Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: the following table presents var with respect to our trading activities , as measured by our var methodology for the periods indicated : value-at-risk .

1	years ended december 31 ( inmillions )	2008 annual average	2008 maximum	2008 minimum	2008 annual average	2008 maximum	minimum

2	foreign exchange products	$ 1.8	$ 4.7	$ .3	$ 1.8	$ 4.0	$ .7

3	interest-rate products	1.1	2.4	.6	1.4	3.7	.1

 we back-test the estimated one-day var on a daily basis . this information is reviewed and used to confirm that all relevant trading positions are properly modeled . for the years ended december 31 , 2008 and 2007 , we did not experience any actual trading losses in excess of our end-of-day var estimate . asset and liability management activities the primary objective of asset and liability management is to provide sustainable and growing net interest revenue , or nir , under varying economic environments , while protecting the economic values of our balance sheet assets and liabilities from the adverse effects of changes in interest rates . most of our nir is earned from the investment of deposits generated by our core investment servicing and investment management businesses . we structure our balance sheet assets to generally conform to the characteristics of our balance sheet liabilities , but we manage our overall interest-rate risk position in the context of current and anticipated market conditions and within internally-approved risk guidelines . our overall interest-rate risk position is maintained within a series of policies approved by the board and guidelines established and monitored by alco . our global treasury group has responsibility for managing state street 2019s day-to-day interest-rate risk . to effectively manage the consolidated balance sheet and related nir , global treasury has the authority to take a limited amount of interest-rate risk based on market conditions and its views about the direction of global interest rates over both short-term and long-term time horizons . global treasury manages our exposure to changes in interest rates on a consolidated basis organized into three regional treasury units , north america , europe and asia/pacific , to reflect the growing , global nature of our exposures and to capture the impact of change in regional market environments on our total risk position . our investment activities and our use of derivative financial instruments are the primary tools used in managing interest-rate risk . we invest in financial instruments with currency , repricing , and maturity characteristics we consider appropriate to manage our overall interest-rate risk position . in addition to on-balance sheet assets , we use certain derivatives , primarily interest-rate swaps , to alter the interest-rate characteristics of specific balance sheet assets or liabilities . the use of derivatives is subject to alco-approved guidelines . additional information about our use of derivatives is in note 17 of the notes to consolidated financial statements included in this form 10-k under item 8 . as a result of growth in our non-u.s . operations , non-u.s . dollar denominated customer liabilities are a significant portion of our consolidated balance sheet . this growth results in exposure to changes in the shape and level of non-u.s . dollar yield curves , which we include in our consolidated interest-rate risk management process . because no one individual measure can accurately assess all of our exposures to changes in interest rates , we use several quantitative measures in our assessment of current and potential future exposures to changes in interest rates and their impact on net interest revenue and balance sheet values . net interest revenue simulation is the primary tool used in our evaluation of the potential range of possible net interest revenue results that could occur under a variety of interest-rate environments . we also use market valuation and duration analysis to assess changes in the economic value of balance sheet assets and liabilities caused by assumed changes in interest rates . finally , gap analysis 2014the difference between the amount of balance sheet assets and liabilities re-pricing within a specified time period 2014is used as a measurement of our interest-rate risk position. .
Conversations:
q0: in the year of 2008, what was the variance of the foreign exchange products in the first section? {answer0}
q1: and what was it in the second section? {answer1}
q2: what was, then, the combined total variance for both sections? {answer2}
q3: and what was the average variance between them? {answer3}
Question: in that same year, what was the combined total for the annual average related to interest-rate products, also in both sections?
Answer:

Answer: 2.5


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: the following table presents var with respect to our trading activities , as measured by our var methodology for the periods indicated : value-at-risk .

1	years ended december 31 ( inmillions )	2008 annual average	2008 maximum	2008 minimum	2008 annual average	2008 maximum	minimum

2	foreign exchange products	$ 1.8	$ 4.7	$ .3	$ 1.8	$ 4.0	$ .7

3	interest-rate products	1.1	2.4	.6	1.4	3.7	.1

 we back-test the estimated one-day var on a daily basis . this information is reviewed and used to confirm that all relevant trading positions are properly modeled . for the years ended december 31 , 2008 and 2007 , we did not experience any actual trading losses in excess of our end-of-day var estimate . asset and liability management activities the primary objective of asset and liability management is to provide sustainable and growing net interest revenue , or nir , under varying economic environments , while protecting the economic values of our balance sheet assets and liabilities from the adverse effects of changes in interest rates . most of our nir is earned from the investment of deposits generated by our core investment servicing and investment management businesses . we structure our balance sheet assets to generally conform to the characteristics of our balance sheet liabilities , but we manage our overall interest-rate risk position in the context of current and anticipated market conditions and within internally-approved risk guidelines . our overall interest-rate risk position is maintained within a series of policies approved by the board and guidelines established and monitored by alco . our global treasury group has responsibility for managing state street 2019s day-to-day interest-rate risk . to effectively manage the consolidated balance sheet and related nir , global treasury has the authority to take a limited amount of interest-rate risk based on market conditions and its views about the direction of global interest rates over both short-term and long-term time horizons . global treasury manages our exposure to changes in interest rates on a consolidated basis organized into three regional treasury units , north america , europe and asia/pacific , to reflect the growing , global nature of our exposures and to capture the impact of change in regional market environments on our total risk position . our investment activities and our use of derivative financial instruments are the primary tools used in managing interest-rate risk . we invest in financial instruments with currency , repricing , and maturity characteristics we consider appropriate to manage our overall interest-rate risk position . in addition to on-balance sheet assets , we use certain derivatives , primarily interest-rate swaps , to alter the interest-rate characteristics of specific balance sheet assets or liabilities . the use of derivatives is subject to alco-approved guidelines . additional information about our use of derivatives is in note 17 of the notes to consolidated financial statements included in this form 10-k under item 8 . as a result of growth in our non-u.s . operations , non-u.s . dollar denominated customer liabilities are a significant portion of our consolidated balance sheet . this growth results in exposure to changes in the shape and level of non-u.s . dollar yield curves , which we include in our consolidated interest-rate risk management process . because no one individual measure can accurately assess all of our exposures to changes in interest rates , we use several quantitative measures in our assessment of current and potential future exposures to changes in interest rates and their impact on net interest revenue and balance sheet values . net interest revenue simulation is the primary tool used in our evaluation of the potential range of possible net interest revenue results that could occur under a variety of interest-rate environments . we also use market valuation and duration analysis to assess changes in the economic value of balance sheet assets and liabilities caused by assumed changes in interest rates . finally , gap analysis 2014the difference between the amount of balance sheet assets and liabilities re-pricing within a specified time period 2014is used as a measurement of our interest-rate risk position. .
Conversations:
q0: in the year of 2008, what was the variance of the foreign exchange products in the first section? {answer0}
q1: and what was it in the second section? {answer1}
q2: what was, then, the combined total variance for both sections? {answer2}
q3: and what was the average variance between them? {answer3}
q4: in that same year, what was the combined total for the annual average related to interest-rate products, also in both sections? {answer4}
Question: and what was the average between them?
Answer:

Answer: 1.25


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: credit facility , which was amended in 2013 and 2012 . in march 2014 , the company 2019s credit facility was further amended to extend the maturity date to march 2019 . the amount of the aggregate commitment is $ 3.990 billion ( the 201c2014 credit facility 201d ) . the 2014 credit facility permits the company to request up to an additional $ 1.0 billion of borrowing capacity , subject to lender credit approval , increasing the overall size of the 2014 credit facility to an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $ 4.990 billion . interest on borrowings outstanding accrues at a rate based on the applicable london interbank offered rate plus a spread . the 2014 credit facility requires the company not to exceed a maximum leverage ratio ( ratio of net debt to earnings before interest , taxes , depreciation and amortization , where net debt equals total debt less unrestricted cash ) of 3 to 1 , which was satisfied with a ratio of less than 1 to 1 at december 31 , 2014 . the 2014 credit facility provides back-up liquidity , funds ongoing working capital for general corporate purposes and funds various investment opportunities . at december 31 , 2014 , the company had no amount outstanding under the 2014 credit facility . commercial paper program . on october 14 , 2009 , blackrock established a commercial paper program ( the 201ccp program 201d ) under which the company could issue unsecured commercial paper notes ( the 201ccp notes 201d ) on a private placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.0 billion . blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount that could be borrowed under the cp program to $ 3.5 billion in 2011 and to $ 3.785 billion in 2012 . in april 2013 , blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount for which the company could issue unsecured cp notes on a private-placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.990 billion . the cp program is currently supported by the 2014 credit facility . at december 31 , 2014 , blackrock had no cp notes outstanding . long-term borrowings the carrying value and fair value of long-term borrowings estimated using market prices at december 31 , 2014 included the following : ( in millions ) maturity amount unamortized discount carrying value fair value .

