Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
| x | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
OR
| ¨ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission File No. 1-13300
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
| Delaware | 54-1719854 | |
| (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) |
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | |
| 1680 Capital One Drive, McLean, Virginia |
22102 | |
| (Address of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code) | |
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (703) 720-1000
Securities registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the act:
| Title of Each Class |
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered | |
| Common Stock (par value $.01 per share) | New York Stock Exchange | |
| Warrants (expiring November 14, 2018) | New York Stock Exchange | |
| Depository Shares, Each Representing a 1/40th Interest in a Share of Fixed Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series B | New York Stock Exchange |
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15 (d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
| Large accelerated filer | x | Accelerated filer | ¨ | |||
| Non-accelerated filer | ¨ | Smaller reporting company | ¨ |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a Shell Company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes ¨ No x
The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the close of business on December 31, 2013.
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value: $36,655,693,401*
| * | In determining this figure, the registrant assumed that the executive officers of the registrant and the registrant’s directors are affiliates of the registrant. Such assumption shall not be deemed to be conclusive for any other purpose. |
The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock as of the close of business on January 31, 2014.
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value: 572,812,828 shares
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
| 1. | Portions of the Proxy Statement for the annual meeting of stockholders to be held on May 1, 2014, are incorporated by reference into Part III. |
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
ii
Table of Contents
INDEX OF MD&A TABLES AND SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES
iii
Table of Contents
PART I
General
Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation established in 1995 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a diversified financial services holding company with banking and non-banking subsidiaries. Capital One Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) offer a broad array of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients through branches, the internet and other distribution channels. As of December 31, 2013, our principal subsidiaries included:
| • | Capital One Bank (USA), National Association (“COBNA”), which offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and deposit products; and |
| • | Capital One, National Association (“CONA”), which offers a broad spectrum of banking products and financial services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. |
The Company is hereafter collectively referred to as “we”, “us” or “our.” COBNA and CONA are collectively referred to as the “Banks.” References to “this Report” or our “2013 Form 10-K” or “2013 Annual Report” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. All references to 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009 refer to our fiscal years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2013, December 31, 2012, December 31, 2011, December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. Certain business terms used in this document are defined in the Glossary and Acronyms and should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Annual Report.
As one of the nation’s 10 largest banks based on deposits as of December 31, 2013, we service banking customer accounts through the internet and branch locations primarily in New York, New Jersey, Texas, Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. In addition to bank lending, treasury management and depository services, we offer credit and debit card products, auto loans and mortgage banking in markets across the United States. We were the fourth largest issuer of Visa® (“Visa”) and MasterCard® (“MasterCard”) credit cards in the United States based on the outstanding balance of credit card loans as of December 31, 2013.
We also offer products outside of the United States principally through Capital One (Europe) plc (“COEP”), an indirect subsidiary of COBNA organized and located in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”), and through a branch of COBNA in Canada. COEP has authority, among other things, to provide credit card and installment loans. Our branch of COBNA in Canada has the authority to provide credit card loans.
Recent Acquisitions and Dispositions
We regularly explore and evaluate opportunities to acquire financial services companies and financial assets, including credit card and other loan portfolios, and enter into strategic partnerships as part of our growth strategy. We also regularly consider the potential disposition of certain of our assets, branches, partnership agreements or lines of businesses. We may issue equity or debt in connection with acquisitions, including public offerings, to fund such acquisitions. Below we provide information on acquisitions and dispositions completed in 2013 and 2012.
Acquisitions in 2013
On November 1, 2013, we acquired Beech Street Capital, a privately-held, national originator and servicer of Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
1
Table of Contents
(“Freddie Mac”) and Federal Housing Authority (“FHA”) multifamily commercial real estate loans. The acquisition expands and enhances our existing multifamily capabilities and product offerings. At closing, we acquired a mortgage servicing portfolio on approximately $10 billion of loans.
Dispositions in 2013
On September 6, 2013, we completed the sale of the Best Buy private label and co-branded credit card portfolio to Citibank, N.A (“Portfolio Sale”). Pursuant to the agreement with Citibank, N.A.(“Citibank”), we received $6.4 billion for the net portfolio assets.
Acquisitions in 2012
ING Direct
On February 17, 2012, we completed the acquisition (the “ING Direct acquisition”) of substantially all of the ING Direct business in the United States (“ING Direct”) from ING Groep N.V., ING Bank N.V., ING Direct N.V. and ING Direct Bancorp (collectively the “ING Direct Sellers”). The ING Direct acquisition resulted in the addition of loans of $40.4 billion, other assets of $53.9 billion and deposits of $84.4 billion as of the acquisition date.
HSBC—U.S. Credit Card Business
On May 1, 2012, pursuant to the agreement with HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC USA Inc. and HSBC Technology and Services (USA) Inc. (collectively, “HSBC”), we closed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and assumed liabilities of HSBC’s credit card and private-label Credit Card business in the United States (other than the HSBC Bank USA, National Association consumer credit card program and certain other retained assets and liabilities) (the “2012 U.S. card acquisition). The 2012 U.S. card acquisition included (i) the acquisition of HSBC’s U.S. credit card portfolio, (ii) its on-going private label and co-branded partnerships, and (iii) other assets, including infrastructure and capabilities. At closing, we acquired approximately 27 million new active accounts, approximately $27.8 billion in outstanding credit card receivables designated as held for investment (“HFI”) and approximately $327 million in other net assets.
Additional Information
Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “COF” and is included in the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 100 Index. As of January 31, 2014, there were 13,280 holders of record of our common stock. Our principal executive office is located at 1680 Capital One Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102 (telephone number (703) 720-1000. We maintain a website at www.capitalone.com. Documents available on our website include: (i) our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for the Corporation; (ii) our Corporate Governance Principles; and (iii) charters for the Audit, Risk, Compensation, and Governance and Nominating Committees of the Board of Directors. These documents also are available in print to any shareholder who requests a copy.
In addition, we make available free of charge through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filing or furnishing such material to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
2
Table of Contents
OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS SEGMENTS
Our consolidated total net revenues are derived primarily from lending to consumer and commercial customers net of the costs associated with funding our assets including deposit-taking, which generate net interest income, and by activities that generate non-interest income, such as fee-based services provided to customers and merchant interchange fees with respect to certain credit card transactions. Our expenses primarily consist of the provision for credit losses, operating expenses (including associate salaries and benefits, occupancy and equipment costs, professional services, infrastructure enhancements and branch operations and expansion costs), marketing expenses and income taxes.
Our principal operations are currently organized for management reporting purposes into three primary business segments, which are defined primarily based on the products and services provided or the type of customer served: Credit Card, Consumer Banking and Commercial Banking. The operations of acquired businesses have been integrated into our existing business segments. Certain activities that are not part of a segment, such as management of our corporate investment portfolio and asset/ liability management by our centralized Corporate Treasury group, are included in the “Other” category.
| • | Credit Card: Consists of our domestic consumer and small business card lending, national closed end installment lending and the international card lending businesses in Canada and the United Kingdom. |
| • | Consumer Banking: Consists of our branch-based lending and deposit gathering activities for consumers and small businesses, national deposit gathering, national auto lending and consumer home loan lending and servicing activities. |
| • | Commercial Banking: Consists of our lending, deposit gathering and treasury management services to commercial real estate and commercial and industrial customers. Our commercial and industrial customers typically include companies with annual revenues between $10 million to $1 billion. |
In the first quarter of 2012, we re-aligned the loan categories reported by our Commercial Banking business and the loan customer and product types included within each category. Prior period amounts have been recast to conform to the current period presentation. Table 1 summarizes our business segment results, which we report based on income from continuing operations, net of tax, for 2013, 2012 and 2011. We provide additional information on the realignment of our Commercial Banking business segment under “Business Segment Results” and in “Note 19—Business Segments” of this Report.
Customer usage and payment patterns, credit quality, levels of marketing expense and operating efficiency all affect our profitability. In our Credit Card business, we experience fluctuations in purchase volumes and the level of outstanding loan receivables due to higher seasonal consumer spending and payment patterns around the winter holiday season, summer vacations and back-to-school periods. Although there is some seasonal impact to purchase volumes and credit card loan balances in our Credit Card business, these seasonal trends have not caused significant fluctuations in our results of operations. No individual quarter in 2013, 2012 or 2011 accounted for more than 30% of our total revenues in any of these fiscal years. Delinquency rates in our Credit Card and Consumer businesses also have historically exhibited seasonal patterns, with delinquency rates generally tending to decrease in the first two quarters of the year as customers use income tax refunds to pay down outstanding loan balances.
For additional information on our business segments, including the financial performance of each business, see “Part II—Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”)—Executive Summary and Business Outlook,” “MD&A—Business Segment Financial Performance” and “Note 19—Business Segments” of this Report.
3
Table of Contents
General
Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company (“BHC”) under Section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (12 U.S.C. § 1842) (the “BHC Act”) and is subject to the requirements of the BHC Act, including its capital adequacy standards and limitations on our nonbanking activities. We are also subject to supervision, examination and regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). Permissible activities for a BHC include those activities that are so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto, such as consumer lending and other activities that have been approved by the Federal Reserve by regulation or order. Certain servicing activities are also permissible for a BHC if conducted for or on behalf of the BHC or any of its affiliates. Impermissible activities for BHCs include activities that are related to commerce such as retail sales of nonfinancial products. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), Federal Reserve regulation, and Federal Reserve policy, we are expected to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to any banks that we control, including the Banks, and to commit resources to support them.
On May 27, 2005, we became a “financial holding company” under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amendments to the BHC Act (the “GLBA”). The GLBA removed many of the restrictions on the activities of BHCs that become financial holding companies. A financial holding company, and the nonbank companies under its control, are permitted to engage in activities considered financial in nature (including, for example, insurance underwriting, agency sales and brokerage, securities underwriting and dealing and merchant banking activities), incidental to financial activities or complementary to financial activities if the Federal Reserve determines that they pose no risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system in general.
Our election to become a financial holding company under the GLBA certifies that the depository institutions we control meet certain criteria, including capital, management and Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) requirements. Effective July 21, 2011, under amendments to the BHC Act enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act, Capital One Financial Corporation also must be “well capitalized” and “well managed.” The failure to meet the criteria for financial holding company status could, depending on which requirements were not met, result in the company facing restrictions on new financial activities or acquisitions or being required to discontinue existing activities that are not generally permissible for bank holding companies.
The Banks are national associations chartered under the laws of the United States, the deposits of which are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) up to applicable limits. In addition to regulatory requirements imposed as a result of COBNA’s international operations (discussed below), the Banks are subject to comprehensive regulation and periodic examination by the OCC, the FDIC and by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”).
We are also registered as a financial institution holding company under Virginia law and, as such, we are subject to periodic examination by Virginia’s Bureau of Financial Institutions. We also face regulation in the international jurisdictions in which we conduct business (see below under “Regulation of International Business by Non-U.S. Authorities”).
Regulation of Business Activities
The business activities of the Company and Banks also are subject to regulation and supervision under various laws and regulations.
4
Table of Contents
Regulations of Consumer Lending Activities
The activities of the Banks as consumer lenders are subject to regulation under various federal laws, including the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”), the CRA and the Service members Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), as well as under various state laws. Depending on the underlying issue and applicable law, regulators are often authorized to impose penalties for violations of these statutes and, in certain cases, to order banks to compensate injured borrowers. Borrowers may also have a private right of action for certain violations. Federal bankruptcy and state debtor relief and collection laws also affect the ability of a bank to collect outstanding balances owed by borrowers. These laws may affect the ability of banks to collect outstanding balances.
The Credit CARD Act (amending the Truth-In-Lending Act) enacted in May 2009, and related changes to Regulation Z, impose a number of restrictions on credit card practices impacting rates and fees and update the disclosures required for open-end credit. Overlimit fees may not be imposed without prior consent, and the number of such fees that can be charged for the same violation is constrained. The amount of any penalty fee or charge must be “reasonable and proportional” to the violation. The Credit CARD Act also significantly restricts the ability of a card issuer to increase rates charged on pre-existing card balances. Card issuers are generally prohibited from raising rates on pre-existing balances when generally prevailing interest rates change. Moreover, the circumstances under which a card issuer can raise the interest rate on pre-existing balances of a customer whose risk of default increases are restricted. Payments above the minimum payment must be allocated first to balances with the highest interest rate. The amount of fees charged to credit card accounts with lower credit lines is limited. A consumer’s ability to pay must be taken into account before issuing credit or increasing credit limits. As a result, the rules implementing the Credit CARD Act could make the card business generally less resilient in future economic downturns.
