Note 21.
Expenses During the fourth quarter of 2008, we elected to provide support to certain investment accounts managed by SSgA through the purchase of asset- and mortgage-backed securities and a cash infusion, which resulted in a charge of $450 million.
SSgA manages certain investment accounts, offered to retirement plans, that allow participants to purchase and redeem units at a constant net asset value regardless of volatility in the underlying value of the assets held by the account.
The accounts enter into contractual arrangements with independent third-party financial institutions that agree to make up any shortfall in the account if all the units are redeemed at the constant net asset value.
The financial institutions have the right, under certain circumstances, to terminate this guarantee with respect to future investments in the account.
During 2008, the liquidity and pricing issues in the fixed-income markets adversely affected the market value of the securities in these accounts to the point that the third-party guarantors considered terminating their financial guarantees with the accounts.
Although we were not statutorily or contractually obligated to do so, we elected to purchase approximately $2.49 billion of asset- and mortgage-backed securities from these accounts that had been identified as presenting increased risk in the current market environment and to contribute an aggregate of $450 million to the accounts to improve the ratio of the market value of the accounts’ portfolio holdings to the book value of the accounts.
We have no ongoing commitment or intent to provide support to these accounts.
The securities are carried in investment securities available for sale in our consolidated statement of condition.
The components of other expenses were as follows for the years ended December 31:
## Table 0 ##
In September and October 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. , or Lehman Brothers, and certain of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings.
While we had no unsecured financial exposure to Lehman Brothers or its affiliates, we indemnified certain customers in connection with these and other collateralized repurchase agreements with Lehman Brothers entities.
In the then current market environment, the market value of the underlying collateral had declined.
During the third quarter of 2008, to the extent these declines resulted in collateral value falling below the indemnification obligation, we recorded a reserve to provide for our estimated net exposure.
The reserve, which totaled $200 million, was based on the cost of satisfying the indemnification obligation net of the fair value of the collateral, which we purchased during the fourth quarter of 2008.
The collateral, composed of commercial real estate loans which are discussed in note 5, is recorded in loans and leases in our consolidated statement of condition.
Management Fees We provide a broad range of investment management strategies, specialized investment management advisory services and other financial services for corporations, public funds, and other sophisticated investors.
These services are offered through SSgA.
Based upon assets under management, SSgA is the largest manager of institutional assets worldwide, the largest manager of assets for tax-exempt organizations (primarily pension plans) in the United States, and the third largest investment manager overall in the world.
SSgA offers a broad array of investment management strategies, including passive and active, such as enhanced indexing and hedge fund strategies, using quantitative and fundamental methods for both U. S.  and global equities and fixed income securities.
SSgA also offers exchange traded funds, or ETFs, such as the SPDR?
Dividend ETFs.
The 10% decrease in management fees from 2007 primarily resulted from declines in average month-end equity market valuations and lower performance fees.
Average month-end equity market valuations, individually presented in the above “INDEX” table, were down an average of 18% compared to 2007.
The decrease in performance fees from $72 million in 2007 to $21 million in 2008 was generally the result of reduced levels of assets under management subject to performance fees, and somewhat lower relative performance measured against specified benchmarks during 2008.
Management fees generated from customers outside the United States were approximately 40% of total management fees for 2008, down slightly from 41% for 2007.
At year-end 2008, assets under management were $1.44 trillion, compared to $1.98 trillion at year-end 2007.
While certain management fees are directly determined by the value of assets under management and the investment strategy employed, management fees reflect other factors as well, including our relationship pricing for customers who use multiple services, and the benchmarks specified in the respective management agreements related to performance fees.
Accordingly, no direct correlation necessarily exists between the value of assets under management, market indices and management fee revenue.
The overall decrease in assets under management at December 31, 2008 compared to December 31, 2007 resulted from declines in market valuations and from a net loss of business, with declines in market valuations representing the substantial majority of the decrease.
During 2008, we experienced an aggregate net loss of business of approximately $55 billion, compared to net new business of approximately $116 billion during 2007.
Our levels of assets under management were affected by a number of factors, including investor issues related to SSgA’s active fixed-income strategies and the relative under-performance of certain of our passive equity products.
The net loss of business of $55 billion for 2008 did not reflect new business awarded to us during 2008 that had not been installed prior to December 31, 2008.
This new business will be reflected in assets under management in future periods after installation.
Assets under management consisted of the following at December 31: ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT
## Table 1 ##
To measure, monitor, and report on our interest-rate risk position, we use (1) NIR simulation, or NIR-at-risk, which measures the impact on NIR over the next twelve months to immediate, or “rate shock,” and gradual, or “rate ramp,” changes in market interest rates; and (2) economic value of equity, or EVE, which measures the impact on the present value of all NIR-related principal and interest cash flows of an immediate change in interest rates.
NIR-at-risk is designed to measure the potential impact of changes in market interest rates on NIR in the short term.
EVE, on the other hand, is a long-term view of interest-rate risk, but with a view toward liquidation of State Street.