1	( in millions )	maturity amount	unamortized discount	carrying value	fair value

2	1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes due 2015	$ 750	$ 2014	$ 750	$ 753

3	6.25% ( 6.25 % ) notes due 2017	700	-1 ( 1 )	699	785

4	5.00% ( 5.00 % ) notes due 2019	1000	-2 ( 2 )	998	1134

5	4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes due 2021	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	825

6	3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes due 2022	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	783

7	3.50% ( 3.50 % ) notes due 2024	1000	-3 ( 3 )	997	1029

8	total long-term borrowings	$ 4950	$ -12 ( 12 )	$ 4938	$ 5309

 long-term borrowings at december 31 , 2013 had a carrying value of $ 4.939 billion and a fair value of $ 5.284 billion determined using market prices at the end of december 2013 . 2024 notes . in march 2014 , the company issued $ 1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 3.50% ( 3.50 % ) senior unsecured and unsubordinated notes maturing on march 18 , 2024 ( the 201c2024 notes 201d ) . the net proceeds of the 2024 notes were used to refinance certain indebtedness which matured in the fourth quarter of 2014 . interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on march 18 and september 18 of each year , or approximately $ 35 million per year . the 2024 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 2024 notes were issued at a discount of $ 3 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 6 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the term of the 2024 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 6 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2015 and 2022 notes . in may 2012 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2015 ( the 201c2015 notes 201d ) and $ 750 million of 3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2022 ( the 201c2022 notes 201d ) . net proceeds were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s common stock and series b preferred from barclays and affiliates and for general corporate purposes . interest on the 2015 notes and the 2022 notes of approximately $ 10 million and $ 25 million per year , respectively , is payable semi-annually on june 1 and december 1 of each year , which commenced december 1 , 2012 . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price represents a price , subject to the specific terms of the 2015 and 2022 notes and related indenture , that is the greater of ( a ) par value and ( b ) the present value of future payments that will not be paid because of an early redemption , which is discounted at a fixed spread over a comparable treasury security . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes were issued at a discount of $ 5 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 7 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the respective terms of the 2015 notes and 2022 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 4 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2021 notes . in may 2011 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes maturing in may 2021 and $ 750 million of floating rate notes ( 201c2013 floating rate notes 201d ) , which were repaid in may 2013 at maturity . net proceeds of this offering were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s series b preferred from affiliates of merrill lynch & co. , inc . ( 201cmerrill lynch 201d ) . interest .
Conversations:
Question: what was the amount of notes maturing in june 2022?
Answer:

Answer: 750.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: credit facility , which was amended in 2013 and 2012 . in march 2014 , the company 2019s credit facility was further amended to extend the maturity date to march 2019 . the amount of the aggregate commitment is $ 3.990 billion ( the 201c2014 credit facility 201d ) . the 2014 credit facility permits the company to request up to an additional $ 1.0 billion of borrowing capacity , subject to lender credit approval , increasing the overall size of the 2014 credit facility to an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $ 4.990 billion . interest on borrowings outstanding accrues at a rate based on the applicable london interbank offered rate plus a spread . the 2014 credit facility requires the company not to exceed a maximum leverage ratio ( ratio of net debt to earnings before interest , taxes , depreciation and amortization , where net debt equals total debt less unrestricted cash ) of 3 to 1 , which was satisfied with a ratio of less than 1 to 1 at december 31 , 2014 . the 2014 credit facility provides back-up liquidity , funds ongoing working capital for general corporate purposes and funds various investment opportunities . at december 31 , 2014 , the company had no amount outstanding under the 2014 credit facility . commercial paper program . on october 14 , 2009 , blackrock established a commercial paper program ( the 201ccp program 201d ) under which the company could issue unsecured commercial paper notes ( the 201ccp notes 201d ) on a private placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.0 billion . blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount that could be borrowed under the cp program to $ 3.5 billion in 2011 and to $ 3.785 billion in 2012 . in april 2013 , blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount for which the company could issue unsecured cp notes on a private-placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.990 billion . the cp program is currently supported by the 2014 credit facility . at december 31 , 2014 , blackrock had no cp notes outstanding . long-term borrowings the carrying value and fair value of long-term borrowings estimated using market prices at december 31 , 2014 included the following : ( in millions ) maturity amount unamortized discount carrying value fair value .

1	( in millions )	maturity amount	unamortized discount	carrying value	fair value

2	1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes due 2015	$ 750	$ 2014	$ 750	$ 753

3	6.25% ( 6.25 % ) notes due 2017	700	-1 ( 1 )	699	785

4	5.00% ( 5.00 % ) notes due 2019	1000	-2 ( 2 )	998	1134

5	4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes due 2021	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	825

6	3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes due 2022	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	783

7	3.50% ( 3.50 % ) notes due 2024	1000	-3 ( 3 )	997	1029

8	total long-term borrowings	$ 4950	$ -12 ( 12 )	$ 4938	$ 5309

 long-term borrowings at december 31 , 2013 had a carrying value of $ 4.939 billion and a fair value of $ 5.284 billion determined using market prices at the end of december 2013 . 2024 notes . in march 2014 , the company issued $ 1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 3.50% ( 3.50 % ) senior unsecured and unsubordinated notes maturing on march 18 , 2024 ( the 201c2024 notes 201d ) . the net proceeds of the 2024 notes were used to refinance certain indebtedness which matured in the fourth quarter of 2014 . interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on march 18 and september 18 of each year , or approximately $ 35 million per year . the 2024 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 2024 notes were issued at a discount of $ 3 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 6 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the term of the 2024 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 6 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2015 and 2022 notes . in may 2012 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2015 ( the 201c2015 notes 201d ) and $ 750 million of 3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2022 ( the 201c2022 notes 201d ) . net proceeds were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s common stock and series b preferred from barclays and affiliates and for general corporate purposes . interest on the 2015 notes and the 2022 notes of approximately $ 10 million and $ 25 million per year , respectively , is payable semi-annually on june 1 and december 1 of each year , which commenced december 1 , 2012 . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price represents a price , subject to the specific terms of the 2015 and 2022 notes and related indenture , that is the greater of ( a ) par value and ( b ) the present value of future payments that will not be paid because of an early redemption , which is discounted at a fixed spread over a comparable treasury security . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes were issued at a discount of $ 5 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 7 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the respective terms of the 2015 notes and 2022 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 4 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2021 notes . in may 2011 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes maturing in may 2021 and $ 750 million of floating rate notes ( 201c2013 floating rate notes 201d ) , which were repaid in may 2013 at maturity . net proceeds of this offering were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s series b preferred from affiliates of merrill lynch & co. , inc . ( 201cmerrill lynch 201d ) . interest .
Conversations:
q0: what was the amount of notes maturing in june 2022? {answer0}
Question: and the maturity amount due in 2017?
Answer:

Answer: 700.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: credit facility , which was amended in 2013 and 2012 . in march 2014 , the company 2019s credit facility was further amended to extend the maturity date to march 2019 . the amount of the aggregate commitment is $ 3.990 billion ( the 201c2014 credit facility 201d ) . the 2014 credit facility permits the company to request up to an additional $ 1.0 billion of borrowing capacity , subject to lender credit approval , increasing the overall size of the 2014 credit facility to an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $ 4.990 billion . interest on borrowings outstanding accrues at a rate based on the applicable london interbank offered rate plus a spread . the 2014 credit facility requires the company not to exceed a maximum leverage ratio ( ratio of net debt to earnings before interest , taxes , depreciation and amortization , where net debt equals total debt less unrestricted cash ) of 3 to 1 , which was satisfied with a ratio of less than 1 to 1 at december 31 , 2014 . the 2014 credit facility provides back-up liquidity , funds ongoing working capital for general corporate purposes and funds various investment opportunities . at december 31 , 2014 , the company had no amount outstanding under the 2014 credit facility . commercial paper program . on october 14 , 2009 , blackrock established a commercial paper program ( the 201ccp program 201d ) under which the company could issue unsecured commercial paper notes ( the 201ccp notes 201d ) on a private placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.0 billion . blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount that could be borrowed under the cp program to $ 3.5 billion in 2011 and to $ 3.785 billion in 2012 . in april 2013 , blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount for which the company could issue unsecured cp notes on a private-placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.990 billion . the cp program is currently supported by the 2014 credit facility . at december 31 , 2014 , blackrock had no cp notes outstanding . long-term borrowings the carrying value and fair value of long-term borrowings estimated using market prices at december 31 , 2014 included the following : ( in millions ) maturity amount unamortized discount carrying value fair value .