Mortgage Lending
The CFPB has issued several final rules pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act that provide additional disclosure requirements and substantive limitations on our mortgage lending activities. These rules, which include the Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and Integrated Mortgage Disclosures under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z), could impact the type and amount of mortgage loans we offer, though we do not expect the regulations to have a material financial impact on us. The Dodd-Frank Act also generally requires securitizers to retain a five percent economic interest in the credit risk of assets sold through the issuance of asset-backed securitizations, with an exemption for traditionally underwritten residential mortgage loans that meet the definition of a qualified residential mortgage loan. This requirement also could impact the type and amount of mortgage loans we offer, depending on the final regulations.
FFIEC Account Management Guidance
On January 8, 2003, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (“FFIEC”) released Account Management and Loss Allowance Guidance (the “FFIEC Guidance”). The FFIEC Guidance applies to all credit lending of regulated financial institutions and generally requires that banks properly manage several elements of their lending programs, including line assignments, over-limit practices, minimum payment and negative amortization, workout and settlement programs, and the accounting methodology used for various assets and income items related to loans.
We believe that our account management and loss allowance practices are prudent and appropriate and consistent with the FFIEC Guidance. We caution, however, the FFIEC Guidance provides wide discretion to bank regulatory agencies in the application of the FFIEC Guidance to any particular institution and its account management and loss allowance practices. Accordingly, under the FFIEC Guidance, bank examiners could require changes in our account management or loss allowance practices in the future, and such changes could have an adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operation.
5
Table of Contents
Fair Credit Reporting
Like other financial institutions, the Banks rely upon consumer reports for prescreen marketing, underwriting new loans and for reviewing and managing risks associated with existing accounts. In addition, the Banks furnish customer account information to the major consumer reporting agencies. The use of consumer reports by the Banks and furnishing of account information to the consumer reporting agencies is regulated under the FCRA on a uniform, nationwide basis. This includes restrictions on the ability of the Banks to share consumer report information with affiliates and to use customer account information shared by affiliates for a marketing purpose. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the “FACT Act”), extends the federal preemption of the FCRA permanently, although the law authorizes states to enact laws regulating certain subject matters so long as they are not inconsistent with the conduct required by the FCRA. The FACT Act also added new provisions to the FCRA designed to address the growing crime of identity theft and to improve the accuracy of consumer credit information. Generally, FCRA rulemaking and enforcement authority with respect to the Banks resides with the CFPB. In addition, the FCRA creates a limited private right of action for consumers to seek relief for certain violations of the FCRA.
Overdraft Protection
The Federal Reserve amended Regulation E in November 2009 to limit the ability to assess overdraft fees for paying ATM and one-time debit card transactions that overdraw a consumer’s account, unless the consumer opts in to such payment of overdrafts. The rule does not apply to overdraft services with respect to checks, ACH transactions, or recurring debit card transactions, or to the payment of overdrafts pursuant to a line of credit or a service that transfers funds from another account. We are required to provide to customers written notice describing our overdraft service, fees imposed and other information, and to provide customers with a reasonable opportunity to opt in to the service. Before we may assess fees for paying discretionary overdrafts, a customer must affirmatively opt in, which could negatively impact our deposit business revenue.
Debit Interchange Fees
The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the amount of any interchange fee received by a debit card issuer with respect to debit card transactions be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction. In June 2011, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule and an interim final rule (which largely was adopted in final form in July 2012) implementing the portion of the Dodd-Frank Act that limits interchange fees received by a debit card issuer. The final rules limited interchange fees per debit card transaction to $0.21 plus five basis points of the transaction amount and provided for an additional $.01 fraud prevention adjustment to the interchange fee for issuers that meet certain fraud prevention requirements. On July 31, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling that requires the Federal Reserve to reconsider the current permissible interchange amount. On August 21, 2013, the Federal Reserve appealed this ruling and on September 19, 2013, the District Court stayed its ruling pending the appeal. It remains unclear how the ruling and appeal will impact the Federal Reserve’s interchange fee rules and our debit card business.
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”) contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws as well as enhanced information collection tools and enforcement mechanisms for the U.S. government, including: due diligence requirements for private banking and correspondent accounts; standards for verifying customer identification at account opening; rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering; reporting requirements applicable to the receipt of coins and currency of more than $10,000 in nonfinancial trades or businesses; and more broadly applicable suspicious activity reporting requirements.
6
Table of Contents
The Department of Treasury, in consultation with the Federal Reserve and other federal financial institution regulators, has promulgated rules and regulations implementing the Patriot Act that prohibit correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks at U.S. financial institutions; require financial institutions to maintain certain records relating to correspondent accounts for foreign banks; require financial institutions to produce certain records upon request of the appropriate federal banking agency; require due diligence with respect to private banking and correspondent banking accounts; facilitate information sharing between government and financial institutions; require verification of customer identification; and require financial institutions to have an anti-money laundering program in place.
Funding
Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), as discussed in “MD&A—Liquidity Risk,” only well-capitalized and adequately-capitalized institutions may accept brokered deposits. Adequately-capitalized institutions, however, must first obtain a waiver from the FDIC before accepting brokered deposits, and such deposits may not pay rates that significantly exceed the rates paid on deposits of similar maturity from the institution’s normal market area or, for deposits from outside the institution’s normal market area, the national rate on deposits of comparable maturity. The FDIC is authorized to terminate a bank’s deposit insurance upon a finding by the FDIC that the bank’s financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices or has violated any applicable rule, regulation, order or condition enacted or imposed by the bank’s regulatory agency. The termination of deposit insurance for a bank could have a material adverse effect on its liquidity and its earnings.
In addition to the provision requiring a securitizer to retain a portion of the credit risk of an asset-backed securitization, the Dodd-Frank Act also prohibits conflicts of interest relating to securitizations.
Non-Bank Activities
Our non-bank subsidiaries are subject to supervision and regulation by various other federal and state authorities. Capital One Investment Services LLC, Capital One Securities, Inc. and Capital One Sharebuilder, Inc. are registered broker-dealers regulated by the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Our broker-dealer subsidiaries are subject to, among other things, net capital rules designed to measure the general financial condition and liquidity of a broker-dealer. Under these rules, broker-dealers are required to maintain the minimum net capital deemed necessary to meet their continuing commitments to customers and others, and are required to keep a substantial portion of their assets in relatively liquid form. These rules also limit the ability of broker-dealers to transfer capital to parent companies and other affiliates. Broker-dealers are also subject to other regulations covering their business operations, including sales and trading practices, public offerings, publication of research reports, use and safekeeping of client funds and securities, capital structure, record-keeping and the conduct of directors, officers and employees.
Capital One Asset Management LLC, which provides investment advice to customers of Capital One, N.A., which includes high net worth individuals, institutions, foundations, endowments and other organizations, is an SEC-registered investment adviser regulated under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. ShareBuilder Advisors, LLC is also an SEC-registered investment adviser. Capital One Financial Advisors LLC is a state-registered investment adviser.
Finally, Capital One Agency LLC is a licensed insurance agency that provides both personal and business insurance services to retail and commercial clients and is regulated by the New York State Department of Financial Services in its home state and by the state insurance regulatory agencies in the states in which it operates.
7
Table of Contents
Derivative Activities
In 2012, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the SEC jointly issued final rules further defining the Dodd-Frank Act’s “swap dealer” definitions. Based on the final rules, no Capital One entity will be required to register with the CFTC or SEC as a swap dealer; however, this may change in the future. If such registration occurs, the registered entity is required to comply with additional regulatory requirements relating to its derivatives activities. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires all swap market participants to keep swap transaction data records and report certain information to swap data repositories on a real-time and on-going basis. Further, each swap, group, category, type or class of swap that the CFTC or SEC determines must be cleared will need to be cleared through a derivatives clearinghouse unless the swap is eligible for a clearing exemption and executed on a designated contract market (“DCM”), exchange or swap execution facility (“SEF”), unless no DCM, exchange or SEF has made the swap available for trading.
Volcker Rule
In December 2013, the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, SEC and CFTC approved a final rule implementing Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, commonly referred to as the “Volcker Rule.” We and each of our subsidiaries, including the Banks, are subject to the Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule contains prohibitions on proprietary trading and certain investments in, and relationships with, hedge funds and private equity funds, in each case as those terms are defined in the rule, and requires that we implement a robust compliance program in accordance with the requirements of the rule. Banking organizations have until July 21, 2015 to comply fully with most requirements of the Volcker Rule. Based on our preliminary assessment of the rule’s requirements, we do not believe that the Volcker Rule will have a material impact on our financial results. We continue to evaluate the final rule to assess its impact on our individual businesses and ensure that our compliance program meets the rule’s requirements.
Capital Adequacy
The Company and the Banks are subject to capital adequacy guidelines adopted by the Federal Reserve and OCC. For a further discussion of the capital adequacy guidelines, see “MD&A—Capital Management” and “Note 12—Regulatory and Capital Adequacy.” The Company and the Banks exceeded minimum regulatory requirements under these guidelines as of December 31, 2013.
Advanced Approaches Rules
The Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC (collectively, the “Federal Banking Agencies”) finalized rules implementing the “Advanced” version of Basel II in December 2007. As discussed below in “Basel III and U.S. Capital Rules,” the Federal Banking Agencies recently amended these rules (as amended, “the Advanced Approaches Rules”). The Advanced Approaches Rules are mandatory for those institutions with consolidated total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated total on-balance-sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more. We became subject to these rules at the end of 2012. Prior to full implementation of the Advanced Approaches framework, organizations must complete a qualification period of at least four consecutive quarters, known as the parallel run, during which they must meet the requirements of the rule to the satisfaction of their primary U.S. banking regulator. We are expected to enter parallel run no earlier than January 1, 2015. We have completed the development of our Advanced Approaches implementation plan. Compliance with the Advanced Approaches Rules will require a material investment of resources in building processes and systems.
The Collins Amendment within the Dodd-Frank Act and the Federal Banking Agencies’ implementing final rules establish a capital floor so that organizations subject to the Advanced Approaches Rules may not hold less capital than would be required using the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital calculations. Our current analysis suggests that our risk-weighted assets will increase under the Advanced Approaches framework, and therefore we would need to hold more regulatory capital in order to maintain a given capital ratio. We will continue to monitor regulators’ implementation of the new rules with respect to the institutions that are subject to them and assess the potential impact to us.
8
Table of Contents
Basel III and U.S. Capital Rules
In December 2009, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”) released proposals for additional capital and liquidity requirements, which subsequently have been clarified and amended (“Basel III”). In September 2010, the Basel Committee announced a package of reforms that included detailed capital ratios and capital conservation buffers, subject to transition periods through 2018. In December 2010, the Basel Committee published a final framework on capital and liquidity, consistent in large part with the prior proposals. In November 2011, the Basel Committee adopted a framework that would require additional Tier 1 common capital for systemically important institutions. This surcharge would vary based on the firm’s systemic importance as determined using five criteria (size, interconnectedness, lack of substitutability, cross-jurisdictional activity and complexity). As noted below, Federal Banking Agencies have stated that they intend to implement this surcharge, although the extent to which it would apply to us is unclear. In January 2014, the Basel Committee made changes to the leverage ratio rules to account for differences in national accounting frameworks.
The Federal Banking Agencies issued a rule in July 2013 implementing the Basel III capital framework developed by the Basel Committee as well as certain Dodd-Frank Act and other capital provisions (“Final Rule”). The Final Rule increases the minimum capital that we and other institutions are required to hold.
Prior to being revised in the Final Rule, the minimum risk-based capital requirements adopted by the Federal Banking Agencies followed Basel I and the Advanced Approaches for applicable banks and bank holding companies. See “Advanced Approaches Rules,” above. The Final Rule modified both Basel I and the Advanced Approaches (as modified, referred to respectively as “Basel III Standardized” and the “Basel III Advanced Approaches”).
The Final Rule increases the general risk-based and leverage capital requirements; significantly revises the definition of regulatory capital, including by eliminating certain items that constituted regulatory capital; establishes a minimum Tier 1 common equity requirement; introduces a new capital conservation buffer requirement; and (as noted below) updates the prompt corrective action framework to reflect the new regulatory capital minimums. For Basel III Advanced Approaches institutions like the Company and Banks, the Final Rule also implements a supplementary leverage ratio that incorporates a broader set of exposures and a new countercyclical capital buffer requirement.
Specifically, the Final Rule establishes for bank holding companies and banks a new minimum common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5 percent, adopts a leverage ratio of 4 percent (and removes the current 3 percent limited exception), and implements a capital conservation buffer of 2.5 percent. It also contains a supplementary leverage ratio of 3 percent and a countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5 percent (initially set to zero percent). Compliance with certain aspects of the Final Rule went into effect as of January 1, 2014 and other provisions will go into effect according to different start dates and phase-in periods.
