in 2004 what was the ratio of the obligations of equity affiliates to residual value guarantees
Important information:
table_1: ( dollars in millions ) the obligations of equity affiliates of december 31 2004 is $ 131 ;
table_2: ( dollars in millions ) the residual value guarantees of december 31 2004 is 90 ;
text_8: under these operating leases , the residual value guarantees at december 31 , 2004 totaled $ 90 million and consisted primarily of leases for railcars , company aircraft , and other equipment .
Reasoning Steps:
Step: divide1-1(131, 90) = 1.5
Program:
divide(131, 90)
Program (Nested):
divide(131, 90)

Please answer the following financial question based on the context provided. Make sure to give the answer in raw number, not in percentage and without any units. If the question asks for percentage the value should be less than 1
Context:
guarantees in november 2002 , the fasb issued interpretation no . 45 ( 201cfin 45 201d ) , 201cguarantor 2019s accounting and disclosure requirements for guarantees , including indirect guarantees of indebtedness of others , 201d an interpretation of fasb statements no . 5 , 57 , and 107 and rescission of fasb interpretation no . 34 . fin 45 clarifies the requirements of sfas no . 5 , 201caccounting for contingencies , 201d relating to the guarantor 2019s accounting for , and disclosure of , the issuance of certain types of guarantees . disclosures about each group of similar guarantees are provided below and summarized in the following table: .
Table
( dollars in millions )          | december 31 2004
obligations of equity affiliates | $ 131           
residual value guarantees        | 90              
total                            | $ 221           
if certain operating leases are terminated by the company , it guarantees a portion of the residual value loss , if any , incurred by the lessors in disposing of the related assets . under these operating leases , the residual value guarantees at december 31 , 2004 totaled $ 90 million and consisted primarily of leases for railcars , company aircraft , and other equipment . the company believes , based on current facts and circumstances , that a material payment pursuant to such guarantees is remote . guarantees and claims also arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with suppliers , customers and non-consolidated affiliates when the company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others if specified triggering events occur . non-performance under a contract could trigger an obligation of the company . these potential claims include actions based upon alleged exposures to products , intellectual property and environmental matters , and other indemnifications . the ultimate effect on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists as to the final outcome of these claims . however , while the ultimate liabilities resulting from such claims may be significant to results of operations in the period recognized , management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the company 2019s consolidated financial position or liquidity . product warranty liability the company warrants to the original purchaser of its products that it will repair or replace without charge products if they fail due to a manufacturing defect . however , the company 2019s historical claims experience has not been material . the estimated product warranty liability for the company 2019s products as of december 31 , 2004 is approximately $ 1 million . the company accrues for product warranties when it is probable that customers will make claims under warranties relating to products that have been sold and a reasonable estimate of the costs can be made . variable interest entities the company has evaluated material relationships including the guarantees related to the third-party borrowings of joint ventures described above and has concluded that the entities are not variable interest entities ( 201cvies 201d ) or , in the case of primester , a joint venture that manufactures cellulose acetate at its kingsport , tennessee plant , the company is not the primary beneficiary of the vie . as such , in accordance with fin 46r , the company is not required to consolidate these entities . in addition , the company has evaluated long-term purchase obligations with two entities that may be vies at december 31 , 2004 . these potential vies are joint ventures from which the company has purchased raw materials and utilities for several years and purchases approximately $ 40 million of raw materials and utilities on an annual basis . the company has no equity interest in these entities and has confirmed that one party to each of these joint ventures does consolidate the potential vie . however , due to competitive and other reasons , the company has not been able to obtain the necessary financial information to determine whether the entities are vies , and if one or both are vies , whether or not the company is the primary beneficiary . notes to consolidated financial statements eastman chemical company and subsidiaries 2013 80 2013 .
Question: 
in 2004 what was the ratio of the obligations of equity affiliates to residual value guarantees
Important information:
table_1: ( dollars in millions ) the obligations of equity affiliates of december 31 2004 is $ 131 ;
table_2: ( dollars in millions ) the residual value guarantees of december 31 2004 is 90 ;
text_8: under these operating leases , the residual value guarantees at december 31 , 2004 totaled $ 90 million and consisted primarily of leases for railcars , company aircraft , and other equipment .
Reasoning Steps:
Step: divide1-1(131, 90) = 1.5
Program:
divide(131, 90)
Program (Nested):
divide(131, 90)