1	( in millions )	maturity amount	unamortized discount	carrying value	fair value

2	1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes due 2015	$ 750	$ 2014	$ 750	$ 753

3	6.25% ( 6.25 % ) notes due 2017	700	-1 ( 1 )	699	785

4	5.00% ( 5.00 % ) notes due 2019	1000	-2 ( 2 )	998	1134

5	4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes due 2021	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	825

6	3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes due 2022	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	783

7	3.50% ( 3.50 % ) notes due 2024	1000	-3 ( 3 )	997	1029

8	total long-term borrowings	$ 4950	$ -12 ( 12 )	$ 4938	$ 5309

 long-term borrowings at december 31 , 2013 had a carrying value of $ 4.939 billion and a fair value of $ 5.284 billion determined using market prices at the end of december 2013 . 2024 notes . in march 2014 , the company issued $ 1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 3.50% ( 3.50 % ) senior unsecured and unsubordinated notes maturing on march 18 , 2024 ( the 201c2024 notes 201d ) . the net proceeds of the 2024 notes were used to refinance certain indebtedness which matured in the fourth quarter of 2014 . interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on march 18 and september 18 of each year , or approximately $ 35 million per year . the 2024 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 2024 notes were issued at a discount of $ 3 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 6 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the term of the 2024 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 6 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2015 and 2022 notes . in may 2012 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2015 ( the 201c2015 notes 201d ) and $ 750 million of 3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2022 ( the 201c2022 notes 201d ) . net proceeds were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s common stock and series b preferred from barclays and affiliates and for general corporate purposes . interest on the 2015 notes and the 2022 notes of approximately $ 10 million and $ 25 million per year , respectively , is payable semi-annually on june 1 and december 1 of each year , which commenced december 1 , 2012 . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price represents a price , subject to the specific terms of the 2015 and 2022 notes and related indenture , that is the greater of ( a ) par value and ( b ) the present value of future payments that will not be paid because of an early redemption , which is discounted at a fixed spread over a comparable treasury security . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes were issued at a discount of $ 5 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 7 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the respective terms of the 2015 notes and 2022 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 4 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2021 notes . in may 2011 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes maturing in may 2021 and $ 750 million of floating rate notes ( 201c2013 floating rate notes 201d ) , which were repaid in may 2013 at maturity . net proceeds of this offering were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s series b preferred from affiliates of merrill lynch & co. , inc . ( 201cmerrill lynch 201d ) . interest .
Conversations:
q0: what was the amount of notes maturing in june 2022? {answer0}
q1: and the maturity amount due in 2017? {answer1}
Question: combined, what is the total of these two values?
Answer:

Answer: 1450.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: credit facility , which was amended in 2013 and 2012 . in march 2014 , the company 2019s credit facility was further amended to extend the maturity date to march 2019 . the amount of the aggregate commitment is $ 3.990 billion ( the 201c2014 credit facility 201d ) . the 2014 credit facility permits the company to request up to an additional $ 1.0 billion of borrowing capacity , subject to lender credit approval , increasing the overall size of the 2014 credit facility to an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $ 4.990 billion . interest on borrowings outstanding accrues at a rate based on the applicable london interbank offered rate plus a spread . the 2014 credit facility requires the company not to exceed a maximum leverage ratio ( ratio of net debt to earnings before interest , taxes , depreciation and amortization , where net debt equals total debt less unrestricted cash ) of 3 to 1 , which was satisfied with a ratio of less than 1 to 1 at december 31 , 2014 . the 2014 credit facility provides back-up liquidity , funds ongoing working capital for general corporate purposes and funds various investment opportunities . at december 31 , 2014 , the company had no amount outstanding under the 2014 credit facility . commercial paper program . on october 14 , 2009 , blackrock established a commercial paper program ( the 201ccp program 201d ) under which the company could issue unsecured commercial paper notes ( the 201ccp notes 201d ) on a private placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.0 billion . blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount that could be borrowed under the cp program to $ 3.5 billion in 2011 and to $ 3.785 billion in 2012 . in april 2013 , blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount for which the company could issue unsecured cp notes on a private-placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.990 billion . the cp program is currently supported by the 2014 credit facility . at december 31 , 2014 , blackrock had no cp notes outstanding . long-term borrowings the carrying value and fair value of long-term borrowings estimated using market prices at december 31 , 2014 included the following : ( in millions ) maturity amount unamortized discount carrying value fair value .

1	( in millions )	maturity amount	unamortized discount	carrying value	fair value

2	1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes due 2015	$ 750	$ 2014	$ 750	$ 753

3	6.25% ( 6.25 % ) notes due 2017	700	-1 ( 1 )	699	785

4	5.00% ( 5.00 % ) notes due 2019	1000	-2 ( 2 )	998	1134

5	4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes due 2021	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	825

6	3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes due 2022	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	783

7	3.50% ( 3.50 % ) notes due 2024	1000	-3 ( 3 )	997	1029

8	total long-term borrowings	$ 4950	$ -12 ( 12 )	$ 4938	$ 5309

 long-term borrowings at december 31 , 2013 had a carrying value of $ 4.939 billion and a fair value of $ 5.284 billion determined using market prices at the end of december 2013 . 2024 notes . in march 2014 , the company issued $ 1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 3.50% ( 3.50 % ) senior unsecured and unsubordinated notes maturing on march 18 , 2024 ( the 201c2024 notes 201d ) . the net proceeds of the 2024 notes were used to refinance certain indebtedness which matured in the fourth quarter of 2014 . interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on march 18 and september 18 of each year , or approximately $ 35 million per year . the 2024 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 2024 notes were issued at a discount of $ 3 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 6 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the term of the 2024 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 6 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2015 and 2022 notes . in may 2012 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2015 ( the 201c2015 notes 201d ) and $ 750 million of 3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2022 ( the 201c2022 notes 201d ) . net proceeds were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s common stock and series b preferred from barclays and affiliates and for general corporate purposes . interest on the 2015 notes and the 2022 notes of approximately $ 10 million and $ 25 million per year , respectively , is payable semi-annually on june 1 and december 1 of each year , which commenced december 1 , 2012 . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price represents a price , subject to the specific terms of the 2015 and 2022 notes and related indenture , that is the greater of ( a ) par value and ( b ) the present value of future payments that will not be paid because of an early redemption , which is discounted at a fixed spread over a comparable treasury security . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes were issued at a discount of $ 5 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 7 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the respective terms of the 2015 notes and 2022 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 4 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2021 notes . in may 2011 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes maturing in may 2021 and $ 750 million of floating rate notes ( 201c2013 floating rate notes 201d ) , which were repaid in may 2013 at maturity . net proceeds of this offering were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s series b preferred from affiliates of merrill lynch & co. , inc . ( 201cmerrill lynch 201d ) . interest .
Conversations:
q0: what was the amount of notes maturing in june 2022? {answer0}
q1: and the maturity amount due in 2017? {answer1}
q2: combined, what is the total of these two values? {answer2}
Question: and the total long-term borrowings?
Answer:

