management 2019s discussion and analysis 102 jpmorgan chase & co./2016 annual report derivative contracts in the normal course of business , the firm uses derivative instruments predominantly for market-making activities . derivatives enable customers to manage exposures to fluctuations in interest rates , currencies and other markets . the firm also uses derivative instruments to manage its own credit and other market risk exposure . the nature of the counterparty and the settlement mechanism of the derivative affect the credit risk to which the firm is exposed . for otc derivatives the firm is exposed to the credit risk of the derivative counterparty . for exchange- traded derivatives ( 201cetd 201d ) , such as futures and options and 201ccleared 201d over-the-counter ( 201cotc-cleared 201d ) derivatives , the firm is generally exposed to the credit risk of the relevant ccp . where possible , the firm seeks to mitigate its credit risk exposures arising from derivative transactions through the use of legally enforceable master netting arrangements and collateral agreements . for further discussion of derivative contracts , counterparties and settlement types , see note 6 . the following table summarizes the net derivative receivables for the periods presented . derivative receivables .

2016: interest rate: 28302
credit derivatives: 1294
foreign exchange: 23271
equity: 4939
commodity: 6272
total net of cash collateral: 64078
liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivative receivables ( a ): -22705
total net of all collateral: 41373
2015: interest rate: 26363
credit derivatives: 1423
foreign exchange: 17177
equity: 5529
commodity: 9185
total net of cash collateral: 59677
liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivative receivables ( a ): -16580
total net of all collateral: 43097

( a ) includes collateral related to derivative instruments where an appropriate legal opinion has not been either sought or obtained . derivative receivables reported on the consolidated balance sheets were $ 64.1 billion and $ 59.7 billion at december 31 , 2016 and 2015 , respectively . these amounts represent the fair value of the derivative contracts after giving effect to legally enforceable master netting agreements and cash collateral held by the firm . however , in management 2019s view , the appropriate measure of current credit risk should also take into consideration additional liquid securities ( primarily u.s . government and agency securities and other group of seven nations ( 201cg7 201d ) government bonds ) and other cash collateral held by the firm aggregating $ 22.7 billion and $ 16.6 billion at december 31 , 2016 and 2015 , respectively , that may be used as security when the fair value of the client 2019s exposure is in the firm 2019s favor . the change in derivative receivables was predominantly related to client-driven market-making activities in cib . the increase in derivative receivables reflected the impact of market movements , which increased foreign exchange receivables , partially offset by reduced commodity derivative receivables . in addition to the collateral described in the preceding paragraph , the firm also holds additional collateral ( primarily cash , g7 government securities , other liquid government-agency and guaranteed securities , and corporate debt and equity securities ) delivered by clients at the initiation of transactions , as well as collateral related to contracts that have a non-daily call frequency and collateral that the firm has agreed to return but has not yet settled as of the reporting date . although this collateral does not reduce the balances and is not included in the table above , it is available as security against potential exposure that could arise should the fair value of the client 2019s derivative transactions move in the firm 2019s favor . the derivative receivables fair value , net of all collateral , also does not include other credit enhancements , such as letters of credit . for additional information on the firm 2019s use of collateral agreements , see note 6 . 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 represents a conservative measure of potential exposure to a counterparty calculated in a manner that is broadly equivalent to a 97.5% ( 97.5 % ) confidence level over the life of the transaction . peak is the primary measure used by the firm for setting of credit limits for derivative transactions , senior management reporting and derivatives exposure management . 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 . dre is a less extreme measure of potential credit loss than peak and is used for aggregating derivative credit risk exposures with loans and other credit risk . 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 $ 31.1 billion and $ 32.4 billion at december 31 , 2016 and 2015 , respectively , compared with derivative receivables , net of all collateral , of $ 41.4 billion and $ 43.1 billion at december 31 , 2016 and 2015 , 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 .

Questions:
what was the foreign exchange amount in 2016?
and what was it in 2015?
how much, then, did the 2016 amount represent in relation to this 2015 one?
and in that same year of 2016, how much did the avg exposure represent in relation to the derivative receivables?

Answers:
23271
17177
1.35
0.75