Under the Final Rule, beginning on January 1, 2014, as a Basel III Advanced Approaches banking organization that has yet to enter or exit parallel run, we must use Basel III Standardized for calculating our regulatory capital, including as used in our capital ratios, subject to transition periods. In 2014, however, we will continue to use Basel I for calculating our risk-weighted assets in our regulatory capital ratios. Beginning on January 1, 2015, we must use Basel III Standardized for calculating our risk-weighted assets in our regulatory capital ratios.
For information regarding our expectations of how the Final Rule impacts us, see “MD&A—Capital Management.” It remains unclear whether and how the Federal Banking Agencies will account for changes in the leverage ratio recently published by the Basel Committee.
The Basel Committee also published a liquidity framework in December 2010, which was subsequently amended in January 2013 and January 2014. The liquidity framework includes two standards for liquidity risk supervision,
9
Table of Contents
each subject to observation periods and transitional arrangements. One standard promotes short-term resilience by requiring sufficient high-quality liquid assets to survive a stress scenario lasting for 30 days. This standard, the liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”), is included in the amended liquidity framework. The other standard promotes longer-term resilience by requiring sufficient stable funding over a one-year period, based on the liquidity characteristics of assets and activities. This standard remains under development by the Basel Committee. We expect that minimum liquidity requirements for us and other institutions will increase as a result of the Basel III liquidity framework, though rules implementing the Basel III liquidity framework have not yet been finalized by the Federal Banking Agencies.
In October 2013, the Federal Banking Agencies issued an interagency notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the U.S. implementation of the Basel III liquidity coverage ratio (the “Proposed LCR”), which would apply to institutions with consolidated total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated total on balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more (the same standard used for identifying institutions subject to the Advanced Approaches Rules) and their respective consolidated subsidiary depository institutions with total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion. The Proposed LCR would require us to maintain an amount of eligible high-quality, liquid assets that equals or exceeds 100% of our projected net cash outflows over a 30-day period (as calculated in accordance with the Proposed LCR). The Proposed LCR would begin to take effect in January 2015. While the Proposed LCR is generally consistent with the Basel LCR standard, it is more stringent in certain areas and accelerates the implementation timeframe. The Proposed LCR would require us to comply with the minimum LCR standard as follows: 80% by January 1, 2015; 90% by January 1, 2016; and 100% by January 1, 2017, and thereafter. The comment period for the Proposed LCR recently closed and so its financial impacts are currently difficult to estimate with any certainty. However, modification of the composition of our investment securities portfolio may be required to comply with the final rules, which may negatively impact the overall yield earned from the portfolio. Additionally, investment in new data processing systems may be required to comply with new daily calculation requirements contained in the final rule.
We will continue to monitor regulators” implementation of the new capital and liquidity rules and assess the potential impact to us.
Market Risk Capital Rule
A market risk capital rule, which the Federal Banking Agencies amended in August 2012, supplements both the general risk-based capital rules and the Basel III Advanced Approaches Rules by requiring institutions subject to the rule to adjust their risk-based capital ratios to reflect the market risk in their trading activities. The rule applies to institutions with aggregate trading assets and liabilities equal to the lesser of (i) 10 percent or more of total assets or (ii) $1 billion or more. Currently, we are not subject to this rule but may become subject to it in the future.
FDICIA and Prompt Corrective Action
In general, the FDICIA subjects banks to significantly increased regulation and supervision. Among other things, the FDICIA requires Federal Banking Agencies to take “prompt corrective action” for banks that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The FDICIA establishes five capital ratio levels: well capitalized; adequately capitalized; undercapitalized; significantly undercapitalized; and critically undercapitalized. Under applicable regulations, a bank is considered to be well capitalized if it maintains a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10 percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6 percent, a Tier 1 leverage capital ratio of at least 5 percent and is not subject to any supervisory agreement, order or directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. A bank is considered to be adequately capitalized if it maintains a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8 percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 4 percent, a Tier 1 leverage capital ratio of at least 4 percent (3 percent for certain highly rated institutions), and does not otherwise meet the definition of well capitalized. The three undercapitalized categories are based upon the amount by which a bank falls below the ratios applicable to adequately-capitalized institutions. The capital categories are determined solely for purposes of applying the FDICIA’s prompt corrective action provisions, and such capital categories
10
Table of Contents
may not constitute an accurate representation of the Banks’ overall financial condition or prospects. As of December 31, 2013, each of the Banks met the requirements for a well-capitalized institution.
As noted above, the Final Rule updates the prompt corrective action framework to reflect new, higher regulatory capital minimums. This rule adjusts the definitions of well capitalized and adequately capitalized. For an insured depository institution to be well capitalized, it must maintain a total risk-based capital ratio of 10 percent or more; a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8 percent or more; a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5 percent or more; and a leverage ratio of 5 percent or more. An adequately-capitalized depository institution must maintain a total risk-based capital ratio of 8 percent or more; a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6 percent or more; a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5 percent or more; a leverage ratio of 4 percent or more; and, for Advanced Approaches institutions, a supplementary leverage ratio, which incorporates a broader set of exposures, of 3 percent or more. The revised prompt corrective action requirements become effective on January 1, 2015, other than the supplementary leverage ratio, which becomes effective on January 1, 2018.
As an additional means to identify problems in the financial management of depository institutions, the FDICIA requires regulators to establish certain non-capital safety and soundness standards. The standards relate generally to operations and management, asset quality, interest rate exposure and executive compensation. The agencies are authorized to take action against institutions that fail to meet such standards.
Enhanced Prudential Standards and Other Requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act
With the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, because we are a bank holding company with consolidated assets of $50 billion or greater (a “covered company”), we are subject to certain enhanced prudential standards, including requirements that may be recommended by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) and implemented by the Federal Reserve and other regulators. As a result, we are becoming subject to more stringent standards and requirements than those applicable for smaller institutions. The Council also may issue recommendations to the Federal Reserve or other primary financial regulatory agency to apply new or heightened standards to risky financial activities or practices.
In 2011, the Federal Reserve finalized rules requiring us to implement resolution planning for orderly resolution in the event the Company faces material financial distress or failure. The FDIC has issued similar rules regarding resolution planning applicable to the Banks. In addition, in October 2012, the Federal Reserve issued a rule that implements the requirement in the Dodd-Frank Act that the Federal Reserve conduct annual stress tests on the capacity of our capital to absorb losses as a result of adverse economic conditions. The stress test rule also implements the requirement that we conduct our own semiannual stress tests and requires us to publish the results of the stress tests on our website or other public forum. The OCC finalized a similar stress test rule in October 2012, to implement the requirement that each of the Banks conduct annual stress tests.
In December 2011, the Federal Reserve released proposed rules beginning to implement the enhanced prudential standards. The Federal Reserve finalized certain of the proposed rules on February 18, 2014 (“Enhanced Standards Rule”). The Enhanced Standards Rule, however, did not finalize the proposed single-counterparty credit limits or early remediation framework. Under the Enhanced Standards Rule, we must meet liquidity risk management standards, conduct internal liquidity stress tests, and maintain a 30-day buffer of highly liquid assets, in each case, consistent with the requirements of the rule.
The rule also requires that we establish an enterprise-wide risk management framework that includes a risk committee and a chief risk officer. Although not mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, the OCC recently issued a similar proposal that applies heightened standards for risk management to large institutions subject to its supervision, including the Banks.
In addition, the Enhanced Standards Rule requires that we comply with, and hold capital commensurate with the requirements of, any regulations adopted by the Federal Reserve relating to capital planning and stress tests. The Federal Reserve’s capital plan rule is discussed in “Dividends, Stock Repurchases and Transfers of Funds” below.
11
Table of Contents
We are required to comply with the new requirements of the Enhanced Standards Rule beginning on January 1, 2015. As the Enhanced Standards Rule was recently issued, we continue to conduct an assessment of the expected impact of the rule.
In addition to the provisions described throughout this section, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes new, more stringent standards and requirements with respect to bank and nonbank acquisitions and mergers and affiliate transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act also includes provisions related to corporate governance and executive compensation and new fees and assessments, among others.
The federal agencies have significant discretion in drafting the implementing rules and regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act. These rules may result in modifications to our business models and organizational structure, and may subject us to escalating costs associated with any such changes.
However, the full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act will not be known for many months or, in some cases, years. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires various studies and reports to be delivered to Congress, which could result in additional legislative or regulatory action.
Investment in the Company and the Banks
Certain acquisitions of our capital stock may be subject to regulatory approval or notice under federal or state law. Investors are responsible for ensuring that they do not, directly or indirectly, acquire shares of our capital stock in excess of the amount that can be acquired without regulatory approval.
Each of the Banks is an “insured depository institution” within the meaning of the Change in Bank Control Act. Consequently, federal law and regulations prohibit any person or company from acquiring control of us without, in most cases, prior written approval of the Federal Reserve or the OCC, as applicable. Control is conclusively presumed if, among other things, a person or company acquires more than 25 percent of any class of our voting stock. A rebuttable presumption of control arises if a person or company acquires more than 10 percent of any class of voting stock and is subject to any of a number of specified “control factors” as set forth in the applicable regulations and policies.
Additionally, COBNA and CONA are “banks” within the meaning of Chapter 13 of Title 6.1 of the Code of Virginia governing the acquisition of interests in Virginia financial institutions (the “Financial Institution Holding Company Act”). The Financial Institution Holding Company Act prohibits any person or entity from acquiring, or making any public offer to acquire, control of a Virginia financial institution or its holding company without making application to, and receiving prior approval from, the Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions.
Dividends, Stock Repurchases and Transfers of Funds
In November 2011, the Federal Reserve finalized capital planning rules applicable to large bank holding companies like us (commonly referred to as Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review or “CCAR”). Under the rules, a bank holding company with consolidated assets of $50 billion or more must submit a capital plan to the Federal Reserve on an annual basis that contains a description of all planned capital actions, including dividends or stock repurchases, over a nine-quarter planning horizon beginning with the fourth quarter of the calendar year prior to the submission of the capital plan (“CCAR cycle”). The bank holding company may take the capital actions in its capital plan if the Federal Reserve provides a nonobjection to the plan. The Federal Reserve’s objection or nonobjection applies specifically to capital actions during the four quarters beginning with the second quarter of the second calendar year in the planning horizon. For the CCAR cycle under which capital plan submissions were due by January 6, 2014 (“2014 CCAR cycle”), the Federal Reserve’s objection or nonobjection will apply to planned capital actions from the second quarter of 2014 through the first quarter of 2015.
The purpose of the rules is to ensure that large bank holding companies have robust, forward-looking capital planning processes that account for their unique risks and capital needs to continue operations through times of economic and financial stress. As part of its evaluation of a capital plan, the Federal Reserve will consider the
12
Table of Contents
comprehensiveness of the plan, the reasonableness of assumptions and analysis and methodologies used to assess capital adequacy and the ability of the bank holding company to maintain capital above each minimum regulatory capital ratio and above a Tier 1 common ratio of 5 percent on a pro forma basis under expected and stressful conditions throughout a planning horizon of at least nine quarters. On September 24, 2013, the Federal Reserve released an interim final rule that incorporated Basel III capital rules into CCAR. For the first time, the 2014 CCAR cycle will require us to meet Basel III Standardized capital requirements, with appropriate phase-in provisions applicable to Basel III Advanced Approaches institutions during the CCAR planning horizon, under the supervisory severely adverse stress scenario, in addition to the capital plan rule’s Tier 1 common ratio using Basel I definitions.
Traditionally, dividends to us from our direct and indirect subsidiaries have represented a major source of funds for us to pay dividends on our stock, make payments on corporate debt securities and meet our other obligations. There are various federal law limitations on the extent to which the Banks can finance or otherwise supply funds to us through dividends and loans. These limitations include minimum regulatory capital requirements, federal banking law requirements concerning the payment of dividends out of net profits or surplus, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W governing transactions between an insured depository institution and its affiliates, as well as general federal regulatory oversight to prevent unsafe or unsound practices. In general, federal and applicable state banking laws prohibit, without first obtaining regulatory approval, insured depository institutions, such as the Banks, from making dividend distributions if such distributions are not paid out of available earnings or would cause the institution to fail to meet applicable capital adequacy standards.
Deposit Insurance Assessments
Each of CONA and COBNA, as an insured depository institution, is a member of the DIF maintained by the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC insures the deposits of insured depository institutions up to prescribed limits for each depositor. The DIF was formed on March 31, 2006, upon the merger of the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund in accordance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (the “Reform Act”). The Reform Act permits the FDIC to set a Designated Reserve Ratio (“DRR”) for the DIF. To maintain the DIF, member institutions may be assessed an insurance premium, and the FDIC may take action to increase insurance premiums if the DRR falls below its required level.