Answer: 4950.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: credit facility , which was amended in 2013 and 2012 . in march 2014 , the company 2019s credit facility was further amended to extend the maturity date to march 2019 . the amount of the aggregate commitment is $ 3.990 billion ( the 201c2014 credit facility 201d ) . the 2014 credit facility permits the company to request up to an additional $ 1.0 billion of borrowing capacity , subject to lender credit approval , increasing the overall size of the 2014 credit facility to an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $ 4.990 billion . interest on borrowings outstanding accrues at a rate based on the applicable london interbank offered rate plus a spread . the 2014 credit facility requires the company not to exceed a maximum leverage ratio ( ratio of net debt to earnings before interest , taxes , depreciation and amortization , where net debt equals total debt less unrestricted cash ) of 3 to 1 , which was satisfied with a ratio of less than 1 to 1 at december 31 , 2014 . the 2014 credit facility provides back-up liquidity , funds ongoing working capital for general corporate purposes and funds various investment opportunities . at december 31 , 2014 , the company had no amount outstanding under the 2014 credit facility . commercial paper program . on october 14 , 2009 , blackrock established a commercial paper program ( the 201ccp program 201d ) under which the company could issue unsecured commercial paper notes ( the 201ccp notes 201d ) on a private placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.0 billion . blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount that could be borrowed under the cp program to $ 3.5 billion in 2011 and to $ 3.785 billion in 2012 . in april 2013 , blackrock increased the maximum aggregate amount for which the company could issue unsecured cp notes on a private-placement basis up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $ 3.990 billion . the cp program is currently supported by the 2014 credit facility . at december 31 , 2014 , blackrock had no cp notes outstanding . long-term borrowings the carrying value and fair value of long-term borrowings estimated using market prices at december 31 , 2014 included the following : ( in millions ) maturity amount unamortized discount carrying value fair value .

1	( in millions )	maturity amount	unamortized discount	carrying value	fair value

2	1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes due 2015	$ 750	$ 2014	$ 750	$ 753

3	6.25% ( 6.25 % ) notes due 2017	700	-1 ( 1 )	699	785

4	5.00% ( 5.00 % ) notes due 2019	1000	-2 ( 2 )	998	1134

5	4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes due 2021	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	825

6	3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes due 2022	750	-3 ( 3 )	747	783

7	3.50% ( 3.50 % ) notes due 2024	1000	-3 ( 3 )	997	1029

8	total long-term borrowings	$ 4950	$ -12 ( 12 )	$ 4938	$ 5309

 long-term borrowings at december 31 , 2013 had a carrying value of $ 4.939 billion and a fair value of $ 5.284 billion determined using market prices at the end of december 2013 . 2024 notes . in march 2014 , the company issued $ 1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 3.50% ( 3.50 % ) senior unsecured and unsubordinated notes maturing on march 18 , 2024 ( the 201c2024 notes 201d ) . the net proceeds of the 2024 notes were used to refinance certain indebtedness which matured in the fourth quarter of 2014 . interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on march 18 and september 18 of each year , or approximately $ 35 million per year . the 2024 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 2024 notes were issued at a discount of $ 3 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 6 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the term of the 2024 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 6 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2015 and 2022 notes . in may 2012 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 1.375% ( 1.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2015 ( the 201c2015 notes 201d ) and $ 750 million of 3.375% ( 3.375 % ) notes maturing in june 2022 ( the 201c2022 notes 201d ) . net proceeds were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s common stock and series b preferred from barclays and affiliates and for general corporate purposes . interest on the 2015 notes and the 2022 notes of approximately $ 10 million and $ 25 million per year , respectively , is payable semi-annually on june 1 and december 1 of each year , which commenced december 1 , 2012 . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes may be redeemed prior to maturity at any time in whole or in part at the option of the company at a 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price . the 201cmake-whole 201d redemption price represents a price , subject to the specific terms of the 2015 and 2022 notes and related indenture , that is the greater of ( a ) par value and ( b ) the present value of future payments that will not be paid because of an early redemption , which is discounted at a fixed spread over a comparable treasury security . the 2015 notes and 2022 notes were issued at a discount of $ 5 million that is being amortized over the term of the notes . the company incurred approximately $ 7 million of debt issuance costs , which are being amortized over the respective terms of the 2015 notes and 2022 notes . at december 31 , 2014 , $ 4 million of unamortized debt issuance costs was included in other assets on the consolidated statement of financial condition . 2021 notes . in may 2011 , the company issued $ 1.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of unsecured unsubordinated obligations . these notes were issued as two separate series of senior debt securities , including $ 750 million of 4.25% ( 4.25 % ) notes maturing in may 2021 and $ 750 million of floating rate notes ( 201c2013 floating rate notes 201d ) , which were repaid in may 2013 at maturity . net proceeds of this offering were used to fund the repurchase of blackrock 2019s series b preferred from affiliates of merrill lynch & co. , inc . ( 201cmerrill lynch 201d ) . interest .
Conversations:
q0: what was the amount of notes maturing in june 2022? {answer0}
q1: and the maturity amount due in 2017? {answer1}
q2: combined, what is the total of these two values? {answer2}
q3: and the total long-term borrowings? {answer3}
Question: and the total portion due in the next 36 months?
Answer:

Answer: 0.29293


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: entergy corporation notes to consolidated financial statements ( a ) consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds , certain series of which are secured by non-interest bearing first mortgage bonds . ( b ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on september 1 , 2005 and can then be remarketed . ( c ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on september 1 , 2004 and can then be remarketed . ( d ) the bonds had a mandatory tender date of october 1 , 2003 . entergy louisiana purchased the bonds from the holders , pursuant to the mandatory tender provision , and has not remarketed the bonds at this time . entergy louisiana used a combination of cash on hand and short-term borrowing to buy-in the bonds . ( e ) on june 1 , 2002 , entergy louisiana remarketed $ 55 million st . charles parish pollution control revenue refunding bonds due 2030 , resetting the interest rate to 4.9% ( 4.9 % ) through may 2005 . ( f ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on june 1 , 2005 and can then be remarketed . ( g ) pursuant to the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 , entergy's nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the doe for spent nuclear fuel disposal service . the contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to april 7 , 1983 . entergy arkansas is the only entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee , plus accrued interest , in long-term ( h ) the fair value excludes lease obligations , long-term doe obligations , and other long-term debt and includes debt due within one year . it is determined using bid prices reported by dealer markets and by nationally recognized investment banking firms . the annual long-term debt maturities ( excluding lease obligations ) for debt outstanding as of december 31 , 2003 , for the next five years are as follows: .

1		( in thousands )

2	2004	$ 503215

3	2005	$ 462420

4	2006	$ 75896

5	2007	$ 624539

6	2008	$ 941625

 in november 2000 , entergy's non-utility nuclear business purchased the fitzpatrick and indian point 3 power plants in a seller-financed transaction . entergy issued notes to nypa with seven annual installments of approximately $ 108 million commencing one year from the date of the closing , and eight annual installments of $ 20 million commencing eight years from the date of the closing . these notes do not have a stated interest rate , but have an implicit interest rate of 4.8% ( 4.8 % ) . in accordance with the purchase agreement with nypa , the purchase of indian point 2 resulted in entergy's non-utility nuclear business becoming liable to nypa for an additional $ 10 million per year for 10 years , beginning in september 2003 . this liability was recorded upon the purchase of indian point 2 in september 2001 , and is included in the note payable to nypa balance above . in july 2003 , a payment of $ 102 million was made prior to maturity on the note payable to nypa . under a provision in a letter of credit supporting these notes , if certain of the domestic utility companies or system energy were to default on other indebtedness , entergy could be required to post collateral to support the letter of credit . covenants in the entergy corporation notes require it to maintain a consolidated debt ratio of 65% ( 65 % ) or less of its total capitalization . if entergy's debt ratio exceeds this limit , or if entergy or certain of the domestic utility companies default on other indebtedness or are in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings , an acceleration of the notes' maturity dates may occur. .
Conversations:
Question: what is the sum of long-term debt due in 2004 and 2005?
Answer:

Answer: 965635.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: entergy corporation notes to consolidated financial statements ( a ) consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds , certain series of which are secured by non-interest bearing first mortgage bonds . ( b ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on september 1 , 2005 and can then be remarketed . ( c ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on september 1 , 2004 and can then be remarketed . ( d ) the bonds had a mandatory tender date of october 1 , 2003 . entergy louisiana purchased the bonds from the holders , pursuant to the mandatory tender provision , and has not remarketed the bonds at this time . entergy louisiana used a combination of cash on hand and short-term borrowing to buy-in the bonds . ( e ) on june 1 , 2002 , entergy louisiana remarketed $ 55 million st . charles parish pollution control revenue refunding bonds due 2030 , resetting the interest rate to 4.9% ( 4.9 % ) through may 2005 . ( f ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on june 1 , 2005 and can then be remarketed . ( g ) pursuant to the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 , entergy's nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the doe for spent nuclear fuel disposal service . the contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to april 7 , 1983 . entergy arkansas is the only entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee , plus accrued interest , in long-term ( h ) the fair value excludes lease obligations , long-term doe obligations , and other long-term debt and includes debt due within one year . it is determined using bid prices reported by dealer markets and by nationally recognized investment banking firms . the annual long-term debt maturities ( excluding lease obligations ) for debt outstanding as of december 31 , 2003 , for the next five years are as follows: .