Both of these measures are subject to ALCO-established guidelines, and are monitored regularly, along with other relevant simulations, scenario analyses and stress tests by both Global Treasury and ALCO.
In calculating our NIR-at-risk, we start with a base amount of NIR that is projected over the next twelve months, assuming that the then-current yield curve remains unchanged over the period.
Our existing balance sheet assets and liabilities are adjusted by the amount and timing of transactions that are forecasted to occur over the next twelve months.
That yield curve is then “shocked,” or moved immediately, ±100 basis points in a parallel fashion, or at all points along the yield curve.
Two new twelve-month NIR projections are then developed using the same balance sheet and forecasted transactions, but with the new yield curves, and compared to the base scenario.
We also perform the calculations using interest rate ramps, which are ±100 basis point changes in interest rates that are assumed to occur gradually over the next twelve-month period, rather than immediately as we do with interest-rate shocks.
EVE is based on the change in the present value of all NIR-related principal and interest cash flows for changes in market rates of interest.
The present value of existing cash flows with a then-current yield curve serves as the base case.
We then apply an immediate parallel shock to that yield curve of ±200 basis points and recalculate the cash flows and related present values.
A large shock is used to better capture the embedded option risk in our mortgage-backed securities that results from the borrower’s prepayment opportunity.
Key assumptions used in the models described above include the timing of cash flows; the maturity and repricing of balance sheet assets and liabilities, especially option-embedded financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities; changes in market conditions; and interest-rate sensitivities of our customer liabilities with respect to the interest rates paid and the level of balances.
These assumptions are inherently uncertain and, as a result, the models cannot precisely predict future NIR or predict the impact of changes in interest rates on NIR and economic value.
Actual results could differ from simulated results due to the timing, magnitude and frequency of changes in interest rates and market conditions, changes in spreads and management strategies, among other factors.
Projections of potential future streams of NIR are assessed as part of our forecasting process.
The following table presents the estimated exposure of NIR for the next twelve months, calculated as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, due to an immediate ± 100 basis point shift in then-current interest rates.
Estimated incremental exposures presented below are dependent on management’s assumptions about asset and liability sensitivities under various interest-rate scenarios, such as those previously discussed, and do not reflect any actions management may undertake in order to mitigate some of the adverse effects of interest-rate changes on State Street’s financial performance.
NIR-AT-RISK
## Table 2 ##
The NIR-at-risk exposure to an immediate 100 bp increase in market interest rates changed from negative at December 31, 2007 to slightly positive at December 31, 2008, while the NIR-at-risk exposure to a 100 bp downward shock in rates changed from slightly positive to significantly negative.
These changes were the result of two factors.
First, the level of on-balance sheet liquid assets was increased during 2008 in response to the

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td><td>2006</td></tr><tr><td>Customer indemnification obligation</td><td>$200</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Securities processing</td><td>187</td><td>$79</td><td>$37</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>505</td><td>399</td><td>281</td></tr><tr><td>Total other expenses</td><td>$892</td><td>$478</td><td>$318</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> As of December 31,</td><td> 2008</td><td> 2007</td><td> 2006</td><td> 2005</td><td> 2004</td><td>2007-2008 Annual Growth Rate</td><td>2004-2008 Compound Annual Growth Rate</td></tr><tr><td> (Dollars in billions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Passive</td><td>$576</td><td>$803</td><td>$691</td><td>$625</td><td>$600</td><td>-28%</td><td>-1%</td></tr><tr><td>Active and other</td><td>91</td><td>206</td><td>181</td><td>147</td><td>122</td><td>-56</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>Company stock/ESOP</td><td>39</td><td>79</td><td>85</td><td>76</td><td>77</td><td>-51</td><td>-16</td></tr><tr><td>Total equities</td><td>706</td><td>1,088</td><td>957</td><td>848</td><td>799</td><td>-35</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed-income:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Passive</td><td>238</td><td>218</td><td>180</td><td>128</td><td>106</td><td>9</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Active</td><td>32</td><td>41</td><td>34</td><td>28</td><td>35</td><td>-22</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and money market</td><td>468</td><td>632</td><td>578</td><td>437</td><td>414</td><td>-26</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Total fixed-income and cash/money market</td><td>738</td><td>891</td><td>792</td><td>593</td><td>555</td><td>-17</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$1,444</td><td>$1,979</td><td>$1,749</td><td>$1,441</td><td>$1,354</td><td>-27</td><td>2</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Estimated Exposure to Net Interest Revenue</td></tr><tr><td> (In millions)</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Rate change:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+100 bps shock</td><td>$7</td><td>$-98</td></tr><tr><td>-100 bps shock</td><td>-439</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>+100 bps ramp</td><td>-29</td><td>-44</td></tr><tr><td>-100 bps ramp</td><td>-166</td><td>20</td></tr></table>

Question: what percent of 2008's total other expenses is the total customer indemnification reserve?
Answer: -692
Reasoning program: subtract(200,892)