Prior to passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC had established a plan to restore the DIF in the face of recent insurance losses and future loss projections, which resulted in several rules that generally increased deposit insurance rates and purported to improve risk differentiation so that riskier institutions bear a greater share of insurance premiums. The Dodd-Frank Act reformed the management of the DIF in several ways: raised the minimum DRR to 1.35 percent (from the former minimum of 1.15 percent) and removed the upper limit on the DRR; required that the reserve ratio reach 1.35 percent by September 30, 2020 (rather than 1.15 percent by the end of 2016); required that in setting assessments, the FDIC must offset the effect of meeting the increased reserve ratio on small insured depository institutions; and eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends from the DIF when the reserve ratio reaches certain levels. The FDIC has set the DRR at 2 percent and, in lieu of dividends, has established progressively lower assessment rate schedules as the reserve ratio meets certain trigger levels. The Dodd-Frank Act also required the FDIC to change the deposit insurance assessment base from deposits to average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. In February 2011, the FDIC finalized rules to implement this change that significantly modified how deposit insurance assessment rates are calculated for those banks with assets of $10 billion or greater.
Source of Strength and Liability for Commonly-Controlled Institutions
Under the regulations issued by the Federal Reserve, a bank holding company must serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks (the so-called “source of strength doctrine”). The Dodd-Frank Act codified the source of strength doctrine, directing the Federal Reserve to require bank holding companies to serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks.
13
Table of Contents
Under the “cross-guarantee” provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), insured depository institutions such as the Banks may be liable to the FDIC with respect to any loss incurred, or reasonably anticipated to be incurred, by the FDIC in connection with the default of, or FDIC assistance to, any commonly controlled insured depository institution. The Banks are commonly controlled within the meaning of the FIRREA cross-guarantee provision.
FDIC Orderly Liquidation Authority
The Dodd-Frank Act provides the FDIC with liquidation authority that may be used to liquidate non-bank financial companies and bank holding companies if the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the President and based on the recommendation of the Federal Reserve and another federal agency, determines that doing so is necessary, among other criteria, to mitigate serious adverse effects on U.S. financial stability. Upon such a determination, the FDIC would be appointed receiver and must liquidate the company in a way that mitigates significant risks to financial stability and minimizes moral hazard. The costs of a liquidation of a financial company would be borne by shareholders and unsecured creditors and then, if necessary, by risk-based assessments on large financial companies. The FDIC has issued rules implementing certain provisions of its liquidation authority and may issue additional rules in the future.
Regulation of International Business by Non-U.S. Authorities
COBNA is subject to regulation in foreign jurisdictions where it operates, currently in the United Kingdom and Canada.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, COBNA operates through Capital One (Europe) plc, which was established in 2000 and is an authorized payment institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) under the Payment Services Regulations 2009. COEP’s indirect parent, Capital One Global Corporation, is wholly-owned by COBNA and is subject to regulation as an “agreement corporation” under the Federal Reserve’s Regulation K.
Over the past few years, the U.K. government has made significant changes to the framework of financial services regulation. As part of these changes, in April 2013, the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) was split into a new Prudential Regulatory Authority (“PRA”) and the FCA, with the FCA, rather than the PRA, regulating COEP. In April 2014, the FCA will take over regulation of the U.K. consumer credit regime from the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”). As a result of this change, the FCA will also regulate COEP’s credit card lending activities.
During 2013, the FCA published several consultation papers setting forth its proposals to regulate consumer credit. Although the FCA intends to replicate the existing consumer credit regime through the introduction of a Consumer Credit Handbook, it is apparent from the draft version that some minor changes to requirements have been made. We expect the FCA to finalize the Consumer Credit Handbook in February 2014, and for it to become effective in April 2014.
Cross-border interchange fees continue to be under scrutiny from the European Commission (the “EC”) and the OFT. In May 2012, the EC held that MasterCard’s “interchange” fees were anticompetitive, and the General Court upheld this decision. The General Court held that there were no merchant or consumer benefits that could justify the restriction on competition implied by the fee. On July 4, 2013, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) heard MasterCard’s appeal of this decision. The ECJ’s judgment is expected in the first quarter of 2014. In addition, the EC issued a statement against Visa to express its view that interchange fees are anticompetitive. The OFT has confirmed its own investigation will remain on hold until after the outcome of MasterCard’s appeal. Further, on July 24, 2013, the EC published the proposed new Interchange Regulations which will cap debit interchange fees at 0.2% and credit interchange fees at 0.3%, but the cap is not expected to be effective until at least 2015.
14
Table of Contents
The EC has also issued a draft regulation which will replace the Data Protection Act 1998. This will be directly effective without the need for additional U.K. legislation. The date on which the regulation will come into force has not yet been confirmed, but it is expected to be placed before the European Parliament in spring 2014. There will likely be a two-year grace period to work towards compliance with the regulation; however, a shorter implementation period may be specified by the European Parliament. Key proposed changes that we expect would impact COEP include:
| • | Requirement on companies to notify any breach of the regulations to the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) and to individuals whose data has been affected or compromised as a result of the breach; |
| • | Increased powers, including the ability to assess fines, given to the ICO; |
| • | Requirement to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment for all areas of the business, including any changes to systems; |
| • | Mandatory appointment of a data protection officer who must act independently and autonomously at all times; and |
| • | Widening of the definition of personal data. |
Canada
In Canada, COBNA operates as an authorized foreign bank pursuant to the Bank Act (Canada) (the “Bank Act”) and is permitted to conduct its Credit Card business in Canada through its Canadian branch, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch) (“Capital One Canada”). The primary regulator of Capital One Canada is the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada (“OSFI”). Other regulators include the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (“FCAC”), the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. Capital One Canada is subject to regulation under various Canadian federal laws, including the Bank Act and its regulations, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
In 2013, there were three new, significant regulatory developments that affect credit cards issued by federally regulated financial institutions in Canada. These amendments could increase our operational and compliance costs and affect the types and terms of products that we offer in Canada.
In February 2013, amendments were made (the “Amending Regulations”) to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. The Amending Regulations prescribe additional requirements on financial institutions and intermediaries in relation to customer identification, customer monitoring, enhanced due diligence and ongoing scrutiny of customers’ activities. The Amending Regulations came into force on February 1, 2014.
In March 2013, Complaints (Banks, Authorized Foreign Banks and External Complaints Bodies) Regulations were made under the Bank Act (Canada) (the “Complaints Regulations”). In April 2013, the FCAC published Commissioner’s Guidance CG-12 Internal Dispute Resolution (the “IDR Guidance”). The Complaints Regulations require financial institutions to provide a person requesting or receiving a product or service with certain disclosures relating to contacting the FCAC and the financial institution’s complaint process and specify the manner of such disclosures. The Complaints Regulations also require financial institutions to provide the public with certain information about their complaints process on an annual basis (the “Annual Report”) and require financial institutions to be members of an external complaint body that is approved by the Minister of Finance under the Bank Act (Canada). The IDR Guidance provides specific guidance regarding financial institutions’ internal dispute resolution (“IDR”) procedures including ensuring adequate resources, training, retention of complaint information, procedures relating to the Annual Report requirement, and timeframes of the IDR procedures. In addition, financial institutions’ written IDR procedures must be in language that is clear, simple and not misleading and financial institutions must demonstrate that their IDR procedures are accessible to consumers. The Complaints Regulations and the IDR Guidance came into force on September 2, 2013.
15
Table of Contents
Canada’s new anti-spam legislation, an act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, also known as “CASL” (the “Act”) came into force in December 2013. The Act prohibits (subject to limited exceptions) the sending of a commercial electronic message unless the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it and the message complies with prescribed form and content requirements. The Act also prohibits the installation of computer programs or software on another person’s computer system without the express consent of the owner or authorized user of that computer system. The new rules surrounding the sending of commercial electronic messages will come into force on July 1, 2014. Provisions of the Act related to the unsolicited installation of computer programs or software will come into force on July 1, 2015, and the provisions providing for a private right of action for a contravention of the Act will come into force on July 1, 2017.
Each of our business segments operates in a highly competitive environment, and we face competition in all aspects of our business from numerous bank and non-bank providers of financial services.
Our Credit Card business competes with international, national, regional and local issuers of Visa and MasterCard credit cards, as well as with American Express®, Discover Card®, private-label card brands, and, to a certain extent, issuers of debit cards. In general, customers are attracted to credit card issuers largely on the basis of price, credit limit and other product features.
Our Consumer Banking and Commercial Banking businesses compete with national and state banks and direct banks for deposits, commercial and auto loans, mortgages and trust accounts and with savings and loan associations and credit unions for loans and deposits. Our competitors also include automotive finance companies, mortgage banking companies and other financial services providers that provide loans, deposits, and other similar services and products. In addition, we compete against non-depository institutions that are able to offer these products and services. Securities firms and insurance companies that elect to become financial holding companies may acquire banks and other financial institutions. Combinations of this type could significantly change the competitive environment in which we conduct business. The financial services industry is also likely to become more competitive as further technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services. These technological advances may diminish the importance of depository institutions and other financial intermediaries in the transfer of funds between parties. In addition, competition among direct banks is intense because online banking provides customers the ability to rapidly deposit and withdraw funds and open and close accounts in favor of products and services offered by competitors.
Our businesses generally compete on the basis of the quality and range of their products and services, transaction execution, innovation and price. Competition varies based on the types of clients, customers, industries and geographies served. Our ability to compete depends, in part, on our ability to attract and retain our professional and other associates and on our reputation. In the current environment, customers are generally attracted to depository institutions that are perceived as stable, with solid liquidity and funding.
We believe that we are able to compete effectively in our current markets. There can be no assurance, however, that our ability to market products and services successfully or to obtain adequate returns on our products and services will not be impacted by the nature of the competition that now exists or may later develop, or by the broader economic environment. For a discussion of the risks related to our competitive environment, please refer to “Part I—Item 1A. Risk Factors.”
16
Table of Contents
A central part of our philosophy is to attract and retain a highly capable staff. We had 41,951 employees, whom we refer to as “associates,” as of December 31, 2013. None of our associates are covered under a collective bargaining agreement, and management considers our associate relations to be satisfactory.
Geographic Diversity
Our consumer loan portfolios, including credit cards, are diversified across the United States with modest concentration in California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. We also have credit card loans in the U.K. and Canada. Our commercial loan portfolio is aligned to our branch footprint with concentrated in New York, Texas, Louisiana and New Jersey with some broader diversification across the United States driven by our specialty business. See “MD&A—Credit Risk Profile” and “Note 4—Loans” for additional information.
Technology/Systems
We leverage information technology to achieve our business objectives and to develop and deliver products and services that satisfy our customers’ needs. A key part of our strategic focus is the development of efficient, flexible computer and operational systems to support complex marketing and account management strategies, the servicing of our customers, and the development of new and diversified products. We believe that the continued development and integration of these systems is an important part of our efforts to reduce costs, improve quality and provide faster, more flexible technology services. Consequently, we continuously review capabilities and develop or acquire systems, processes and competencies to meet our unique business requirements.
As part of our continuous efforts to review and improve our technologies, we may either develop such capabilities internally or rely on third party outsourcers who have the ability to deliver technology that is of higher quality, lower cost, or both. Over time, we have increasingly relied on third party outsourcers to help us deliver systems and operational infrastructure. These relationships include (but are not limited to): Total System Services Inc. (“TSYS”) for processing services for our North American and United Kingdom portfolios of consumer and small business credit card accounts, Fidelity Information Services (“FIS”) for the Capital One banking systems and IBM Corporation for management of our North American data centers.
To protect our systems and technologies, we employ security, backup and recovery systems and generally require the same of our third-party service providers. In addition, we perform, or cause to be performed, a variety of vulnerability and penetration testing on the platforms, systems and applications used to provide our products and services in an effort to ensure that any attacks on these platforms, systems and applications are unlikely to succeed. Despite these controls, Capital One, along with several other U.S. financial services providers, was targeted on several occasions with distributed denial-of-service (“DDOS”) attacks from sophisticated third parties that succeeded, on a few occasions, in temporarily limiting our ability to service customers through online platforms.
Intellectual Property
As part of our overall and ongoing strategy to protect and enhance our intellectual property, we rely on a variety of protections, including copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents and certain restrictions on disclosure, solicitation, and competition. We also undertake other measures to control access to and distribution of our other proprietary information. Despite these precautions, it may be possible for a third party to copy or otherwise obtain and use certain intellectual property or proprietary information without authorization. Our precautions may not prevent misappropriation or infringement of our intellectual property or proprietary information. In addition, our competitors and other third parties also file patent applications for innovations that are used in our
17
Table of Contents
industry. The ability of our competitors and other third parties to obtain such patents may adversely affect our ability to compete. Conversely, our ability to obtain such patents may increase our competitive advantage. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in such efforts, or that the ability of our competitors to obtain such patents may not adversely impact our financial results.
