Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments The following table (in thousands) summarizes our contractual obligations at March 31, 2007 and the effects such obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flows in future periods.
## Table 0 ##
We have no long-term debt, capital leases or material commitments at March 31, 2007 other than those shown in the table above.
In May 2005, we acquired all the shares of outstanding capital stock of Impella CardioSystems AG, a company headquartered in Aachen, Germany.
The aggregate purchase price excluding a contingent payment in the amount of $5.6 million made on January 30, 2007 in the form of common stock, was approximately $45.1 million, which consisted of $42.2 million of our common stock, $1.6 million of cash paid to certain former shareholders of Impella, and $1.3 million of transaction costs, consisting primarily of fees paid for financial advisory and legal services.
We may make additional contingent payments to Impella’s former shareholders based on additional milestone payments related to FDA approvals in the amount of up to $11.2 million.
These contingent payments may be made in a combination of cash or stock under circumstances described in the purchase agreement.
If any contingent payments are made, they will result in an increase to the carrying value of goodwill.
We apply the disclosure provisions of FIN No.45, Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, and Interpretation of FASB Statements No.5, 57 and 107 and Rescission of FASB Interpretation No.34 (FIN No.45) to our agreements that contain guarantee or indemnification clauses.
These disclosure provisions expand those required by SFAS No.5 by requiring that guarantors disclose certain types of guarantees, even if the likelihood of requiring the guarantor’s performance is remote.
The following is a description of arrangements in which we are a guarantor.
We enter into agreements with other companies in the ordinary course of business, typically with underwriters, contractors, clinical sites and customers that include indemnification provisions.
Under these provisions we generally indemnify and hold harmless the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party as a result of our activities.
These indemnification provisions generally survive termination of the underlying agreement.
The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is unlimited.
We have never incurred any material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements.
As a result, the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal.
Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of March 31, 2007.
Clinical study agreements – In our clinical study agreements, we have agreed to indemnify the participating institutions against losses incurred by them for claims related to any personal injury of subjects taking part in the study to the extent they relate to use of our devices in accordance with the clinical study agreement, the protocol for the device and our instructions.
The indemnification provisions contained within our clinical study agreements do not generally include limits on the claims.
We have never incurred any material costs related to the indemnification provisions contained in our clinical study agreements.
Product warranties—We routinely accrue for estimated future warranty costs on our product sales at the time of shipment.
All of our products are subject to rigorous regulation and quality standards.
While we engage in extensive product quality programs and processes, including monitoring and evaluating the quality of our component suppliers, our warranty obligations are affected by product failure rates.
Our operating results could be adversely affected if the actual cost of product failures exceeds the estimated warranty provision.
Patent indemnifications—In many sales transactions, we indemnify customers against possible claims of patent infringement caused by our products.
The indemnifications contained within sales contracts usually do not include limits on the claims.
We have never incurred any material costs to defend lawsuits or settle patent infringement claims related to sales transactions.
Under the provisions of FIN No.45, intellectual property indemnifications require disclosure only.
iShares iShares is the leading ETF provider in the world, with $1.3 trillion of AUM at December 31, 2016 and was the top asset gatherer globally in 20161 with record net inflows of $140.5 billion resulting in an organic growth rate of 13%.
Equity net inflows of $74.9 billion were driven by flows into the Core range and into funds with U. S.  and broad developed market equity exposures.
Record fixed income net inflows of $59.9 billion were diversified across exposures and product lines, led by flows into the Core range, corporate and high yield bond funds.
iShares multi-asset and alternatives funds contributed a combined $5.7 billion of net inflows, primarily into commodities funds.
iShares represented 27% of long-term AUM at December 31, 2016 and 36% of long-term base fees for 2016.
Component changes in iShares AUM for 2016 are presented below.
## Table 1 ##
(1) Amounts include commodity iShares.
Our broad iShares product range offers investors a precise, transparent and efficient way to tap market returns and gain access to a full range of asset classes and global markets that have been difficult for many investors to access, as well as the liquidity required to make adjustments to their exposures quickly and cost-efficiently.  ?
U. S.  iShares AUM ended 2016 at $967.3 billion with $106.9 billion of net inflows driven by strong demand for the Core range and U. S.  and broad developed market equities as well as a diverse range of fixed income products.2 In 2016, we saw increased investor focus on risk-aware, “smart beta” products, which saw $20.2 billion of net inflows.  ?
International iShares AUM ended 2016 at $320.5 billion with net inflows of $33.6 billion led by fixed income net inflows of $21.9 billion, diversified across high yield, emerging market and investment grade corporate bond funds.2 Our international Core ranges in Canada and Europe demonstrated solid results in their third year, raising a combined $11.6 billion in net inflows as we continue to expand our international presence among buy-and-hold investors.
Institutional BlackRock’s institutional AUM is well diversified by both product and region, and we serve institutional investors on six continents in sub-categories including: pensions, endowments and foundations, official institutions, and financial institutions.
Component changes in Institutional long-term AUM for 2016 are presented below.
## Table 2 ##
From an enterprise risk management perspective, management sets limits on the levels of catastrophe loss exposure the Company may underwrite.
The limits are revised periodically based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the Company’s financial resources and expected earnings and risk/reward analyses of the business being underwritten.
The Company may purchase reinsurance to cover specific business written or the potential accumulation or aggregation of exposures across some or all of its operations.
