Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Management evaluates each contingent matter separately. A loss is recorded if probable and reasonably estimable. Management establishes liabilities for these contingencies at its “best estimate,” or, if no one number within the range of possible losses is more probable than any other, the Company records an estimated liability at the low end of the range of losses. Litigation The Hartford is involved in claims litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as a liability insurer defending or providing indemnity for third-party claims brought against insureds and as an insurer defending coverage claims brought against it. The Hartford accounts for such activity through the establishment of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves. Subject to the uncertainties related to sexual molestation and sexual abuse claims discussed in Note 9 - Reserves for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses of this Form 10-Q and in Note 12 - Reserve for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expense, of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, and in the following discussion under the caption “COVID-19 Pandemic Business Income Insurance Coverage Litigation” and under the caption “Run-off Asbestos and Environmental Claims,” management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary-course claims litigation, after consideration of provisions made for potential losses and costs of defense, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of The Hartford. The Hartford is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. In addition to the matter described below, these actions include putative class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper sales or underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile, property, disability, life and inland marine. The Hartford also is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims or other allegedly unfair or improper business practices. Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. COVID-19 Pandemic Business Income Insurance Coverage Litigation Like many others in the property and casualty insurance industry, beginning in April 2020, various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company (collectively the "Hartford Writing Companies”), and in some instances the Company itself, have been served as defendants in lawsuits seeking insurance coverage under commercial insurance policies issued by the Hartford Writing Companies for alleged losses resulting from the shutdown or suspension of their businesses due to the spread of COVID-19. More than 240 such lawsuits have been filed, of which more than 50 purport to be filed on behalf of broad nationwide or statewide classes of policyholders. These lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts in roughly 34 states. Although the allegations vary, the plaintiffs generally seek a declaration of insurance coverage, damages for breach of contract in unspecified amounts, interest, and attorney’s fees. Many of the lawsuits also allege that the insurance claims were denied in bad faith or otherwise in violation of state laws and seek extra-contractual or punitive damages. The Company and its subsidiaries deny the allegations and intend to defend vigorously. The Hartford Writing Companies maintain that they have no coverage obligations with respect to these suits for business income allegedly lost by the plaintiffs due to the COVID-19 pandemic based on the clear terms of the applicable insurance policies. Although the policy terms vary depending, among other things, upon the size, nature, and location of the policyholder’s business, in general, the claims at issue in these lawsuits were denied because the claimant identified no direct physical damage or loss to property at the insured premises, and the governmental orders that led to the complete or partial shutdown of the business were not due to the existence of any direct physical loss or damage in the immediate vicinity of the insured premises and did not prohibit access to the insured premises, as required by the terms of the insurance policies. In addition, the vast majority of the policies at issue expressly exclude from coverage any loss caused directly or indirectly by the presence, growth, proliferation, spread or activity of a virus, subject to a narrow set of exceptions not applicable in connection with this pandemic, and contain a pollution and contamination exclusion that, among other things, expressly excludes from coverage any loss caused by material that threatens human health or welfare. In addition to the inherent difficulty in predicting litigation outcomes, the COVID-19 pandemic business income coverage lawsuits present numerous uncertainties and contingencies that are not yet known, including how many policyholders will ultimately file claims, the number of lawsuits that will be filed, the extent to which any state or nationwide classes will be certified, and the size and scope of any such classes. The legal theories advocated by plaintiffs vary significantly by case as do the state laws that govern the policy interpretation. These lawsuits are at various stages of litigation; some are in the earliest stages of litigation, many complaints are in the process of being amended, some have been dismissed voluntarily and may be refiled, while others have been dismissed through rulings in favor of the Hartford Writing Companies. Discovery is underway in certain single plaintiff cases and class actions. More than a dozen policyholders have appealed dismissals in favor of the Hartford Writing Companies. While these appeals are at various stages of the briefing process, none have been fully briefed at this time. In addition, business income calculations depend upon a wide range of factors that are particular to the circumstances of each individual policyholder and, here, virtually none of the plaintiffs have submitted proofs of loss or otherwise quantified or factually supported any allegedly covered loss, and, in any event, the Company’s experience shows that demands for damages often bear little relation to a reasonable estimate of potential loss. Accordingly, management cannot now reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Nonetheless, given the large number of claims and potential claims, the indeterminate amounts sought, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that adverse outcomes, if any, in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated operating results. Run-off Asbestos and Environmental Claims The Company continues to receive A&E claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs. The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and environmental exposures under general liability policies and pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments. Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured’s liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance coverages. Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid gross losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more traditional exposures. In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate loss development patterns, plaintiffs’ expanding theories of liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time, insurers, including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including “pre-packaged” bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other carriers and unanticipated developments pertaining to the Company’s ability to recover reinsurance for A&E claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future. In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding theories of liability and damages, the risks inherent in major litigation, inconsistent decisions concerning the existence and scope of coverage for environmental claims, and uncertainty as to the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the insured. The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including those related to A&E claims, is much longer than for direct claims. In many instances, it takes months or years to determine that the policyholder’s own obligations have been met and how the reinsurance in question may apply to such claims. The delay in reporting reinsurance claims and exposures adds to the uncertainty of estimating the related reserves. It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and legislative environment and their effect on the future development of A&E claims. Given the factors described above, the Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in estimating reserves for A&E exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims, both gross and net of reinsurance, and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its potential A&E exposures. The Company supplements this exposure-based analysis with evaluations of the Company’s historical direct net loss and expense paid and reported experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experience by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid and reported activity. While the Company believes that its current A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not estimable now, could be material to The Hartford’s consolidated operating results and liquidity. For its Run-off A&E, as of March 31, 2021, the Company reported $676 of net asbestos reserves and $79 of net environmental reserves. In addition, the Company has recorded a $210 deferred gain within other liabilities for losses economically ceded to NICO but for which the benefit is not recognized in earnings until later periods. While the Company believes that its current Run-off A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit our ability to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not reasonably estimable now, could be material to The Hartford's consolidated operating results and liquidity. The Company’s A&E ADC reinsurance agreement with NICO reinsures substantially all A&E reserve development for 2016 and prior accident years, including Run-off A&E and A&E reserves included in Commercial Lines and Personal Lines. The A&E ADC has a coverage limit of $1.5 billion above the Company’s existing net A&E reserves as of December 31, 2016 of approximately $1.7 billion. As of March 31, 2021, the Company has incurred $860 in cumulative adverse development on A&E reserves that have been ceded under the A&E ADC treaty with NICO, leaving $640 of coverage available for future adverse net reserve development, if any. Cumulative adverse development of A&E claims for accident years 2016 and prior could ultimately exceed the $1.5 billion treaty limit in which case any adverse development in excess of the treaty limit would be absorbed as a charge to earnings by the Company. In these scenarios, the effect of these charges could be material to the Company’s consolidated operating results and liquidity. For more information on the A&E ADC, refer to Note 12, Reserve for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's 2020 Form 10-K Annual Report. Derivative Commitments Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings, as set by nationally recognized statistical agencies, of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement. If the legal entity’s financial strength were to fall below certain ratings, the counterparties to the derivative agreements could demand immediate and ongoing full collateralization and, in certain instances, enable the counterparties to terminate the agreements and demand immediate settlement of all outstanding derivative positions traded under each impacted bilateral agreement. The settlement amount is determined by netting the derivative positions transacted under each agreement. If the termination rights were to be exercised by the counterparties, it could impact the legal entity’s ability to conduct hedging activities by increasing the associated costs and decreasing the willingness of counterparties to transact with the legal entity. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position as of March 31, 2021 was $60 for which the legal entities have posted collateral of $61 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative market values as of March 31, 2021, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody's or S&P would not require additional assets to be posted as collateral. A downgrade of two levels below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P would require an additional $2 of assets to be posted as collateral. These collateral amounts could change as derivative market values change, as a result of changes in our hedging activities or to the extent changes in contractual terms are negotiated. The nature of the additional collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills, U.S. Treasury notes and government agency securities.