1		( in thousands )

2	2004	$ 503215

3	2005	$ 462420

4	2006	$ 75896

5	2007	$ 624539

6	2008	$ 941625

 in november 2000 , entergy's non-utility nuclear business purchased the fitzpatrick and indian point 3 power plants in a seller-financed transaction . entergy issued notes to nypa with seven annual installments of approximately $ 108 million commencing one year from the date of the closing , and eight annual installments of $ 20 million commencing eight years from the date of the closing . these notes do not have a stated interest rate , but have an implicit interest rate of 4.8% ( 4.8 % ) . in accordance with the purchase agreement with nypa , the purchase of indian point 2 resulted in entergy's non-utility nuclear business becoming liable to nypa for an additional $ 10 million per year for 10 years , beginning in september 2003 . this liability was recorded upon the purchase of indian point 2 in september 2001 , and is included in the note payable to nypa balance above . in july 2003 , a payment of $ 102 million was made prior to maturity on the note payable to nypa . under a provision in a letter of credit supporting these notes , if certain of the domestic utility companies or system energy were to default on other indebtedness , entergy could be required to post collateral to support the letter of credit . covenants in the entergy corporation notes require it to maintain a consolidated debt ratio of 65% ( 65 % ) or less of its total capitalization . if entergy's debt ratio exceeds this limit , or if entergy or certain of the domestic utility companies default on other indebtedness or are in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings , an acceleration of the notes' maturity dates may occur. .
Conversations:
q0: what is the sum of long-term debt due in 2004 and 2005? {answer0}
Question: what is the value for 2006?
Answer:

Answer: 75896.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: entergy corporation notes to consolidated financial statements ( a ) consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds , certain series of which are secured by non-interest bearing first mortgage bonds . ( b ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on september 1 , 2005 and can then be remarketed . ( c ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on september 1 , 2004 and can then be remarketed . ( d ) the bonds had a mandatory tender date of october 1 , 2003 . entergy louisiana purchased the bonds from the holders , pursuant to the mandatory tender provision , and has not remarketed the bonds at this time . entergy louisiana used a combination of cash on hand and short-term borrowing to buy-in the bonds . ( e ) on june 1 , 2002 , entergy louisiana remarketed $ 55 million st . charles parish pollution control revenue refunding bonds due 2030 , resetting the interest rate to 4.9% ( 4.9 % ) through may 2005 . ( f ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on june 1 , 2005 and can then be remarketed . ( g ) pursuant to the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 , entergy's nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the doe for spent nuclear fuel disposal service . the contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to april 7 , 1983 . entergy arkansas is the only entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee , plus accrued interest , in long-term ( h ) the fair value excludes lease obligations , long-term doe obligations , and other long-term debt and includes debt due within one year . it is determined using bid prices reported by dealer markets and by nationally recognized investment banking firms . the annual long-term debt maturities ( excluding lease obligations ) for debt outstanding as of december 31 , 2003 , for the next five years are as follows: .

1		( in thousands )

2	2004	$ 503215

3	2005	$ 462420

4	2006	$ 75896

5	2007	$ 624539

6	2008	$ 941625

 in november 2000 , entergy's non-utility nuclear business purchased the fitzpatrick and indian point 3 power plants in a seller-financed transaction . entergy issued notes to nypa with seven annual installments of approximately $ 108 million commencing one year from the date of the closing , and eight annual installments of $ 20 million commencing eight years from the date of the closing . these notes do not have a stated interest rate , but have an implicit interest rate of 4.8% ( 4.8 % ) . in accordance with the purchase agreement with nypa , the purchase of indian point 2 resulted in entergy's non-utility nuclear business becoming liable to nypa for an additional $ 10 million per year for 10 years , beginning in september 2003 . this liability was recorded upon the purchase of indian point 2 in september 2001 , and is included in the note payable to nypa balance above . in july 2003 , a payment of $ 102 million was made prior to maturity on the note payable to nypa . under a provision in a letter of credit supporting these notes , if certain of the domestic utility companies or system energy were to default on other indebtedness , entergy could be required to post collateral to support the letter of credit . covenants in the entergy corporation notes require it to maintain a consolidated debt ratio of 65% ( 65 % ) or less of its total capitalization . if entergy's debt ratio exceeds this limit , or if entergy or certain of the domestic utility companies default on other indebtedness or are in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings , an acceleration of the notes' maturity dates may occur. .
Conversations:
q0: what is the sum of long-term debt due in 2004 and 2005? {answer0}
q1: what is the value for 2006? {answer1}
Question: what is the total sum including all 3 years?
Answer:

Answer: 1041531.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: entergy corporation notes to consolidated financial statements ( a ) consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds , certain series of which are secured by non-interest bearing first mortgage bonds . ( b ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on september 1 , 2005 and can then be remarketed . ( c ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on september 1 , 2004 and can then be remarketed . ( d ) the bonds had a mandatory tender date of october 1 , 2003 . entergy louisiana purchased the bonds from the holders , pursuant to the mandatory tender provision , and has not remarketed the bonds at this time . entergy louisiana used a combination of cash on hand and short-term borrowing to buy-in the bonds . ( e ) on june 1 , 2002 , entergy louisiana remarketed $ 55 million st . charles parish pollution control revenue refunding bonds due 2030 , resetting the interest rate to 4.9% ( 4.9 % ) through may 2005 . ( f ) the bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase from the holders at 100% ( 100 % ) of the principal amount outstanding on june 1 , 2005 and can then be remarketed . ( g ) pursuant to the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 , entergy's nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the doe for spent nuclear fuel disposal service . the contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to april 7 , 1983 . entergy arkansas is the only entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee , plus accrued interest , in long-term ( h ) the fair value excludes lease obligations , long-term doe obligations , and other long-term debt and includes debt due within one year . it is determined using bid prices reported by dealer markets and by nationally recognized investment banking firms . the annual long-term debt maturities ( excluding lease obligations ) for debt outstanding as of december 31 , 2003 , for the next five years are as follows: .

1		( in thousands )

2	2004	$ 503215

3	2005	$ 462420

4	2006	$ 75896

5	2007	$ 624539

6	2008	$ 941625

 in november 2000 , entergy's non-utility nuclear business purchased the fitzpatrick and indian point 3 power plants in a seller-financed transaction . entergy issued notes to nypa with seven annual installments of approximately $ 108 million commencing one year from the date of the closing , and eight annual installments of $ 20 million commencing eight years from the date of the closing . these notes do not have a stated interest rate , but have an implicit interest rate of 4.8% ( 4.8 % ) . in accordance with the purchase agreement with nypa , the purchase of indian point 2 resulted in entergy's non-utility nuclear business becoming liable to nypa for an additional $ 10 million per year for 10 years , beginning in september 2003 . this liability was recorded upon the purchase of indian point 2 in september 2001 , and is included in the note payable to nypa balance above . in july 2003 , a payment of $ 102 million was made prior to maturity on the note payable to nypa . under a provision in a letter of credit supporting these notes , if certain of the domestic utility companies or system energy were to default on other indebtedness , entergy could be required to post collateral to support the letter of credit . covenants in the entergy corporation notes require it to maintain a consolidated debt ratio of 65% ( 65 % ) or less of its total capitalization . if entergy's debt ratio exceeds this limit , or if entergy or certain of the domestic utility companies default on other indebtedness or are in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings , an acceleration of the notes' maturity dates may occur. .
Conversations:
q0: what is the sum of long-term debt due in 2004 and 2005? {answer0}
q1: what is the value for 2006? {answer1}
q2: what is the total sum including all 3 years? {answer2}
Question: what is that divided by 1000?
Answer:

Answer: 1041.531


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: the following table shows the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and the impact of prior period development on our consolidated loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated. .

