management 2019s discussion and analysis 126 jpmorgan chase & co./2014 annual report while useful as a current view of credit exposure , the net fair value of the derivative receivables does not capture the potential future variability of that credit exposure . to capture the potential future variability of credit exposure , the firm calculates , on a client-by-client basis , three measures of potential derivatives-related credit loss : peak , derivative risk equivalent ( 201cdre 201d ) , and average exposure ( 201cavg 201d ) . these measures all incorporate netting and collateral benefits , where applicable . peak exposure to a counterparty is an extreme measure of exposure calculated at a 97.5% ( 97.5 % ) confidence level . dre exposure is a measure that expresses the risk of derivative exposure on a basis intended to be equivalent to the risk of loan exposures . the measurement is done by equating the unexpected loss in a derivative counterparty exposure ( which takes into consideration both the loss volatility and the credit rating of the counterparty ) with the unexpected loss in a loan exposure ( which takes into consideration only the credit rating of the counterparty ) . dre is a less extreme measure of potential credit loss than peak and is the primary measure used by the firm for credit approval of derivative transactions . finally , avg is a measure of the expected fair value of the firm 2019s derivative receivables at future time periods , including the benefit of collateral . avg exposure over the total life of the derivative contract is used as the primary metric for pricing purposes and is used to calculate credit capital and the cva , as further described below . the three year avg exposure was $ 37.5 billion and $ 35.4 billion at december 31 , 2014 and 2013 , respectively , compared with derivative receivables , net of all collateral , of $ 59.4 billion and $ 51.3 billion at december 31 , 2014 and 2013 , respectively . the fair value of the firm 2019s derivative receivables incorporates an adjustment , the cva , to reflect the credit quality of counterparties . the cva is based on the firm 2019s avg to a counterparty and the counterparty 2019s credit spread in the credit derivatives market . the primary components of changes in cva are credit spreads , new deal activity or unwinds , and changes in the underlying market environment . the firm believes that active risk management is essential to controlling the dynamic credit risk in the derivatives portfolio . in addition , the firm 2019s risk management process takes into consideration the potential impact of wrong-way risk , which is broadly defined as the potential for increased correlation between the firm 2019s exposure to a counterparty ( avg ) and the counterparty 2019s credit quality . many factors may influence the nature and magnitude of these correlations over time . to the extent that these correlations are identified , the firm may adjust the cva associated with that counterparty 2019s avg . the firm risk manages exposure to changes in cva by entering into credit derivative transactions , as well as interest rate , foreign exchange , equity and commodity derivative transactions . the accompanying graph shows exposure profiles to the firm 2019s current derivatives portfolio over the next 10 years as calculated by the dre and avg metrics . the two measures generally show that exposure will decline after the first year , if no new trades are added to the portfolio . the following table summarizes the ratings profile by derivative counterparty of the firm 2019s derivative receivables , including credit derivatives , net of other liquid securities collateral , for the dates indicated . the ratings scale is based on the firm 2019s internal ratings , which generally correspond to the ratings as defined by s&p and moody 2019s . ratings profile of derivative receivables rating equivalent 2014 2013 ( a ) december 31 , ( in millions , except ratios ) exposure net of all collateral % (  % ) of exposure net of all collateral exposure net of all collateral % (  % ) of exposure net of all collateral .

Table:
rating equivalent december 31 ( in millions except ratios ) | rating equivalent exposure net of all collateral | rating equivalent % (  % ) of exposure net of all collateral | exposure net of all collateral | % (  % ) of exposure net of all collateral
aaa/aaa to aa-/aa3 | $ 19202 | 32% ( 32 % ) | $ 12953 | 25% ( 25 % )
a+/a1 to a-/a3 | 13940 | 24 | 12930 | 25
bbb+/baa1 to bbb-/baa3 | 19008 | 32 | 15220 | 30
bb+/ba1 to b-/b3 | 6384 | 11 | 6806 | 13
ccc+/caa1 and below | 837 | 1 | 3415 | 7
total | $ 59371 | 100% ( 100 % ) | $ 51324 | 100% ( 100 % )
( a ) the prior period amounts have been revised to conform with the current period presentation. .

Question: what percent of the ratings profile of derivative receivables were junk rated in 2013?
Answer: 20
Calculation: add(13, 7)