Management evaluates each contingent matter separately. A loss is recorded if probable and reasonably estimable. Management establishes liabilities for these contingencies at its “best estimate,” or, if no one number within the range of possible losses is more probable than any other, the Company records an estimated liability at the low end of the range of losses.

Litigation

The Hartford is involved in claims litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as a liability insurer defending or providing indemnity for third-party claims brought against insureds and as an insurer defending coverage claims brought against it. The Hartford accounts for such activity through the establishment of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense

reserves. Subject to the uncertainties related to sexual molestation and sexual abuse claims discussed in Note 9 - Reserves for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses of this Form 10-Q and in Note 12 - Reserve for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expense, of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, and in the following discussion under the caption “COVID-19 Pandemic Business Income Insurance Coverage Litigation” and under the caption “Run-off Asbestos and Environmental Claims,” management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary-course claims litigation, after consideration of provisions made for potential losses and costs of defense, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of The Hartford.

The Hartford is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. In addition to the matter described below, these actions include putative class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper sales or underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile, property, disability, life and inland marine. The Hartford also is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims or other allegedly unfair or improper business practices. Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

COVID-19 Pandemic Business Income Insurance Coverage Litigation

Like many others in the property and casualty insurance industry, beginning in April 2020, various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company (collectively the "Hartford Writing Companies”), and in some instances the Company itself, have been served as defendants in lawsuits seeking insurance coverage under commercial insurance policies issued by the Hartford Writing Companies for alleged losses resulting from the shutdown or suspension of their businesses due to the spread of COVID-19. More than 240 such lawsuits have been filed, of which more than 50 purport to be filed on behalf of broad nationwide or statewide classes of policyholders. These lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts in roughly 34 states. Although the allegations vary, the plaintiffs generally seek a declaration of insurance coverage, damages for breach of contract in unspecified amounts, interest, and attorney’s fees. Many of the lawsuits also allege that the insurance claims were denied in bad faith or otherwise in violation of state laws and seek extra-contractual or punitive damages.

The Company and its subsidiaries deny the allegations and intend to defend vigorously. The Hartford Writing Companies maintain that they have no coverage obligations with respect to these suits for business income allegedly lost by the plaintiffs due to the COVID-19 pandemic based on the clear terms of the applicable insurance policies. Although the policy terms vary depending, among other things, upon the size, nature, and location of the policyholder’s business, in general, the claims at issue in these lawsuits were denied because the claimant identified no direct physical damage or loss to property at the insured premises, and the governmental orders that led to the complete or partial shutdown of the business were not due to the existence of any direct physical loss or damage in the immediate vicinity of the insured premises and did not prohibit access to the insured premises, as required by the terms of the insurance policies. In addition, the vast majority of the policies at issue expressly exclude from coverage any loss caused directly or indirectly by the presence, growth, proliferation, spread or activity of a virus, subject to a narrow set of exceptions not applicable in connection with this pandemic, and contain a pollution and contamination exclusion that, among other things, expressly excludes from coverage any loss caused by material that threatens human health or welfare.

In addition to the inherent difficulty in predicting litigation outcomes, the COVID-19 pandemic business income coverage lawsuits present numerous uncertainties and contingencies that are not yet known, including how many policyholders will ultimately file claims, the number of lawsuits that will be filed, the extent to which any state or nationwide classes will be certified, and the size and scope of any such classes. The legal theories advocated by plaintiffs vary significantly by case as do the state laws that govern the policy interpretation. These lawsuits are at various stages of litigation; some are in the earliest stages of litigation, many complaints are in the process of being amended, some have been dismissed voluntarily and may be refiled, while others have been dismissed through rulings in favor of the Hartford Writing Companies. Discovery is underway in certain single plaintiff cases and class actions. More than a dozen policyholders have appealed dismissals in favor of the Hartford Writing Companies. While these appeals are at various stages of the briefing process, none have been fully briefed at this time. In addition, business income calculations depend upon a wide range of factors that are particular to the circumstances of each individual policyholder and, here, virtually none of the plaintiffs have submitted proofs of loss or otherwise quantified or factually supported any allegedly covered loss, and, in any event, the Company’s experience shows that demands for damages often bear little relation to a reasonable estimate of potential loss. Accordingly, management cannot now reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Nonetheless, given the large number of claims and potential claims, the indeterminate amounts sought, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that adverse outcomes, if any, in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated operating results.

