pre_text: management 2019s discussion and analysis we believe our credit ratings are primarily based on the credit rating agencies 2019 assessment of : 2030 our liquidity , market , credit and operational risk management practices ; 2030 the level and variability of our earnings ; 2030 our capital base ; 2030 our franchise , reputation and management ; 2030 our corporate governance ; and 2030 the external operating environment , including the assumed level of government support . certain of the firm 2019s derivatives have been transacted under bilateral agreements with counterparties who may require us to post collateral or terminate the transactions based on changes in our credit ratings . we assess the impact of these bilateral agreements by determining the collateral or termination payments that would occur assuming a downgrade by all rating agencies . a downgrade by any one rating agency , depending on the agency 2019s relative ratings of the firm at the time of the downgrade , may have an impact which is comparable to the impact of a downgrade by all rating agencies . we allocate a portion of our gce to ensure we would be able to make the additional collateral or termination payments that may be required in the event of a two-notch reduction in our long-term credit ratings , as well as collateral that has not been called by counterparties , but is available to them . the table below presents the additional collateral or termination payments related to our net derivative liabilities under bilateral agreements that could have been called at the reporting date by counterparties in the event of a one-notch and two-notch downgrade in our credit ratings. .
post_text: in millions 2013 2012 additional collateral or termination payments for a one-notch downgrade $ 911 $ 1534 additional collateral or termination payments for a two-notch downgrade 2989 2500 cash flows as a global financial institution , our cash flows are complex and bear little relation to our net earnings and net assets . consequently , we believe that traditional cash flow analysis is less meaningful in evaluating our liquidity position than the excess liquidity and asset-liability management policies described above . cash flow analysis may , however , be helpful in highlighting certain macro trends and strategic initiatives in our businesses . year ended december 2013 . our cash and cash equivalents decreased by $ 11.54 billion to $ 61.13 billion at the end of 2013 . we generated $ 4.54 billion in net cash from operating activities . we used net cash of $ 16.08 billion for investing and financing activities , primarily to fund loans held for investment and repurchases of common stock . year ended december 2012 . our cash and cash equivalents increased by $ 16.66 billion to $ 72.67 billion at the end of 2012 . we generated $ 9.14 billion in net cash from operating and investing activities . we generated $ 7.52 billion in net cash from financing activities from an increase in bank deposits , partially offset by net repayments of unsecured and secured long-term borrowings . year ended december 2011 . our cash and cash equivalents increased by $ 16.22 billion to $ 56.01 billion at the end of 2011 . we generated $ 23.13 billion in net cash from operating and investing activities . we used net cash of $ 6.91 billion for financing activities , primarily for repurchases of our series g preferred stock and common stock , partially offset by an increase in bank deposits . goldman sachs 2013 annual report 89 .
table: As of December
table: <i>in millions</i> 2013 2012
table: Additional collateral or termination payments for a one-notch downgrade $ 911 $1,534
table: Additional collateral or termination payments for a two-notch downgrade 2,989 2,500
question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. what is the difference in millions , between additional collateral or termination payments for a two-notch downgrade and additional collateral or termination payments for a one-notch downgrade at the end of december 2012?