Reinsurance purchasing decisions consider both the potential coverage and market conditions including the pricing, terms, conditions, availability and collectability of coverage, with the aim of securing cost effective protection from financially secure counterparties.
The amount of reinsurance purchased has varied over time, reflecting the Company’s view of its exposures and the cost of reinsurance.
Management estimates that the projected net economic loss from its largest 100-year event in a given zone represents approximately 10% of its December 31, 2018 shareholders’ equity.
Economic loss is the PML exposure, net of third party reinsurance, reduced by estimated reinstatement premiums to renew coverage and estimated income taxes.
The impact of income taxes on the PML depends on the distribution of the losses by corporate entity, which is also affected by inter-affiliate reinsurance.
Management also monitors and controls its largest PMLs at multiple points along the loss distribution curve, such as loss amounts at the 20, 50, 100, 250, 500 and 1,000 year return periods.
This process enables management to identify and control exposure accumulations and to integrate such exposures into enterprise risk, underwriting and capital management decisions.
The Company’s catastrophe loss projections, segmented by risk zones, are updated quarterly and reviewed as part of a formal risk management review process.
The table below reflects the Company’s PML exposure, net of third party reinsurance at various return periods for its top three zones/perils (as ranked by the largest 1 in 100 year economic loss) based on loss projection data as of January 1, 2019, adjusted to reflect Industry Loss Warranty (ILW) purchases at the same level the Company had available during 2018.
## Table 3 ##
The projected net economic losses, defined as PML exposures, net of third party reinsurance, reinstatement premiums and estimated income taxes, for the top three zones/perils scheduled above are as follows:

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>Payments Due By Fiscal Year</td></tr><tr><td>Contractual Obligations</td><td>Total</td><td>Less than 1 Year</td><td>1-3 Years</td><td>3-5 Years</td><td>More than 5 Years</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Lease Obligations</td><td>$7,669</td><td>$1,960</td><td>$3,441</td><td>$1,652</td><td>$616</td></tr><tr><td>Purchase Obligations</td><td>6,421</td><td>6,421</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total Obligations</td><td>$14,090</td><td>$8,381</td><td>$3,441</td><td>$1,652</td><td>$616</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(in millions)</td><td>December 31,2015</td><td>Netinflows</td><td>Marketchange</td><td>FX impact</td><td>December 31,2016</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>$823,156</td><td>$74,914</td><td>$56,469</td><td>$-3,287</td><td>$951,252</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>254,190</td><td>59,913</td><td>3,782</td><td>-3,178</td><td>314,707</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-asset</td><td>2,730</td><td>354</td><td>61</td><td>4</td><td>3,149</td></tr><tr><td>Alternatives<sup>-1</sup></td><td>12,485</td><td>5,298</td><td>1,055</td><td>-67</td><td>18,771</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$1,092,561</td><td>$140,479</td><td>$61,367</td><td>$-6,528</td><td>$1,287,879</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(in millions)</td><td>December 31,2015</td><td>Net inflows (outflows)</td><td>Marketchange</td><td>FX impact</td><td>December 31,2016</td></tr><tr><td>Active:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>$121,442</td><td>$-7,449</td><td>$11,112</td><td>$-4,406</td><td>$120,699</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>514,428</td><td>10,234</td><td>20,242</td><td>-8,177</td><td>536,727</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-asset</td><td>252,041</td><td>13,322</td><td>18,516</td><td>-6,946</td><td>276,933</td></tr><tr><td>Alternatives</td><td>74,941</td><td>1,811</td><td>619</td><td>-1,756</td><td>75,615</td></tr><tr><td>Active subtotal</td><td>962,852</td><td>17,918</td><td>50,489</td><td>-21,285</td><td>1,009,974</td></tr><tr><td>Index:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>1,285,419</td><td>-8,612</td><td>135,997</td><td>-23,800</td><td>1,389,004</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>441,097</td><td>41,401</td><td>55,665</td><td>-39,488</td><td>498,675</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-asset</td><td>6,258</td><td>-82</td><td>843</td><td>-91</td><td>6,928</td></tr><tr><td>Alternatives</td><td>6,003</td><td>784</td><td>790</td><td>-503</td><td>7,074</td></tr><tr><td>Index subtotal</td><td>1,738,777</td><td>33,491</td><td>193,295</td><td>-63,882</td><td>1,901,681</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$2,701,629</td><td>$51,409</td><td>$243,784</td><td>$-85,167</td><td>$2,911,655</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Return Periods (in years)</td><td>1 in 20</td><td>1 in 50</td><td>1 in 100</td><td></td><td>1 in 250</td><td>1 in 500</td><td>1 in 1,000</td></tr><tr><td>Exceeding Probability</td><td colspan="2">5.0%</td><td>2.0%</td><td>1.0%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Zone/ Peril</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Southeast U.S., Wind</td><td>$639</td><td>$888</td><td>$1,036</td><td></td><td>$1,315</td><td>$1,583</td><td>$2,444</td></tr><tr><td>California, Earthquake</td><td>136</td><td>470</td><td>781</td><td></td><td>1,132</td><td>1,302</td><td>1,571</td></tr><tr><td>Texas, Wind</td><td>158</td><td>467</td><td>769</td><td></td><td>1,077</td><td>1,152</td><td>1,236</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the difference between the greatest Fixed income in 2015 and 2016？ (in millions)
Answer: 60517
Reasoning program: subtract(314707,254190)