From time to time, we have made and will make forward-looking statements, including those that discuss, among other things, strategies, goals, outlook or other non-historical matters; projections, revenues, income, returns, expenses, capital measures, accruals for claims in litigation and for other claims against us; earnings per share or other financial measures for us; future financial and operating results; our plans, objectives, expectations and intentions; the projected impact and benefits of the acquisitions of ING Direct and 2012 U.S. card acquisitions (collectively, the “Acquisitions”); and the assumptions that underlie these matters.
To the extent that any such information is forward-looking, it is intended to fit within the safe harbor for forward-looking information provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Numerous factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those described in such forward-looking statements, including, among other things:
| • | general economic and business conditions in the U.S., the U.K., Canada or our local markets, including conditions affecting employment levels, interest rates, consumer income and confidence, spending and savings that may affect consumer bankruptcies, defaults, charge-offs and deposit activity; |
| • | an increase or decrease in credit losses (including increases due to a worsening of general economic conditions in the credit environment); |
| • | financial, legal, regulatory, tax or accounting changes or actions, including the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder and regulations governing bank capital and liquidity standards, including Basel-related initiatives and potential changes to financial accounting and reporting standards; |
| • | the possibility that we may not fully realize the projected cost savings and other projected benefits of the Acquisitions; |
| • | difficulties and delays in integrating the assets and businesses acquired in the Acquisitions; |
| • | business disruption following the Acquisitions; |
| • | diversion of management time on issues related to the Acquisitions, including integration of the assets and businesses acquired; |
| • | reputational risks and the reaction of customers and counterparties to the Acquisitions; |
| • | disruptions relating to the Acquisitions negatively impacting our ability to maintain relationships with customers, employees and suppliers; |
| • | changes in asset quality and credit risk as a result of the Acquisitions; |
| • | developments, changes or actions relating to any litigation matter involving us; |
| • | the inability to sustain revenue and earnings growth; |
| • | increases or decreases in interest rates; |
| • | our ability to access the capital markets at attractive rates and terms to capitalize and fund our operations and future growth; |
| • | the success of our marketing efforts in attracting and retaining customers; |
18
Table of Contents
| • | increases or decreases in our aggregate loan balances or the number of customers and the growth rate and composition thereof, including increases or decreases resulting from factors such as shifting product mix, amount of actual marketing expenses we incur and attrition of loan balances; |
| • | the level of future repurchase or indemnification requests we may receive, the actual future performance of mortgage loans relating to such requests, the success rates of claimants against us, any developments in litigation and the actual recoveries we may make on any collateral relating to claims against us; |
| • | the amount and rate of deposit growth; |
| • | changes in the reputation of or expectations regarding the financial services industry or us with respect to practices, products or financial condition; |
| • | any significant disruption in our operations or technology platform; |
| • | our ability to maintain a compliance infrastructure suitable for the nature of our business; |
| • | our ability to control costs; |
| • | the amount of, and rate of growth in, our expenses as our business develops or changes or as it expands into new market areas; |
| • | our ability to execute on our strategic and operational plans; |
| • | any significant disruption of, or loss of public confidence in, the United States Mail service affecting our response rates and consumer payments; |
| • | any significant disruption of, or loss of public confidence in, the internet affecting the ability of our customers to access their accounts and conduct banking transactions; |
| • | our ability to recruit and retain experienced personnel to assist in the management and operations of new products and services; |
| • | changes in the labor and employment markets; |
| • | fraud or misconduct by our customers, employees or business partners; |
| • | competition from providers of products and services that compete with our businesses; and |
| • | other risk factors listed from time to time in reports that we file with the SEC. |
Any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf speak only as of the date they are made or as of the date indicated, and we do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. You should carefully consider the factors discussed above in evaluating these forward-looking statements. For additional information on factors that could materially influence forward-looking statements included in this Report, see the risk factors set forth under “Part I—Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
19
Table of Contents
Business Risks
This section highlights specific risks that could affect our business. Although we have tried to discuss all material risks of which we are aware at the time this Annual Report on Form 10-K has been filed, other risks may prove to be important in the future, including those that are not currently ascertainable. In addition to the factors discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report, other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward looking statements include:
The Current Business Environment, Including A Slow or Delayed Economic Recovery, May Adversely Affect Our Industry, Business, Results Of Operations And Capital Levels.
We market our credit card products on a national basis throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The recent global recession resulted in a general tightening in the credit markets, lower levels of liquidity, reduced asset values (including commercial properties), sharp and prolonged declines in residential home values and sales volumes, reduced business profits, increased rates of business and consumer repayment delinquency, increased rates of business and consumer bankruptcy, and increased and prolonged unemployment, some of which have had a negative impact on our results of operations. Although the U.S economy has shown modest improvement, the recovery remains modest and uncertain. A recovery in any of our markets that is only shallow and very gradual, marked by continued elevated unemployment rates and reduced home prices, or another downturn, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations as customers default on their loans or maintain lower deposit levels or, in the case of credit card accounts, carry lower balances and reduce credit card purchase activity.
In particular, we may face the following risks in connection with these events:
| • | Adverse macroeconomic conditions may affect consumer confidence levels and may cause adverse changes in payment patterns, causing increases in delinquencies and default rates, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations. In addition, changes in consumer behavior, including decreased consumer spending, lower demand for credit and a shift in consumer payment behavior towards avoiding late fees, over-limit fees, finance charges and other fees, could have a negative impact on our results of operations. |
| • | Increases in bankruptcies could cause increases in our charge-off rates, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations. |
| • | Our ability to recover debt that we have previously charged-off may be limited, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations. |
| • | The processes and models we use to estimate inherent losses may no longer be reliable because they rely on complex judgments, including assumptions and forecasts of economic conditions which may no longer be capable of accurate estimation in an unpredictable economic environment, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations. |
| • | Our ability to assess the creditworthiness of our customers may be impaired if the criteria or models we use to underwrite and manage our customers become less predictive of future losses, which could cause our losses to rise and have a negative impact on our results of operations. |
| • | Significant concern regarding the creditworthiness of some of the governments in Europe and South America and uncertainty stemming from U.S. debt and budget matters have contributed to volatility in the financial markets and led to greater economic uncertainty worldwide. Concerns about sovereign debt in Europe and South America and the U.S. debt could diminish economic recovery and lead to further stress in the financial markets, both globally and in the United States, which could have a negative impact on our financial results. |
20
Table of Contents
| • | Significant concern exists regarding risks associated with the normalization of global central bank policies. In particular, steps taken by the Federal Reserve to slow the pace of its balance sheet growth has resulted in significant financial market volatility. This change in Federal Reserve policy, coupled with similar actions by other central banks, has impacted economies globally, including the United States. These changes have particularly impacted certain emerging markets in countries whose growth prospects and currency valuations have proven vulnerable to normalization in the accommodative global central bank policies that have prevailed in recent years. The resulting financial market volatility and greater economic uncertainty worldwide could threaten the economic recoveries both globally and in the United States, which could have a negative impact on our financial results. |
| • | Our ability to borrow from other financial institutions or to engage in funding transactions on favorable terms or at all could be adversely affected by disruptions in the capital markets or other events, including actions by rating agencies and deteriorating investor expectations, which could limit our access to funding. The interest rates that we pay on our securities are also influenced by, among other things, applicable credit ratings from recognized rating agencies. A downgrade to any of these credit ratings could affect our ability to access the capital markets, increase our borrowing costs and have a negative impact on our results of operations. Increased charge-offs, rising London Interbank Offering Rate (“LIBOR”) and other events may cause our securitization transactions to amortize earlier than scheduled, which could accelerate our need for additional funding from other sources. |
| • | An inability to accept or maintain deposits or to obtain other sources of funding could materially affect our liquidity position and our ability to fund our business. Many other financial institutions have also increased their reliance on deposit funding and, as such, we expect continued competition in the deposit markets. We cannot predict how this competition will affect our costs. If we are required to offer higher interest rates to attract or maintain deposits, our funding costs will be adversely impacted. |
| • | Shorter-term interest rates have remained at historically low levels for a prolonged period of time. While longer-term interest rates have recently increased resulting in a steeper yield curve, they remain below historical averages. A flat yield curve combined with low interest rates generally leads to lower revenue and reduced margins because it would limit our opportunity to increase the spread between asset yields and funding costs. Any reversion to a flat yield curve coupled with low interest rates for a sustained period of time could have a material adverse effect on our earnings and our net interest margin. |
| • | The low interest rate environment also increases our exposure to prepayment risk in our mortgage portfolio and the mortgage-backed securities in our investment portfolio. Increased prepayments, refinancing or other factors that impact loan balances would reduce expected revenue associated with mortgage assets and could also lead to a reduction in the value of our mortgage servicing rights, which could have a negative impact on our financial results. |
Compliance With New And Existing Laws, Regulations And Regulatory Expectations May Increase Our Costs, Reduce Our Revenue, Limit Our Ability To Pursue Business Opportunities, And Increase Compliance Challenges.
There has been increased legislation and regulation with respect to the financial services industry in the last few years, and we expect that oversight of our business will continue to expand in scope and complexity. A wide and increasing array of banking and consumer lending laws apply to almost every aspect of our business. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in financial, structural and operational penalties, including receivership, and could result in negative publicity or damage to our reputation with regulators or the public. In addition, establishing systems and processes to achieve compliance with these laws and regulations may increase our costs and limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities.
As a result of our large number of consumer accounts and because we have historically experienced higher delinquencies and a greater number of accounts charging off compared to our large bank peers, we face the risk of a heightened level of regulatory scrutiny with respect to our consumer products and services.
21
Table of Contents
The Dodd-Frank Act, as well as the related rules and regulations adopted by various regulatory agencies, could have a significant adverse impact on our business, results of operations or financial condition. The Dodd-Frank Act is a comprehensive financial reform act that requires, among other things, enhanced prudential standards (including capital, liquidity, risk management, single-counterparty credit exposure limits, early remediation, and resolution planning), enhanced supervision (including stress testing), prohibitions on proprietary trading and investments in covered funds (referred to as the “Volcker Rule”) and increased transparency and regulation of derivatives trading. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides heightened expectations for risk management and regulatory oversight of all aspects of large financial institutions, including us. Many aspects of the law remain to be implemented under the rulemaking and regulatory authority of the SEC, the CFTC and federal banking regulators. The Dodd-Frank Act also created the CFPB, which regulates our businesses with respect to our compliance with certain consumer laws and regulations.
Although it is clear that the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing regulations materially impact large financial institutions like us, the rulemaking process has been progressing slowly, and we may not experience the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act for years. Though some aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act may significantly impact our financial condition or results of operations, other aspects of the law may not apply to us. Nevertheless, the law has increased our need to build new compliance processes and infrastructure and to otherwise enhance our risk management throughout all aspects of our business. The cumulative impact includes higher expectations for capital and liquidity, as discussed in more detail below under the header “We May Not Be Able to Maintain Adequate Capital Levels or Liquidity, Which Could have a Negative Impact on Our Financial Results,” and higher operational costs, which may further increase once regulators fully implement the law. In addition, U.S. government agencies charged with adopting and interpreting laws, rules and regulations, including under the Dodd-Frank Act, may do so in an unforeseen manner, including ways that potentially expand the reach of the laws, rules or regulations more than initially contemplated or currently anticipated.
Some rules and regulations may be subject to litigation or other challenges that delay or modify their implementation and impact on us. For example, rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Act’s requirement that the amount of any interchange fee received by a debit card issuer with respect to debit card transactions be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction are currently subject to challenge. It is unclear how the ruling and appeal will impact the Federal Reserve’s interchange fee rules. Future changes in the Federal Reserve’s interchange fee rules could adversely impact revenue from our debit card business.
Under various state and federal statutes and regulations, we are required to observe various data security and privacy-related requirements, including establishing appropriate information security standards and safeguards, data security breach response programs and properly authenticating customers before processing or enabling certain types of transactions or interactions. Future federal and state legislation and regulation could further restrict how we collect, use, share and secure customer information. The failure to observe any one or more of these requirements could subject us to litigation or enforcement actions and impact some of our current or planned business initiatives.
The banking industry is subject to enhanced legal and regulatory scrutiny regarding debt collection practices from regulators, courts and legislators. Any future changes to our debt collection practices, whether mandated by regulators or otherwise, or any legal liabilities resulting from our debt collection practices, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition.
In 2012, we were party to several consent orders and settlement agreements with certain federal agencies. On July 17, 2012, COBNA entered into consent orders with each of the OCC and the CFPB relating to oversight of our vendor sales practices of payment protection and credit monitoring products. On July 26, 2012, the Banks each entered into consent orders with each of the Department of Justice and the OCC relating to compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or the SCRA, and, in the case of the OCC orders, third-party management. In addition, in the first quarter of 2012, we closed the ING Direct acquisition. In its order approving the acquisition, the Federal Reserve Board required Capital One to enhance our risk-management systems and
22
Table of Contents
policies enterprise-wide to account for the changes to our business lines that would result from the ING Direct and 2012 U.S. card acquisitions. We are subject to heightened regulatory oversight by the federal banking regulators to ensure that we build systems and processes that are commensurate with the nature of our business. We expect this heightened oversight will continue for the foreseeable future until we meet the expectations of our regulators and can demonstrate that our systems and processes are sustainable.