1		2010	2009	2008

2	loss and loss expense ratio as reported	59.2% ( 59.2 % )	58.8% ( 58.8 % )	60.6% ( 60.6 % )

3	catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums	( 3.2 ) % (  % )	( 1.2 ) % (  % )	( 4.7 ) % (  % )

4	prior period development	4.6% ( 4.6 % )	4.9% ( 4.9 % )	6.8% ( 6.8 % )

5	large assumed loss portfolio transfers	( 0.3 ) % (  % )	( 0.8 ) % (  % )	0.0% ( 0.0 % )

6	loss and loss expense ratio adjusted	60.3% ( 60.3 % )	61.7% ( 61.7 % )	62.7% ( 62.7 % )

 we recorded net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 366 million in 2010 compared with net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 137 million and $ 567 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the catastrophe losses for 2010 were primarily related to weather- related events in the u.s. , earthquakes in chile , mexico , and new zealand , and storms in australia and europe . the catastrophe losses for 2009 were primarily related to an earthquake in asia , floods in europe , several weather-related events in the u.s. , and a european windstorm . for 2008 , the catastrophe losses were primarily related to hurricanes gustav and ike . prior period development arises from changes to loss estimates recognized in the current year that relate to loss reserves first reported in previous calendar years and excludes the effect of losses from the development of earned premium from pre- vious accident years . we experienced $ 503 million of net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments in 2010 . this compares with net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments of $ 576 million and $ 814 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . refer to 201cprior period development 201d for more information . the adjusted loss and loss expense ratio declined in 2010 , compared with 2009 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , non-recurring premium adjustment and the reduction in assumed loss portfolio business , which is written at higher loss ratios than other types of business . our policy acquisition costs include commissions , premium taxes , underwriting , and other costs that vary with , and are primarily related to , the production of premium . administrative expenses include all other operating costs . our policy acquis- ition cost ratio increased in 2010 , compared with 2009 . the increase was primarily related to the impact of crop settlements , which generated higher profit-share commissions and a lower adjustment to net premiums earned , as well as the impact of reinstatement premiums expensed in connection with catastrophe activity and changes in business mix . our administrative expense ratio increased in 2010 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , reinstatement premiums expensed , and increased costs in our international operations . although the crop settlements generate minimal administrative expenses , they resulted in lower adjustment to net premiums earned in 2010 , compared with 2009 . administrative expenses in 2010 , were partially offset by higher net results generated by our third party claims administration business , esis , the results of which are included within our administrative expenses . esis generated $ 85 million in net results in 2010 , compared with $ 26 million in 2009 . the increase is primarily from non-recurring sources . our policy acquisition cost ratio was stable in 2009 , compared with 2008 , as increases in our combined insurance operations were offset by more favorable final crop year settlement of profit share commissions . administrative expenses increased in 2009 , primarily due to the inclusion of administrative expenses related to combined insurance for the full year and costs associated with new product expansion in our domestic retail operation and in our personal lines business . our effective income tax rate , which we calculate as income tax expense divided by income before income tax , is depend- ent upon the mix of earnings from different jurisdictions with various tax rates . a change in the geographic mix of earnings would change the effective income tax rate . our effective income tax rate was 15 percent in 2010 , compared with 17 percent and 24 percent in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the decrease in our effective income tax rate in 2010 , was primarily due to a change in the mix of earnings to lower tax-paying jurisdictions , a decrease in the amount of unrecognized tax benefits which was the result of a settlement with the u.s . internal revenue service appeals division regarding federal tax returns for the years 2002-2004 , and the recognition of a non-taxable gain related to the acquisition of rain and hail . the 2009 year included a reduction of a deferred tax valuation allowance related to investments . for 2008 , our effective income tax rate was adversely impacted by a change in mix of earnings due to the impact of catastrophe losses in lower tax-paying jurisdictions . prior period development the favorable prior period development , inclusive of the life segment , of $ 512 million during 2010 was the net result of sev- eral underlying favorable and adverse movements . with respect to ace 2019s crop business , ace regularly receives reports from its managing general agent ( mga ) relating to the previous crop year ( s ) in subsequent calendar quarters and this typically results .
Conversations:
Question: what was the net favorable prior period development in 2010?
Answer:

Answer: 503.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: the following table shows the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and the impact of prior period development on our consolidated loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated. .

1		2010	2009	2008

2	loss and loss expense ratio as reported	59.2% ( 59.2 % )	58.8% ( 58.8 % )	60.6% ( 60.6 % )

3	catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums	( 3.2 ) % (  % )	( 1.2 ) % (  % )	( 4.7 ) % (  % )

4	prior period development	4.6% ( 4.6 % )	4.9% ( 4.9 % )	6.8% ( 6.8 % )

5	large assumed loss portfolio transfers	( 0.3 ) % (  % )	( 0.8 ) % (  % )	0.0% ( 0.0 % )

6	loss and loss expense ratio adjusted	60.3% ( 60.3 % )	61.7% ( 61.7 % )	62.7% ( 62.7 % )

 we recorded net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 366 million in 2010 compared with net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 137 million and $ 567 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the catastrophe losses for 2010 were primarily related to weather- related events in the u.s. , earthquakes in chile , mexico , and new zealand , and storms in australia and europe . the catastrophe losses for 2009 were primarily related to an earthquake in asia , floods in europe , several weather-related events in the u.s. , and a european windstorm . for 2008 , the catastrophe losses were primarily related to hurricanes gustav and ike . prior period development arises from changes to loss estimates recognized in the current year that relate to loss reserves first reported in previous calendar years and excludes the effect of losses from the development of earned premium from pre- vious accident years . we experienced $ 503 million of net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments in 2010 . this compares with net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments of $ 576 million and $ 814 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . refer to 201cprior period development 201d for more information . the adjusted loss and loss expense ratio declined in 2010 , compared with 2009 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , non-recurring premium adjustment and the reduction in assumed loss portfolio business , which is written at higher loss ratios than other types of business . our policy acquisition costs include commissions , premium taxes , underwriting , and other costs that vary with , and are primarily related to , the production of premium . administrative expenses include all other operating costs . our policy acquis- ition cost ratio increased in 2010 , compared with 2009 . the increase was primarily related to the impact of crop settlements , which generated higher profit-share commissions and a lower adjustment to net premiums earned , as well as the impact of reinstatement premiums expensed in connection with catastrophe activity and changes in business mix . our administrative expense ratio increased in 2010 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , reinstatement premiums expensed , and increased costs in our international operations . although the crop settlements generate minimal administrative expenses , they resulted in lower adjustment to net premiums earned in 2010 , compared with 2009 . administrative expenses in 2010 , were partially offset by higher net results generated by our third party claims administration business , esis , the results of which are included within our administrative expenses . esis generated $ 85 million in net results in 2010 , compared with $ 26 million in 2009 . the increase is primarily from non-recurring sources . our policy acquisition cost ratio was stable in 2009 , compared with 2008 , as increases in our combined insurance operations were offset by more favorable final crop year settlement of profit share commissions . administrative expenses increased in 2009 , primarily due to the inclusion of administrative expenses related to combined insurance for the full year and costs associated with new product expansion in our domestic retail operation and in our personal lines business . our effective income tax rate , which we calculate as income tax expense divided by income before income tax , is depend- ent upon the mix of earnings from different jurisdictions with various tax rates . a change in the geographic mix of earnings would change the effective income tax rate . our effective income tax rate was 15 percent in 2010 , compared with 17 percent and 24 percent in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the decrease in our effective income tax rate in 2010 , was primarily due to a change in the mix of earnings to lower tax-paying jurisdictions , a decrease in the amount of unrecognized tax benefits which was the result of a settlement with the u.s . internal revenue service appeals division regarding federal tax returns for the years 2002-2004 , and the recognition of a non-taxable gain related to the acquisition of rain and hail . the 2009 year included a reduction of a deferred tax valuation allowance related to investments . for 2008 , our effective income tax rate was adversely impacted by a change in mix of earnings due to the impact of catastrophe losses in lower tax-paying jurisdictions . prior period development the favorable prior period development , inclusive of the life segment , of $ 512 million during 2010 was the net result of sev- eral underlying favorable and adverse movements . with respect to ace 2019s crop business , ace regularly receives reports from its managing general agent ( mga ) relating to the previous crop year ( s ) in subsequent calendar quarters and this typically results .
Conversations:
q0: what was the net favorable prior period development in 2010? {answer0}
Question: and what was it in 2008?
Answer:

Answer: 814.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: the following table shows the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and the impact of prior period development on our consolidated loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated. .