Run-off Asbestos and Environmental Claims

The Company continues to receive A&E claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs.

The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and environmental exposures under general liability policies and pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments.

Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured’s liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance coverages.

Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid gross losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more traditional exposures.

In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate loss development patterns, plaintiffs’ expanding theories of liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time, insurers, including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including “pre-packaged” bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other carriers and unanticipated developments pertaining to the Company’s ability to recover reinsurance for A&E claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future.

In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding theories of liability and damages, the risks inherent in major litigation, inconsistent decisions concerning the existence and scope of coverage for environmental claims, and uncertainty as to the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the insured.

The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including those related to A&E claims, is much longer than for direct claims. In many instances, it takes months or years to determine that the policyholder’s own obligations have been met and how the reinsurance in question may apply to such claims. The delay in reporting reinsurance claims and exposures adds to the uncertainty of estimating the related reserves.

It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and legislative environment and their effect on the future development of A&E claims.

Given the factors described above, the Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional kinds of insurance

exposure are less precise in estimating reserves for A&E exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims, both gross and net of reinsurance, and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its potential A&E exposures. The Company supplements this exposure-based analysis with evaluations of the Company’s historical direct net loss and expense paid and reported experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experience by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid and reported activity.

While the Company believes that its current A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not estimable now, could be material to The Hartford’s consolidated operating results and liquidity.

For its Run-off A&E, as of March 31, 2021, the Company reported $676 of net asbestos reserves and $79 of net environmental reserves. In addition, the Company has recorded a $210 deferred gain within other liabilities for losses economically ceded to NICO but for which the benefit is not recognized in earnings until later periods. While the Company believes that its current Run-off A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit our ability to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not reasonably estimable now, could be material to The Hartford's consolidated operating results and liquidity.

The Company’s A&E ADC reinsurance agreement with NICO reinsures substantially all A&E reserve development for 2016 and prior accident years, including Run-off A&E and A&E reserves included in Commercial Lines and Personal Lines. The A&E ADC has a coverage limit of $1.5 billion above the Company’s existing net A&E reserves as of December 31, 2016 of approximately $1.7 billion. As of March 31, 2021, the Company has incurred $860 in cumulative adverse development on A&E reserves that have been ceded under the A&E ADC treaty with NICO, leaving $640 of coverage available for future adverse net reserve development, if any. Cumulative adverse development of A&E claims for accident years 2016 and prior could ultimately exceed the $1.5 billion treaty limit in which case any adverse development in excess of the treaty limit would be absorbed as a charge to earnings by the Company. In these scenarios, the effect of these charges could be material to the Company’s consolidated operating results and liquidity. For more information on the A&E ADC, refer to Note 12, Reserve for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's 2020 Form 10-K Annual Report.

Derivative Commitments

Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings, as set by nationally recognized statistical agencies, of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement. If the legal entity’s financial strength were to fall below certain ratings, the counterparties to the derivative agreements could demand immediate and ongoing full collateralization and, in certain

instances, enable the counterparties to terminate the agreements and demand immediate settlement of all outstanding derivative positions traded under each impacted bilateral agreement. The settlement amount is determined by netting the derivative positions transacted under each agreement. If the termination rights were to be exercised by the counterparties, it could impact the legal entity’s ability to conduct hedging activities by increasing the associated costs and decreasing the willingness of counterparties to transact with the legal entity. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position as of March 31, 2021 was $60 for which the legal entities have posted collateral of $61 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative market values as of March 31, 2021, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody's or S&P would not require additional assets to be posted as collateral. A downgrade of two levels below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P would require an additional $2 of assets to be posted as collateral. These collateral amounts could change as derivative market values change, as a result of changes in our hedging activities or to the extent changes in contractual terms are negotiated. The nature of the additional collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills, U.S. Treasury notes and government agency securities.