The legislative and regulatory environment is beyond our control, may change rapidly and unpredictably and may negatively influence our revenue, costs, earnings, growth and capital levels. Certain laws and regulations, and any interpretations and applications with respect thereto, may benefit consumers, borrowers and depositors, but not stockholders. Our success depends on our ability to maintain compliance with both existing and new laws and regulations. For a description of the material laws and regulations to which we are subject, please refer to “Supervision and Regulation” in “Item 1. Business.”
We May Experience Increased Delinquencies And Credit Losses.
Like other lenders, we face the risk that our customers will not repay their loans. Rising losses or leading indicators of rising losses (such as higher delinquencies, higher rates of non-performing loans, higher bankruptcy rates, lower collateral values or elevated unemployment rates) may require us to increase our allowance for loan and lease losses, which may degrade our profitability if we are unable to raise revenue or reduce costs to compensate for higher losses. In particular, we face the following risks in this area:
| • | Missed Payments. Our customers may miss payments. Loan charge-offs (including from bankruptcies) are generally preceded by missed payments or other indications of worsening financial condition for our customers. Customers are more likely to miss payments during an economic downturn or prolonged periods of slow economic growth. In addition, we face the risk that consumer and commercial customer behavior may change (for example, an increase in the unwillingness or inability of customers to repay debt), causing a long-term rise in delinquencies and charge-offs. |
| • | Estimates of Inherent Losses. The credit quality of our portfolio can have a significant impact on our earnings. We allow for and reserve against credit risks based on our assessment of credit losses inherent in our loan portfolios. This process, which is critical to our financial results and condition, requires complex judgments, including forecasts of economic conditions. We may underestimate our inherent losses and fail to hold a loan loss allowance sufficient to account for these losses. Incorrect assumptions could lead to material underestimates of inherent losses and inadequate allowance for loan and lease losses. In cases where we modify a loan, if the modifications do not perform as anticipated we may be required to build additional allowance on these loans. The increase or release of allowances impacts our current financial results. |
| • | Underwriting. Our ability to assess the credit worthiness of our customers may diminish. If the models and approaches we use to select, manage and underwrite our consumer and commercial customers become less predictive of future charge-offs (due, for example, to rapid changes in the economy, including the unemployment rate), our credit losses may increase and our returns may deteriorate. |
| • | Business Mix. We engage in a diverse mix of businesses with a broad range of potential credit exposure. Our business mix could change in ways that could adversely affect the credit quality of our portfolio. Because we originate a relatively greater proportion of consumer loans in our loan portfolio compared to other large bank peers and originate both prime and subprime credit card accounts and auto loans, we may experience higher delinquencies and a greater number of accounts charging off compared to other large bank peers, which could result in increased credit losses and operating costs. |
| • | Charge-off Recognition. The rules governing charge-off recognition could change. We record charge-offs according to accounting and regulatory guidelines and rules. These guidelines and rules, including Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) standards and the FFIEC Account Management Guidance, could require changes in our account management or loss allowance practices and cause our charge-offs and/or |
23
Table of Contents
| allowance for loan and lease losses to increase for reasons unrelated to the underlying performance of our portfolio. Such changes could have an adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operation. |
| • | Industry Developments. Our charge-off and delinquency rates may be negatively impacted by industry developments, including new regulations applicable to our industry. |
| • | Collateral. Collateral, when we have it, could be insufficient to compensate us for loan losses. When customers default on their loans and we have collateral, we attempt to seize it where permissible and appropriate. However, the value of the collateral may not be sufficient to compensate us for the amount of the unpaid loan, and we may be unsuccessful in recovering the remaining balance from our customers. Decreases in real estate values adversely affect the collateral value for our commercial lending and Home Loan activities, while the auto business is similarly exposed to collateral risks arising from the auction markets that determine used car prices. Therefore, the recovery of such property could be insufficient to compensate us for the value of these loans. Borrowers may be less likely to continue making payments on loans if the value of the property used as collateral for the loan is less than what the borrower owes, even if the borrower is still financially able to make the payments. Trends in home prices are a driver of credit costs in the Home Loans business as they impact both the probability of default and the loss severity of defaults. Additionally, the potential volatility in the number of defaulted and modified loans from changes in home prices can create material impacts on the servicing costs of the business, fluctuations in credit marks and profitability in acquired portfolios and volatility in mortgage servicing rights valuations. Although home prices have generally appreciated recently, the slow economic recovery, shifts in monetary policy and potentially diminishing demands from investors could threaten or limit the recovery. |
| • | New York Concentration. Although our consumer lending is geographically diversified, approximately 40% of our commercial loan portfolio is concentrated in the New York metropolitan area. The regional economic conditions in the New York area affect the demand for our commercial products and services as well as the ability of our customers to repay their commercial loans and the value of the collateral securing these loans. An economic downturn or prolonged period of slow economic growth in, or a catastrophic event that disproportionately affects, the New York region could have a material adverse effect on the performance of our commercial loan portfolio and our results of operations. |
We May Experience Increased Losses Associated With Mortgage Repurchases and Indemnification Obligations.
Certain of our subsidiaries, including GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“GreenPoint”), Capital One Home Loans, LLC and Capital One, N.A., as successor to Chevy Chase Bank (“CCB”), may be required to repurchase mortgage loans that have been sold to investors in the event there are breaches of certain representations and warranties contained within the sales agreements. We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans that we sell to investors in the event that there was improper underwriting or fraud or in the event that the loans become delinquent shortly after they are originated. These subsidiaries also may be required to indemnify certain purchasers and others against losses they incur in the event of breaches of representations and warranties and in various other circumstances, including securities fraud or other public disclosure-related claims, and the amount of such losses could exceed the repurchase amount of the related loans. Consequently, we may be exposed to credit risk associated with sold loans.
We have established reserves in our consolidated financial statements for potential losses that are considered to be both probable and reasonably estimable related to the mortgage loans sold by our originating subsidiaries. The adequacy of the reserve and the ultimate amount of losses incurred will depend on, among other things, the actual future mortgage loan performance, the actual level of future repurchase and indemnification requests, the actual success rate of claimants, developments in litigation and the regulatory environment related to us and the industry, actual recoveries on the collateral, and macroeconomic conditions (including unemployment levels and housing prices). Due to uncertainties relating to these factors, there can be no assurance that our reserves will be adequate or that the total amount of losses incurred will not have a material adverse effect upon our financial
24
Table of Contents
condition or results of operations. For additional information related to our mortgage loan repurchase and indemnification obligations and related reserves and our estimate of the reasonably possible future losses from representation and warranty claims beyond the current accrual levels as of December 31, 2013, see “Note 20-Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees.”
We May Not Be Able to Maintain Adequate Capital Levels or Liquidity, Which Could Have a Negative Impact on Our Financial Results.
As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and international accords, financial institutions are becoming subject to new and increased capital and liquidity requirements. Although U.S. regulators have finalized regulations for some of these requirements, there remains continued uncertainty as to the form the additional new requirements will take or how and when they will apply to us. As a result, it is possible that we could be required to increase our capital and/or liquidity levels above the levels in our current financial plans. These new requirements could have a negative impact on our ability to lend, grow deposit balances or make acquisitions and on our ability to make capital distributions in the form of increased dividends or share repurchases. Higher capital levels could also lower our return on equity. In addition, we could become subject to the Advanced Approaches framework as early as January 1, 2016 for purposes of the regulatory capital we will be required to maintain. Although we have current estimates of risk weight calculations under that framework, there remains uncertainty around future regulatory interpretations of certain of those calculations. Therefore, we cannot assure you that our current estimates will be correct and we may need to hold significantly more regulatory capital in the future than we currently estimate to maintain a given capital ratio.
Recent developments in capital and liquidity requirements that we expect will impact us include the following:
| • | In December 2010, the Basel Committee published a final framework on capital and in January 2013 published a revised framework on liquidity, together commonly known as Basel III. In July 2013, U.S. banking regulators finalized rules implementing the Basel III capital framework that, among other things: increase the general risk-based and leverage capital requirements; significantly revise the definition of regulatory capital, including by eliminating certain items that constituted regulatory capital; establish a minimum Tier 1 common equity requirement; introduce a new capital conservation buffer requirement; and update the prompt corrective action framework to reflect the new regulatory capital minimums. |
| • | In November 2013, U.S banking regulators issued the Proposed LCR, which would require the Company and each of the Banks to maintain an amount of high quality liquid assets (as defined in the Proposed LCR) that is no less than 100 percent of its total net cash outflows over a prospective 30-calendar day period (as calculated in accordance with the proposed rule). |
| • | Because we are a bank holding company with consolidated assets of more than $50 billion, we are subject to certain heightened prudential standards under the Dodd-Frank Act, including requirements that may be recommended by the Financial Stability Oversight Council and implemented by the Federal Reserve. As a result, we expect to be subject to more stringent standards and requirements than those applicable for smaller institutions, including risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits and liquidity requirements. In December 2011, the Federal Reserve released proposed rules beginning to implement the enhanced prudential requirements, including a detailed liquidity framework that would supplement the liquidity regulations implementing Basel III. If finalized as proposed, these requirements would increase our liquidity requirements and associated compliance and operational costs. The Federal Reserve also indicated that it plans to adopt a capital surcharge for certain larger institutions, but it is not clear to what extent the capital surcharge would apply to us. |
| • | Under the Federal Reserve’s Capital Plan Rule, bank holding companies with consolidated assets of $50 billion or more must submit capital plans to the Federal Reserve on an annual basis and must obtain approval from the Federal Reserve before making most capital distributions, such as dividends and share repurchases, in a process commonly referred to as CCAR. As part of its evaluation of a capital plan, the Federal Reserve will consider the comprehensiveness of the plan, the reasonableness of assumptions and |
25
Table of Contents
| analysis and methodologies used to assess capital adequacy, other qualitative factors at the discretion of the Federal Reserve in addition to the ability of the bank holding company to maintain capital above each minimum regulatory capital ratio and above a Tier 1 common ratio of 5% on a pro forma basis under expected and stressful conditions throughout a planning horizon of at least nine quarters. On September 24, 2013, the Federal Reserve released an interim final rule that stated, for the first time, that the 2014 CCAR cycle will require us to meet Basel III Standardized capital requirements, with appropriate phase-in provisions applicable to Advanced Approaches institutions during the CCAR planning horizon, under the supervisory severely adverse stress scenario in addition to the Capital Plan Rule’s Tier 1 common ratio using Basel I definitions. |
| • | We consider various factors in the management of capital, including the impact of stress on our capital position, as determined by both our internal modeling and Federal Reserve modeling of our capital position in CCAR. In the 2013 stress test cycle, including CCAR, there was a large difference between our estimates of our capital levels under stress and the Federal Reserve’s estimates of our capital levels under stress. In the 2014 stress test cycle, including CCAR, the difference could be larger because, in addition to using its own assumptions in modeling credit losses and pre-provision net revenue, we expect the Federal Reserve will use its own assumptions in modeling balance sheet size and composition. Therefore, although our estimated capital levels under stress suggest that we have substantial capacity to return capital to shareholders and remain well capitalized under stress, it is possible that the Federal Reserve’s modeling may result in a materially lower capacity to return capital to shareholders than our estimates. |
| • | As a financial institution with consolidated assets of more than $250 billion, we became subject to the Advanced Approaches framework at the end of 2012. Prior to full implementation of the Advanced Approaches framework, organizations must complete a qualification period of four consecutive quarters, known as the parallel run, during which they must meet the requirements of the rule to the satisfaction of their primary U.S. banking regulator. We expect to enter parallel run no earlier than January 1, 2015. This will require completing a written implementation plan and building processes and systems to comply with the rules. Compliance with the Advanced Approaches rules will require a material investment of resources. |
See “Item 1. Business-Supervision and Regulation” for additional information.
We Face Risk Related To Our Operational, Technological And Organizational Infrastructure.