1		2010	2009	2008

2	loss and loss expense ratio as reported	59.2% ( 59.2 % )	58.8% ( 58.8 % )	60.6% ( 60.6 % )

3	catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums	( 3.2 ) % (  % )	( 1.2 ) % (  % )	( 4.7 ) % (  % )

4	prior period development	4.6% ( 4.6 % )	4.9% ( 4.9 % )	6.8% ( 6.8 % )

5	large assumed loss portfolio transfers	( 0.3 ) % (  % )	( 0.8 ) % (  % )	0.0% ( 0.0 % )

6	loss and loss expense ratio adjusted	60.3% ( 60.3 % )	61.7% ( 61.7 % )	62.7% ( 62.7 % )

 we recorded net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 366 million in 2010 compared with net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 137 million and $ 567 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the catastrophe losses for 2010 were primarily related to weather- related events in the u.s. , earthquakes in chile , mexico , and new zealand , and storms in australia and europe . the catastrophe losses for 2009 were primarily related to an earthquake in asia , floods in europe , several weather-related events in the u.s. , and a european windstorm . for 2008 , the catastrophe losses were primarily related to hurricanes gustav and ike . prior period development arises from changes to loss estimates recognized in the current year that relate to loss reserves first reported in previous calendar years and excludes the effect of losses from the development of earned premium from pre- vious accident years . we experienced $ 503 million of net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments in 2010 . this compares with net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments of $ 576 million and $ 814 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . refer to 201cprior period development 201d for more information . the adjusted loss and loss expense ratio declined in 2010 , compared with 2009 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , non-recurring premium adjustment and the reduction in assumed loss portfolio business , which is written at higher loss ratios than other types of business . our policy acquisition costs include commissions , premium taxes , underwriting , and other costs that vary with , and are primarily related to , the production of premium . administrative expenses include all other operating costs . our policy acquis- ition cost ratio increased in 2010 , compared with 2009 . the increase was primarily related to the impact of crop settlements , which generated higher profit-share commissions and a lower adjustment to net premiums earned , as well as the impact of reinstatement premiums expensed in connection with catastrophe activity and changes in business mix . our administrative expense ratio increased in 2010 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , reinstatement premiums expensed , and increased costs in our international operations . although the crop settlements generate minimal administrative expenses , they resulted in lower adjustment to net premiums earned in 2010 , compared with 2009 . administrative expenses in 2010 , were partially offset by higher net results generated by our third party claims administration business , esis , the results of which are included within our administrative expenses . esis generated $ 85 million in net results in 2010 , compared with $ 26 million in 2009 . the increase is primarily from non-recurring sources . our policy acquisition cost ratio was stable in 2009 , compared with 2008 , as increases in our combined insurance operations were offset by more favorable final crop year settlement of profit share commissions . administrative expenses increased in 2009 , primarily due to the inclusion of administrative expenses related to combined insurance for the full year and costs associated with new product expansion in our domestic retail operation and in our personal lines business . our effective income tax rate , which we calculate as income tax expense divided by income before income tax , is depend- ent upon the mix of earnings from different jurisdictions with various tax rates . a change in the geographic mix of earnings would change the effective income tax rate . our effective income tax rate was 15 percent in 2010 , compared with 17 percent and 24 percent in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the decrease in our effective income tax rate in 2010 , was primarily due to a change in the mix of earnings to lower tax-paying jurisdictions , a decrease in the amount of unrecognized tax benefits which was the result of a settlement with the u.s . internal revenue service appeals division regarding federal tax returns for the years 2002-2004 , and the recognition of a non-taxable gain related to the acquisition of rain and hail . the 2009 year included a reduction of a deferred tax valuation allowance related to investments . for 2008 , our effective income tax rate was adversely impacted by a change in mix of earnings due to the impact of catastrophe losses in lower tax-paying jurisdictions . prior period development the favorable prior period development , inclusive of the life segment , of $ 512 million during 2010 was the net result of sev- eral underlying favorable and adverse movements . with respect to ace 2019s crop business , ace regularly receives reports from its managing general agent ( mga ) relating to the previous crop year ( s ) in subsequent calendar quarters and this typically results .
Conversations:
q0: what was the net favorable prior period development in 2010? {answer0}
q1: and what was it in 2008? {answer1}
Question: what was, then, the change over the years?
Answer:

Answer: -311.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: the following table shows the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and the impact of prior period development on our consolidated loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated. .

1		2010	2009	2008

2	loss and loss expense ratio as reported	59.2% ( 59.2 % )	58.8% ( 58.8 % )	60.6% ( 60.6 % )

3	catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums	( 3.2 ) % (  % )	( 1.2 ) % (  % )	( 4.7 ) % (  % )

4	prior period development	4.6% ( 4.6 % )	4.9% ( 4.9 % )	6.8% ( 6.8 % )

5	large assumed loss portfolio transfers	( 0.3 ) % (  % )	( 0.8 ) % (  % )	0.0% ( 0.0 % )

6	loss and loss expense ratio adjusted	60.3% ( 60.3 % )	61.7% ( 61.7 % )	62.7% ( 62.7 % )

 we recorded net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 366 million in 2010 compared with net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 137 million and $ 567 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the catastrophe losses for 2010 were primarily related to weather- related events in the u.s. , earthquakes in chile , mexico , and new zealand , and storms in australia and europe . the catastrophe losses for 2009 were primarily related to an earthquake in asia , floods in europe , several weather-related events in the u.s. , and a european windstorm . for 2008 , the catastrophe losses were primarily related to hurricanes gustav and ike . prior period development arises from changes to loss estimates recognized in the current year that relate to loss reserves first reported in previous calendar years and excludes the effect of losses from the development of earned premium from pre- vious accident years . we experienced $ 503 million of net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments in 2010 . this compares with net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments of $ 576 million and $ 814 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . refer to 201cprior period development 201d for more information . the adjusted loss and loss expense ratio declined in 2010 , compared with 2009 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , non-recurring premium adjustment and the reduction in assumed loss portfolio business , which is written at higher loss ratios than other types of business . our policy acquisition costs include commissions , premium taxes , underwriting , and other costs that vary with , and are primarily related to , the production of premium . administrative expenses include all other operating costs . our policy acquis- ition cost ratio increased in 2010 , compared with 2009 . the increase was primarily related to the impact of crop settlements , which generated higher profit-share commissions and a lower adjustment to net premiums earned , as well as the impact of reinstatement premiums expensed in connection with catastrophe activity and changes in business mix . our administrative expense ratio increased in 2010 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , reinstatement premiums expensed , and increased costs in our international operations . although the crop settlements generate minimal administrative expenses , they resulted in lower adjustment to net premiums earned in 2010 , compared with 2009 . administrative expenses in 2010 , were partially offset by higher net results generated by our third party claims administration business , esis , the results of which are included within our administrative expenses . esis generated $ 85 million in net results in 2010 , compared with $ 26 million in 2009 . the increase is primarily from non-recurring sources . our policy acquisition cost ratio was stable in 2009 , compared with 2008 , as increases in our combined insurance operations were offset by more favorable final crop year settlement of profit share commissions . administrative expenses increased in 2009 , primarily due to the inclusion of administrative expenses related to combined insurance for the full year and costs associated with new product expansion in our domestic retail operation and in our personal lines business . our effective income tax rate , which we calculate as income tax expense divided by income before income tax , is depend- ent upon the mix of earnings from different jurisdictions with various tax rates . a change in the geographic mix of earnings would change the effective income tax rate . our effective income tax rate was 15 percent in 2010 , compared with 17 percent and 24 percent in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the decrease in our effective income tax rate in 2010 , was primarily due to a change in the mix of earnings to lower tax-paying jurisdictions , a decrease in the amount of unrecognized tax benefits which was the result of a settlement with the u.s . internal revenue service appeals division regarding federal tax returns for the years 2002-2004 , and the recognition of a non-taxable gain related to the acquisition of rain and hail . the 2009 year included a reduction of a deferred tax valuation allowance related to investments . for 2008 , our effective income tax rate was adversely impacted by a change in mix of earnings due to the impact of catastrophe losses in lower tax-paying jurisdictions . prior period development the favorable prior period development , inclusive of the life segment , of $ 512 million during 2010 was the net result of sev- eral underlying favorable and adverse movements . with respect to ace 2019s crop business , ace regularly receives reports from its managing general agent ( mga ) relating to the previous crop year ( s ) in subsequent calendar quarters and this typically results .
Conversations:
q0: what was the net favorable prior period development in 2010? {answer0}
q1: and what was it in 2008? {answer1}
q2: what was, then, the change over the years? {answer2}
Question: what was the net favorable prior period development in 2008?
Answer:

Answer: 814.0


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: the following table shows the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and the impact of prior period development on our consolidated loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated. .

