the allowance for credit losses in the home lending and credit card loan portfolios.
Included in the 2009 addition to the allowance for loan losses was a $1.6 billion increase related to estimated deterioration in the Washington Mutual purchased credit-impaired portfolio.
The wholesale provision for credit losses was $4.0 billion for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared with $2.7 billion in the prior year, reflecting continued weakness in the credit environment.
## Table 5 ##
(a) Includes accounting conformity provisions related to the Washington Mutual transaction in 2008.
(b) Includes provision expense related to loans acquired in the Bear Stearns merger in the second quarter of 2008.
(c) Includes amounts related to held-for-investment prime mortgages transferred from AM to the Corporate/Private Equity segment.
(d) In November 2008, the Firm transferred $5.8 billion of higher quality credit card loans from the legacy Chase portfolio to a securitization trust previously established by Washington Mutual (‘‘the Trust’’).
As a result of converting higher credit quality Chase-originated on-book receivables to the Trust’s seller’s interest which has a higher overall loss rate reflective of the total assets within the Trust, approximately $400 million of incremental provision expense was recorded during the fourth quarter.
This incremental provision expense was recorded in the Corporate segment as the action related to the acquisition of Washington Mutual’s banking operations.
For further discussion of credit card securitizations, see Note 15 on pages 206---213 of this Annual Report.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>Average for theYear Ended December</td></tr><tr><td><i>$ in billions</i></td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>Alternative investments</td><td>$ 162</td><td>$ 149</td><td>$ 145</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>292</td><td>256</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>633</td><td>578</td><td>530</td></tr><tr><td>Total long-term AUS</td><td>1,087</td><td>983</td><td>922</td></tr><tr><td>Liquidity products</td><td>330</td><td>326</td><td>272</td></tr><tr><td>Total AUS</td><td>$1,417</td><td>$1,309</td><td>$1,194</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Short-term debt</td><td colspan="3">Senior long-term debt</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Moody’s</td><td>S&P</td><td>Fitch</td><td>Moody’s</td><td>S&P</td><td>Fitch</td></tr><tr><td>JPMorgan Chase & Co.</td><td>P-1</td><td>A-1</td><td>F1+</td><td>Aa3</td><td>A+</td><td>AA-</td></tr><tr><td>JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.</td><td>P-1</td><td>A-1+</td><td>F1+</td><td>Aa1</td><td>AA-</td><td>AA-</td></tr><tr><td>Chase Bank USA, N.A.</td><td>P-1</td><td>A-1+</td><td>F1+</td><td>Aa1</td><td>AA-</td><td>AA-</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> December 31, 2009</td><td rowspan="2">On-balance sheet loans</td><td rowspan="2">Nonperforming on-balance sheet loans<sup>(d)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>(in millions)</td></tr><tr><td> Restructured residential real estate loans – excludingpurchased credit-impaired loans<sup>(b)</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Home equity – senior lien</td><td>$168</td><td>$30</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity – junior lien</td><td>222</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Prime mortgage</td><td>634</td><td>243</td></tr><tr><td>Subprime mortgage</td><td>1,998</td><td>598</td></tr><tr><td>Option ARMs</td><td>8</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td> Total restructured residential real estate loans – excluding purchased credit-impaired loans</td><td>$3,030</td><td>$920</td></tr><tr><td> Restructured purchased credit-impaired loans<sup>(c)</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Home equity</td><td>$453</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Prime mortgage</td><td>1,526</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Subprime mortgage</td><td>1,954</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Option ARMs</td><td>2,972</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td> Total restructured purchased credit-impaired loans</td><td>$6,905</td><td>NA</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>December 31, (in millions, except ratios)</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for loan losses</td><td>$31,602</td><td>$23,164</td></tr><tr><td>Less: Allowance for purchased credit-impaired loans</td><td>1,581</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted allowance for loan losses</td><td>$30,021</td><td>$23,164</td></tr><tr><td>Total loans retained</td><td>$627,218</td><td>$728,915</td></tr><tr><td>Less: Firmwide purchased credit-impaired loans</td><td>81,380</td><td>89,088</td></tr><tr><td>Loans held by the Washington Mutual Master Trust</td><td>1,002</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted loans</td><td>$544,836</td><td>$639,827</td></tr><tr><td> Allowance for loan losses to ending loans excluding purchased credit-impaired loans and loans held by the Washington Mutual Master Trust</td><td>5.51%</td><td>3.62%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="6">Allowance for credit losses</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> 2009</td><td colspan="3">2008</td></tr><tr><td>December 31,</td><td></td><td>Lending-related</td><td></td><td></td><td>Lending-related</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(in millions)</td><td>Loan losses</td><td>commitments</td><td>Total</td><td>Loan losses</td><td>commitments</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Bank</td><td>$3,756</td><td>$485</td><td>$4,241</td><td>$3,444</td><td>$360</td><td>$3,804</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Banking</td><td>3,025</td><td>349</td><td>3,374</td><td>2,826</td><td>206</td><td>3,032</td></tr><tr><td>Treasury & Securities Services</td><td>88</td><td>84</td><td>172</td><td>74</td><td>63</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>Asset Management</td><td>269</td><td>9</td><td>278</td><td>191</td><td>5</td><td>196</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate/Private Equity</td><td>7</td><td>—</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>—</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td> Total Wholesale</td><td>7,145</td><td>927</td><td>8,072</td><td>6,545</td><td>634</td><td>7,179</td></tr><tr><td>Retail Financial Services</td><td>14,776</td><td>12</td><td>14,788</td><td>8,918</td><td>25</td><td>8,943</td></tr><tr><td>Card Services</td><td>9,672</td><td>—</td><td>9,672</td><td>7,692</td><td>—</td><td>7,692</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate/Private Equity</td><td>9</td><td>—</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>—</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td> Total Consumer</td><td>24,457</td><td>12</td><td>24,469</td><td>16,619</td><td>25</td><td>16,644</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$31,602</td><td>$939</td><td>$32,541</td><td>$23,164</td><td>$659</td><td>$23,823</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended December 31,</td><td colspan="9">Provision for credit losses</td></tr><tr><td>(in millions)</td><td colspan="3">Loan losses</td><td colspan="3">Lending-related commitments</td><td colspan="3">Total</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Bank</td><td>$2,154</td><td>$2,216</td><td>$376</td><td>$125</td><td>$-201</td><td>$278</td><td>$2,279</td><td>$2,015</td><td>$654</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Banking</td><td>1,314</td><td>505</td><td>230</td><td>140</td><td>-41</td><td>49</td><td>1,454</td><td>464</td><td>279</td></tr><tr><td>Treasury & Securities Services</td><td>34</td><td>52</td><td>11</td><td>21</td><td>30</td><td>8</td><td>55</td><td>82</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Asset Management</td><td>183</td><td>87</td><td>-19</td><td>5</td><td>-2</td><td>1</td><td>188</td><td>85</td><td>-18</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate/Private Equity<sup>(a)(b)</sup></td><td>-1</td><td>676</td><td>—</td><td>-1</td><td>5</td><td>—</td><td>-2</td><td>681</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td> Total Wholesale</td><td>3,684</td><td>3,536</td><td>598</td><td>290</td><td>-209</td><td>336</td><td>3,974</td><td>3,327</td><td>934</td></tr><tr><td>Retail Financial Services</td><td>15,950</td><td>9,906</td><td>2,620</td><td>-10</td><td>-1</td><td>-10</td><td>15,940</td><td>9,905</td><td>2,610</td></tr><tr><td>CardServices – reported</td><td>12,019</td><td>6,456</td><td>3,331</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>12,019</td><td>6,456</td><td>3,331</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate/Private Equity<sup>(a)(c)(d)</sup></td><td>82</td><td>1,339</td><td>-11</td><td>—</td><td>-48</td><td>—</td><td>82</td><td>1,291</td><td>-11</td></tr><tr><td> Total Consumer</td><td>28,051</td><td>17,701</td><td>5,940</td><td>-10</td><td>-49</td><td>-10</td><td>28,041</td><td>17,652</td><td>5,930</td></tr><tr><td> Total provision for creditlosses – reported</td><td>31,735</td><td>21,237</td><td>6,538</td><td>280</td><td>-258</td><td>326</td><td>32,015</td><td>20,979</td><td>6,864</td></tr><tr><td>Credit card– securitized</td><td>6,443</td><td>3,612</td><td>2,380</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>6,443</td><td>3,612</td><td>2,380</td></tr><tr><td> Total provision for creditlosses – managed</td><td>$38,178</td><td>$24,849</td><td>$8,918</td><td>$280</td><td>$-258</td><td>$326</td><td>$38,458</td><td>$24,591</td><td>$9,244</td></tr></table>

Question: If Investment Bank for Total develops with the same increasing rate in 2009, what will it reach in 2010? (in million)
Answer: 2577.59
Reasoning program: subtract(2279,2015), divide(#0,2015), add(const_1,#1), multiply(2279,#2)