Our ability to grow and compete is dependent on our ability to build or acquire necessary operational, technological and organizational infrastructure. We are in the process of completing significant development projects to complete the systems integration of prior acquisitions and to build a scalable infrastructure in our Consumer and Commercial Banking businesses. For example, we are investing in infrastructure in the Commercial Banking business intended to assist with effective execution of key processes and improve loan origination and underwriting platforms. The 2012 U.S. card acquisition involved the transfer of intellectual property, servicing platforms, infrastructure, contact centers and a significant number of employees. The decoupling and transitioning of these assets, infrastructure and systems from HSBC’s current systems and operations and integrating them into our own business operations has been, and we expect it to continue to be, a highly complex process. These infrastructure changes, upgrades and integrations may cause disruptions to our existing and acquired businesses, including, but not limited to, systems interruptions, transaction processing errors, interruptions to collection processes and system conversion delays, all of which could have a negative impact on us. In addition, we have entered into numerous transitional service arrangements with HSBC entities that will provide for services associated with the decoupling and transition of the business. Under these arrangements, HSBC provides certain services to us and we provide certain services to HSBC. These transitional service arrangements will continue for various dates until the separation of the business from HSBC is complete, and during that time we will rely on the ability of the applicable HSBC entities to provide these services. The complexities and requirements of these arrangements will increase the operational risk associated with the transition and integration of the business, and this increased risk could lead to unanticipated expenses, disruptions to our operations or other adverse consequences.
26
Table of Contents
Similar to other large corporations, we are exposed to operational risk that can manifest itself in many ways, such as errors related to failed or inadequate processes, inaccurate models, faulty or disabled computer systems, fraud by employees or persons outside of our company and exposure to external events. In addition, we are heavily dependent on the strength and capability of our technology systems which we use to manage our internal financial and other systems, interface with our customers and develop and implement effective marketing campaigns. We also depend on models to measure risks, estimate certain financial values, determine pricing on certain products, assess capital adequacy and calculate regulatory capital levels. If we implement or design our models poorly or use inaccurate assumptions in our models, business decisions based on the output of the models may be adversely affected. Moreover, information we disclose to investors and our regulators based on poorly designed or implemented models could be inaccurate. Some decisions our regulators make, including those related to our capital distribution plans, may be adversely impacted if they perceive the quality of our models to be insufficient.
Our ability to develop and deliver new products that meet the needs of our existing customers and attract new ones and to run our business in compliance with applicable laws and regulations depends on the functionality and reliability of our operational and technology systems. Any disruptions, failures or inaccuracies of our operational and technology systems and models, including those associated with improvements or modifications to such systems and models, could cause us to be unable to market and manage our products and services, manage our risk or to report our financial results in a timely and accurate manner, all of which could have a negative impact on our results of operations.
In some cases, we outsource the maintenance and development of operational and technological functionality to third parties. These third parties may experience errors or disruptions that could adversely impact us and over which we may have limited control. Any increase in the amount of our infrastructure that we outsource to third parties may increase our exposure to these risks.
In addition, our ongoing investments in infrastructure, which may be necessary to maintain a competitive business, integrate acquisitions and establish scalable operations, may increase our expenses. Further, as our business develops, changes or expands, additional expenses can arise as a result of a reevaluation of business strategies, management of outsourced services, asset purchases or other acquisitions, structural reorganization, compliance with new laws or regulations or the integration of newly acquired businesses. As cybersecurity threats continue to evolve, we may also be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or strengthen our protective security measures, investigate and remediate any vulnerabilities of our information systems and infrastructure or invest in new technology designed to mitigate security risks. If we are unable to successfully manage our expenses, our financial results will be negatively affected.
We Could Incur Increased Costs or Reductions In Revenue Or Suffer Reputational Damage And Business Disruptions In the Event Of The Theft, Loss or Misuse Of Information, Including As A Result Of A Cyber-Attack.
Our products and services involve the gathering, storage and transmission of sensitive information regarding our customers and their accounts. Our ability to provide such products and services, many of which are web-based, relies upon the management and safeguarding of information, software, methodologies and business secrets. To provide these products and services, we use information systems and infrastructure that we and third party service providers operate. We also have arrangements in place with retail partners and other third parties where we share and receive information about their customers who are or may become our customers. As a financial institution, we also are subject to and examined for compliance with an array of data protection laws, regulations and guidance, as well as to our own internal privacy and information security policies and programs. If our information systems or infrastructure experience a significant disruption or breach, it could lead, depending on the nature of the disruption or breach, to unauthorized access to personal or confidential information of our customers in our possession or unauthorized access to our proprietary information, software, methodologies and business secrets. In addition, if our partners, retailers or other market participants experience a disruption or
27
Table of Contents
breach, depending on the nature of the disruption or breach, it could lead to unauthorized transactions on Capital One accounts or unauthorized access to personal or confidential information maintained by those entities. A disruption or breach such as these could result in significant legal and financial exposure, regulatory intervention, remediation costs, card reissuance, supervisory liability, damage to our reputation or loss of confidence in the security of our systems, products and services that could adversely affect our business.
Information security risks for large financial institutions like us have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, perpetrators of fraud, hackers, terrorists, activists, formal and informal instrumentalities of foreign governments and other external parties. As noted above, our operations rely on the secure processing, transmission and storage of confidential information in our computer systems and networks. Our businesses rely on our digital technologies, computer and email systems, software and networks to conduct their operations. In addition, to access our products and services, our customers may use computers, smartphones, tablet PCs and other mobile devices that are beyond our security control systems. Although we believe we have a robust suite of authentication and layered information security controls, our technologies, systems, networks and our customers’ devices may become the target of cyber-attacks or other attacks that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our or our customers’ confidential, proprietary or other information, including access to accounts with online functionality, which could result in disruptions and damage to the business operations or finances of Capital One, our customers or other third parties. For example, we and other U.S. financial services providers were targeted recently on several occasions with distributed denial-of-service (“DDOS”) attacks from sophisticated third parties. DDOS attacks are designed to saturate the targeted online network with excessive amounts of network traffic, resulting in slow response times or even causing the site to be temporarily unavailable. On at least one occasion, a DDOS attack successfully disrupted our consumer online banking services for a period of time, which had a non-material impact on our business. Although we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber incidents, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future. If future attacks like these are successful or if customers are unable to access their accounts online for other reasons, it could adversely impact our ability to service customer accounts or loans, complete financial transactions for our customers or otherwise operate any of our businesses or services. In addition, a breach or attack affecting one of our third-party service providers or partners could harm our business even if we do not control the service that is attacked.
Because the methods and techniques employed by perpetrators of fraud and others to attack, disable, degrade or sabotage platforms, systems and applications change frequently, are increasingly sophisticated and often are not fully recognized or understood until after they have been launched, we and our third-party service providers and partners may be unable to anticipate certain attack methods in order to implement effective preventative measures. In addition, the increasing prevalence of cyber-attacks and other efforts to breach or disrupt our systems or those of our partners, retailers or other market participants has led, and will likely continue to lead, to increased costs to us with respect to preventing, mitigating and remediating these risks, as well as any related attempted fraud. Further, successful cyber-attacks at other large financial institutions or other market participants, whether or not we are impacted, could lead to a general loss of customer confidence in financial institutions that could negatively affect us, including harming the market perception of the effectiveness of our security measures or the financial system in general which could result in reduced use of our financial products. Though we have insurance against some cyber-risks and attacks, it may not be sufficient to offset the impact of a material loss event.
The Growth Of Our Direct Banking Business Presents Certain Risks.
We operate the largest online direct banking institution in the U.S., with approximately $104 billion in deposits as of December 31, 2013. While direct banking represents a significant opportunity to attract new customers that value greater and more flexible access to banking services at reduced costs, it also presents significant risks. In addition to the software, infrastructure and cyber-attack risks discussed above, we face risks related to direct
28
Table of Contents
banking, including facing strong competition in the direct banking market. Aggressive pricing throughout the industry may adversely affect the retention of existing balances and the cost-efficient acquisition of new deposit funds and may affect our growth and profitability. In addition, the effects of a competitive environment may be exacerbated by the flexibility of direct banking and the increasing financial and technological sophistication of our customer base. Customers could also close their online accounts or reduce balances or deposits in favor of products and services offered by competitors for other reasons. These shifts, which could be rapid, could result from general dissatisfaction with our products or services, including concerns over pricing, online security or our reputation.
Our direct banking business is dependent on our ability to process, record and monitor a large number of complex transactions. If any of our financial, accounting, or other data processing systems fail or have other significant shortcomings, we could be materially adversely affected. Third parties with which we do business could also be sources of operational risk, particularly in the event of breakdowns or failures of such parties’ own systems. We may also be subject to disruptions of our operating systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, which may include, for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages, cyber-attacks, including DDOS discussed above, natural disasters, other damage to property or physical assets or events arising from local or larger scale politics, including terrorist acts. Any of these occurrences could diminish our ability to operate our direct banking business, service customer accounts, and protect customers’ information, or result in potential liability to customers, reputational damage, regulatory intervention and customers’ loss of confidence in our direct banking business, any of which could result in a material adverse effect.
We May Fail To Realize All Of The Anticipated Benefits Of Our Mergers, Acquisitions and Strategic Partnerships.
We have engaged in merger and acquisition activity and entered into strategic partnerships over the past several years and may continue to engage in such activity in the future. For example, in recent years, we have completed the Beech Street Capital, ING Direct and 2012 U.S. card acquisitions. We continue to evaluate and anticipate engaging in, among other merger and acquisition activity, additional strategic partnerships and selected acquisitions of financial institutions and other financial assets, including credit card and other loan portfolios.
Any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership we undertake will entail certain risks, which may materially and adversely affect our results of operations. If we experience greater than anticipated costs to integrate acquired businesses into our existing operations or are not able to achieve the anticipated benefits of any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership, including cost savings and other synergies, our business could be negatively affected. In addition, it is possible that the ongoing integration processes could result in the loss of key employees, errors or delays in systems implementation, the disruption of our ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with partners, clients, customers, depositors and employees or to achieve the anticipated benefits of any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership. Integration efforts also may divert management attention and resources. These integration matters may have an adverse effect on us during any transition period.
In addition, we may face the following risks in connection with any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership:
| • | New Businesses and Geographic or Other Markets. Our merger, acquisition or strategic partnership activity may involve our entry into new businesses and new geographic areas or other markets which present risks resulting from our relative inexperience in these new businesses or markets. These new businesses or markets may change the overall character of our consolidated portfolio of businesses and could react differently to economic and other external factors. We face the risk that we will not be successful in these new businesses or in these new markets. |
| • | Identification and Assessment of Merger and Acquisition Targets and Deployment of Acquired Assets. We cannot assure you that we will identify or acquire suitable financial assets or institutions to supplement our |
29
Table of Contents
| organic growth through acquisitions or strategic partnerships. In addition, we may incorrectly assess the asset quality and value of the particular assets or institutions we acquire. Further, our ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership will depend on our ability to assess the asset quality and value of the particular assets or institutions we partner with, merge with or acquire. We may be unable to profitably deploy any assets we acquire. |
| • | Accuracy of Assumptions. In connection with any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership, we may make certain assumptions relating to the proposed merger, acquisition or strategic partnership that may be, or may prove to be, inaccurate, including as a result of the failure to realize the expected benefits of any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership. The inaccuracy of any assumptions we may make could result in unanticipated consequences that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Assumptions we might make when considering a proposed merger, acquisition or strategic partnership may relate to numerous matters, including: |
| • | projections of a target or partner company’s future net income and our earnings per share; |
| • | our ability to issue equity and debt to complete any merger or acquisition; |
| • | our expected capital structure and capital ratios after any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership; |
| • | projections as to the amount of future loan losses in any target or partner company’s portfolio; |
| • | the amount of goodwill and intangibles that will result from any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership; |
| • | certain purchase accounting adjustments that we expect will be recorded in our financial statements in connection with any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership; |
| • | cost, deposit, cross-selling and balance sheet synergies in connection with any merger, acquisition or strategic partnership; |
| • | merger, acquisition or strategic partnership costs, including restructuring charges and transaction costs; |
| • | our ability to maintain, develop and deepen relationships with customers of a target or partner company; |
| • | our ability to grow a target or partner company’s customer deposits and manage a target or partner company’s assets and liabilities; |
| • | higher than expected transaction and integration costs and unknown liabilities as well as general economic and business conditions that adversely affect the combined company following any merger or acquisition transaction; |
| • | the extent and nature of regulatory oversight over a target or partner company; |
| • | projected or expected tax benefits or assets; |
| • | accounting matters related to the target or partner company, including accuracy of assumptions and estimates used in preparation of financial statements such as those used to determine allowance for loan losses, fair value of certain assets and liabilities, securities impairment and realization of deferred tax assets; |
| • | our expectations regarding macroeconomic conditions, including the unemployment rate, housing prices, the interest rate environment, the shape of the yield curve, inflation and other economic indicators; and other financial and strategic risks associated with any merger or acquisition. |
| • | Target Specific Risk. Assets and companies that we acquire, or companies that we enter into strategic partnerships with, will have their own risks that are specific to a particular asset or company. These risks include, but are not limited to, particular or specific regulatory, accounting, operational, reputational and |
30
Table of Contents
| industry risks, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Indemnification rights, if any, may be insufficient to compensate us for any losses or damages resulting from such risks. In addition to regulatory approvals discussed above, certain of our merger, acquisition or partnership activity may require third-party consents in order for us to fully realize the anticipated benefits of any such transaction. |
Reputational Risk and Social Factors May Impact Our Results.