1		2010	2009	2008

2	loss and loss expense ratio as reported	59.2% ( 59.2 % )	58.8% ( 58.8 % )	60.6% ( 60.6 % )

3	catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums	( 3.2 ) % (  % )	( 1.2 ) % (  % )	( 4.7 ) % (  % )

4	prior period development	4.6% ( 4.6 % )	4.9% ( 4.9 % )	6.8% ( 6.8 % )

5	large assumed loss portfolio transfers	( 0.3 ) % (  % )	( 0.8 ) % (  % )	0.0% ( 0.0 % )

6	loss and loss expense ratio adjusted	60.3% ( 60.3 % )	61.7% ( 61.7 % )	62.7% ( 62.7 % )

 we recorded net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 366 million in 2010 compared with net pre-tax catastrophe losses of $ 137 million and $ 567 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the catastrophe losses for 2010 were primarily related to weather- related events in the u.s. , earthquakes in chile , mexico , and new zealand , and storms in australia and europe . the catastrophe losses for 2009 were primarily related to an earthquake in asia , floods in europe , several weather-related events in the u.s. , and a european windstorm . for 2008 , the catastrophe losses were primarily related to hurricanes gustav and ike . prior period development arises from changes to loss estimates recognized in the current year that relate to loss reserves first reported in previous calendar years and excludes the effect of losses from the development of earned premium from pre- vious accident years . we experienced $ 503 million of net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments in 2010 . this compares with net favorable prior period development in our p&c segments of $ 576 million and $ 814 million in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . refer to 201cprior period development 201d for more information . the adjusted loss and loss expense ratio declined in 2010 , compared with 2009 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , non-recurring premium adjustment and the reduction in assumed loss portfolio business , which is written at higher loss ratios than other types of business . our policy acquisition costs include commissions , premium taxes , underwriting , and other costs that vary with , and are primarily related to , the production of premium . administrative expenses include all other operating costs . our policy acquis- ition cost ratio increased in 2010 , compared with 2009 . the increase was primarily related to the impact of crop settlements , which generated higher profit-share commissions and a lower adjustment to net premiums earned , as well as the impact of reinstatement premiums expensed in connection with catastrophe activity and changes in business mix . our administrative expense ratio increased in 2010 , primarily due to the impact of the crop settlements , reinstatement premiums expensed , and increased costs in our international operations . although the crop settlements generate minimal administrative expenses , they resulted in lower adjustment to net premiums earned in 2010 , compared with 2009 . administrative expenses in 2010 , were partially offset by higher net results generated by our third party claims administration business , esis , the results of which are included within our administrative expenses . esis generated $ 85 million in net results in 2010 , compared with $ 26 million in 2009 . the increase is primarily from non-recurring sources . our policy acquisition cost ratio was stable in 2009 , compared with 2008 , as increases in our combined insurance operations were offset by more favorable final crop year settlement of profit share commissions . administrative expenses increased in 2009 , primarily due to the inclusion of administrative expenses related to combined insurance for the full year and costs associated with new product expansion in our domestic retail operation and in our personal lines business . our effective income tax rate , which we calculate as income tax expense divided by income before income tax , is depend- ent upon the mix of earnings from different jurisdictions with various tax rates . a change in the geographic mix of earnings would change the effective income tax rate . our effective income tax rate was 15 percent in 2010 , compared with 17 percent and 24 percent in 2009 and 2008 , respectively . the decrease in our effective income tax rate in 2010 , was primarily due to a change in the mix of earnings to lower tax-paying jurisdictions , a decrease in the amount of unrecognized tax benefits which was the result of a settlement with the u.s . internal revenue service appeals division regarding federal tax returns for the years 2002-2004 , and the recognition of a non-taxable gain related to the acquisition of rain and hail . the 2009 year included a reduction of a deferred tax valuation allowance related to investments . for 2008 , our effective income tax rate was adversely impacted by a change in mix of earnings due to the impact of catastrophe losses in lower tax-paying jurisdictions . prior period development the favorable prior period development , inclusive of the life segment , of $ 512 million during 2010 was the net result of sev- eral underlying favorable and adverse movements . with respect to ace 2019s crop business , ace regularly receives reports from its managing general agent ( mga ) relating to the previous crop year ( s ) in subsequent calendar quarters and this typically results .
Conversations:
q0: what was the net favorable prior period development in 2010? {answer0}
q1: and what was it in 2008? {answer1}
q2: what was, then, the change over the years? {answer2}
q3: what was the net favorable prior period development in 2008? {answer3}
Question: and how much does that change represent in relation to this 2008 amount, in percentage?
Answer:

Answer: -0.38206


Question:
In the context of this series of interconnected finance-related queries and the additional information provided by the pretext, table data, and posttext from a company's financial filings, please provide a response to the final question. This may require extracting information from the context and performing mathematical calculations. Please take into account the information provided in the preceding questions and their answers when formulating your response:
Context: entergy louisiana , inc . management's financial discussion and analysis gross operating revenues , fuel and purchased power expenses , and other regulatory credits gross operating revenues increased primarily due to : 2022 an increase of $ 98.0 million in fuel cost recovery revenues due to higher fuel rates ; and 2022 an increase due to volume/weather , as discussed above . the increase was partially offset by the following : 2022 a decrease of $ 31.9 million in the price applied to unbilled sales , as discussed above ; 2022 a decrease of $ 12.2 million in rate refund provisions , as discussed above ; and 2022 a decrease of $ 5.2 million in gross wholesale revenue due to decreased sales to affiliated systems . fuel and purchased power expenses increased primarily due to : 2022 an increase in the recovery from customers of deferred fuel costs ; and 2022 an increase in the market price of natural gas . other regulatory credits increased primarily due to : 2022 the deferral in 2004 of $ 14.3 million of capacity charges related to generation resource planning as allowed by the lpsc ; 2022 the amortization in 2003 of $ 11.8 million of deferred capacity charges , as discussed above ; and 2022 the deferral in 2004 of $ 11.4 million related to entergy's voluntary severance program , in accordance with a proposed stipulation with the lpsc staff . 2003 compared to 2002 net revenue , which is entergy louisiana's measure of gross margin , consists of operating revenues net of : 1 ) fuel , fuel-related , and purchased power expenses and 2 ) other regulatory charges ( credits ) . following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2003 to 2002. .

1		( in millions )

2	2002 net revenue	$ 922.9

3	deferred fuel cost revisions	59.1

4	asset retirement obligation	8.2

5	volume	-16.2 ( 16.2 )

6	vidalia settlement	-9.2 ( 9.2 )

7	other	8.9

8	2003 net revenue	$ 973.7

 the deferred fuel cost revisions variance resulted from a revised unbilled sales pricing estimate made in december 2002 and a further revision made in the first quarter of 2003 to more closely align the fuel component of that pricing with expected recoverable fuel costs . the asset retirement obligation variance was due to the implementation of sfas 143 , "accounting for asset retirement obligations" adopted in january 2003 . see "critical accounting estimates" for more details on sfas 143 . the increase was offset by decommissioning expense and had no effect on net income . the volume variance was due to a decrease in electricity usage in the service territory . billed usage decreased 1868 gwh in the industrial sector including the loss of a large industrial customer to cogeneration. .
Conversations:
Question: what was the change in net revenues during 2003?
Answer:

Answer: 50.8