Our ability to originate and maintain accounts is highly dependent upon the perceptions of consumer and commercial borrowers and deposit holders and other external perceptions of our business practices or our financial health. Adverse perceptions regarding our reputation in the consumer, commercial and funding markets could lead to difficulties in generating and maintaining accounts as well as in financing them. In particular, negative perceptions regarding our reputation could lead to decreases in the levels of deposits that consumer and commercial customers and potential customers choose to maintain with us. Negative public opinion could result from actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities or circumstances, including lending practices, regulatory compliance, inadequate protection of customer information, or sales and marketing, and from actions taken by regulators or other persons in response to such conduct. In addition, third parties with whom we have important relationships may take actions over which we have limited control that could negatively impact perceptions about us.
In addition, a variety of social factors may cause changes in borrowing activity, including credit card use, payment patterns and the rate of defaults by accountholders and borrowers domestically and internationally. These social factors include changes in consumer confidence levels, the public’s perception regarding consumer debt, including credit card use, and changing attitudes about the stigma of bankruptcy. If consumers develop or maintain negative attitudes about incurring debt, or if consumption trends decline, our business and financial results will be negatively affected.
Damage To Our Brands Could Impact Our Financial Performance.
Our brands have historically been, and we expect them to continue to be, very important to us. As with many financial services institutions, maintaining and enhancing our brand will depend largely on our ability to be a technology leader and to continue to provide high-quality products and services. Negative public perception of our brands could result from actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices, security breaches, corporate governance, regulatory compliance and the use and protection of customer information, as well as from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to that conduct. If we fail to maintain and enhance our brands, or if we incur excessive expenses in this effort, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.
We Face Intense Competition in All of Our Markets.
We operate in a highly competitive environment, and we expect competitive conditions to continue to intensify. We face intense competition both in making loans and attracting deposits. We compete on the basis of the rates we pay on deposits and the rates and other terms we charge on the loans we originate or purchase, as well as the quality of our customer service and experience. Price competition for loans might result in origination of fewer loans or earning less on our loans. We expect that competition will continue to increase with respect to most of our products. Some of our competitors are substantially larger than we are, which may give those competitors advantages, including a more diversified product and customer base, the ability to reach out to more customers and potential customers, operational efficiencies, more versatile technology platforms, broad-based local distribution capabilities, lower-cost funding and larger existing branch networks. In addition, some of our competitors, including new and emerging competitors in the digital and mobile payments space, are not subject to the same regulatory requirements or legislative scrutiny to which we are subject, which also could place us at a competitive disadvantage.
31
Table of Contents
We have significantly expanded our partnership business over the past several years with the additions of a number of credit card partnerships. The market for key business partners, especially in the Card business, is very competitive, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to grow or maintain these partner relationships. We face the risk that we could lose partner relationships, even after we have invested significant resources, time and expense in acquiring and developing the relationships. The loss of any of our business partners could have a negative impact on our results of operations, including lower returns, excess operating expense and excess funding capacity.
In such a competitive environment, we may lose entire accounts or may lose account balances to competing firms, or we may find it more costly to maintain our existing customer base. Customer attrition from any or all of our lending products, together with any lowering of interest rates or fees that we might implement to retain customers, could reduce our revenues and therefore our earnings. Similarly, unexpected customer attrition from our deposit products, in addition to an increase in rates or services that we may offer to retain those deposits, may increase our expenses and therefore reduce our earnings.
If We Do Not Adjust to Rapid Changes in the Financial Services Industry, Our Financial Performance May Suffer.
Our ability to deliver to stockholders strong financial performance and returns on investment will depend in part on our ability to expand the scope of available financial services to meet the needs and demands of our customers, including by marketing new products to our customer base. Our ability to meet our customers’ needs and expectations is key to our ability to grow revenue and earnings. Many of our competitors are focusing on cross-selling their products and developing new products or technologies, which could affect our ability to maintain or grow existing customer relationships or require us to offer lower interest rates or fees on our lending products or higher interest rates on deposits. This increasingly competitive environment is primarily a result of changes in regulation, changes in technology and product delivery systems, as well as the accelerating pace of consolidation among financial service providers, all of which may affect our customers’ expectations and demands. If we do not successfully anticipate and adjust to changes in the financial service industry, our business and financial results could be negatively affected.
Fluctuations in Market Interest Rates Or Volatility in the Capital Markets Could Adversely Affect Our Revenue and Expense, the Value of Assets and Obligations, Our Cost of Capital or Our Liquidity.
Like other financial institutions, our business may be sensitive to market interest rate movement and the performance of the capital markets. Changes in interest rates or in valuations in the debt or equity markets could directly impact us. For example, we borrow money from other institutions and depositors, which we use to make loans to customers and invest in debt securities and other earning assets. We earn interest on these loans and assets and pay interest on the money we borrow from institutions and depositors. Fluctuations in interest rates, including changes in the relationship between short-term rates and long-term rates and in the relationship between our funding basis rate and our lending basis rate, may have negative impacts on our net interest income and therefore our earnings. In addition, interest rate fluctuations and competitor responses to those changes may affect the rate of customer prepayments for mortgage, auto and other term loans and may affect the balances customers carry on their credit cards. These changes can reduce the overall yield on our earning asset portfolio. Changes in interest rates and competitor responses to these changes may also impact customer decisions to maintain balances in the deposit accounts they have with us. In addition, changes in valuations in the debt and equity markets could have a negative impact on the assets we hold in our investment portfolio. Such market changes could also have a negative impact on the valuation of assets for which we provide servicing. Finally, the Final Rule requires that most amounts reported in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”), including unrealized gains and losses on securities designated as available for sale, be included in our regulatory capital calculations. Changes in interest rates or market valuations that result in unrealized losses on components of AOCI could therefore impact our regulatory capital ratios negatively.
32
Table of Contents
We assess our interest rate risk by estimating the effect on our earnings under various scenarios that differ based on assumptions about the direction and the magnitude of interest rate changes. We take risk mitigation actions based on those assessments. We face the risk that changes in interest rates could materially reduce our net interest income and our earnings, especially if actual conditions turn out to be materially different than those we assumed. See “MD&A-Market Risk Management” for additional information.
Our Business Could Be Negatively Affected If We Are Unable to Attract, Retain and Motivate Skilled Senior Leaders.
Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to retain key senior leaders, and competition for such senior leaders can be intense. The executive compensation provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations issued thereunder, and any further legislation, regulation or regulatory guidance restricting executive compensation, may limit the types of compensation arrangements that we may enter into with our most senior leaders and could have a negative impact on our ability to attract, retain and motivate such leaders in support of our long-term strategy. These laws and regulations may not apply in the same manner to all financial institutions, and we therefore may face more restrictions than other institutions and companies with whom we compete for talent. If we are unable to retain talented senior leadership, our business could be negatively affected.
Our Businesses are Subject to the Risk of Increased Litigation.
Our businesses are subject to increased litigation risks as a result of a number of factors and from various sources, including the highly regulated nature of the financial services industry, the focus of state and federal prosecutors on banks and the financial services industry, the structure of the credit card industry and business practices in the mortgage lending business. Given the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some matters asserted against us, there can be significant uncertainty as to the ultimate liability we may incur from litigation matters. The finding, or even the assertion, of substantial legal liability against us could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition and could cause significant reputational harm to us, which could seriously harm our business.
We Face Risks from Unpredictable Catastrophic Events.
Despite our substantial business contingency plans, the impact from natural disasters and other catastrophic events, including terrorist attacks, may have a negative effect on our business and infrastructure, including our information technology systems. In addition, if a natural disaster or other catastrophic event occurs in certain regions where our business and customers are concentrated, such as the New York metropolitan area, we could be disproportionately impacted as compared to our competitors. The impact of such events and other catastrophes on the overall economy may also adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We Face Risks from the Use of or Changes to Estimates in Our Financial Statements.
Pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. (“U.S. GAAP”), we are required to use certain assumptions and estimates in preparing our financial statements, including, but not limited to, estimating our allowance for loan and lease losses and the fair value of certain assets and liabilities. In addition, the FASB, the SEC and other regulatory bodies may change the financial accounting and reporting standards, including those related to assumptions and estimates we use to prepare our financial statements, in ways that we cannot predict and that could impact our financial statements. If actual results differ from the assumptions or estimates underlying our financial statements or if financial accounting and reporting standards are changed, we may experience unexpected material losses. For a discussion of our use of estimates in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements, see “Note 1-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”
33
Table of Contents
Our Ability To Receive Dividends From Our Subsidiaries Could Affect Our Liquidity And Ability To Pay Dividends.
We are a separate and distinct legal entity from our subsidiaries, including the Banks. Dividends to us from our direct and indirect subsidiaries, including the Banks, have represented a major source of funds for us to pay dividends on our common stock, make payments on corporate debt securities and meet other obligations. There are various federal law limitations on the extent to which the Banks can finance or otherwise supply funds to us through dividends and loans. These limitations include minimum regulatory capital requirements, federal banking law requirements concerning the payment of dividends out of net profits or surplus, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W governing transactions between an insured depository institution and its affiliates, as well as general federal regulatory oversight to prevent unsafe or unsound practices. If our subsidiaries’ earnings are not sufficient to make dividend payments to us while maintaining adequate capital levels, our liquidity may be affected and we may not be able to make dividend payments to our common stockholders, make payments on outstanding corporate debt securities or meet other obligations, each and any of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or perception of financial health.
The Soundness of Other Financial Institutions Could Adversely Affect Us.
Our ability to engage in routine funding and other transactions could be adversely affected by the stability and actions of other financial services institutions. Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, servicing, counterparty and other relationships. We have exposure to an increasing number of financial institutions and counterparties. These counterparties include institutions that may be exposed to various risks over which we have little or no control, including European or U.S. sovereign debt that is currently or may become in the future subject to significant price pressure, rating agency downgrade or default risk.
In addition, we routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, mutual and hedge funds and other institutional clients, resulting in a significant credit concentration with respect to the financial services industry overall. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services institutions, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions.
Likewise, adverse developments affecting the overall strength and soundness of our competitors, the financial services industry as a whole and the general economic climate or sovereign debt could have a negative impact on perceptions about the strength and soundness of our business even if we are not subject to the same adverse developments. In addition, adverse developments with respect to third parties with whom we have important relationships also could negatively impact perceptions about us. These perceptions about us could cause our business to be negatively affected and exacerbate the other risks that we face.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
34
Table of Contents
Our corporate and banking real estate portfolio consists of a combined total of approximately 16.2 million square feet of owned or leased office and retail space, used to support our business. Of this overall portfolio, approximately 10.6 million square feet of space are dedicated for various corporate office uses and approximately 5.6 million square feet of space are for bank branches and related offices.
Our 10.6 million square feet of corporate office space consists of approximately 5.5 million square feet of leased space and 5.1 million square feet of owned space. Our headquarters is located in McLean Virginia, and is included in our corporate office space. We maintain office space primarily in Virginia, Texas, Illinois, New York, Louisiana, Delaware, and Maryland.
Our 5.6 million square feet of banking branch and branch/office space consists of approximately 2.6 million square feet of leased space and 3.0 million square feet of owned space, including branches in locations across New York, Louisiana, Texas, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia. See “Note 8—Premises, Equipment & Lease Commitments” for information about our premises.
The information required by Item 3 is included in “Note 20—Commitments, Contingencies, Guarantees, and Others.”
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
35
Table of Contents
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information
Our common stock is listed on the NYSE and is traded under the symbol “COF.” As of January 31, 2014, there were 13,280 holders of record of our common stock. The table below presents the high and low closing sales prices of our common stock as reported by the NYSE and cash dividends per common share declared by us during each quarter indicated.
| Sales Price | Cash Dividends |
|||||||||||
| Quarter ended |
High | Low | ||||||||||
| 2013: |
||||||||||||
| December 31 |
$ | 76.61 | $ | 67.83 | $ | 0.30 | ||||||
| September 30 |
69.70 | 63.59 | 0.30 | |||||||||
| June 30 |
62.81 | 52.76 | 0.30 | |||||||||
| March 31 |
62.88 | 50.80 | 0.05 | |||||||||
| 2012: |
||||||||||||
| December 31 |
$ | 61.40 | $ | 54.77 | $ | 0.05 | ||||||
| September 30 |
59.37 | 53.36 | 0.05 | |||||||||
| June 30 |
56.36 | 48.40 | 0.05 | |||||||||
| March 31 |
57.15 | 43.75 | 0.05 | |||||||||
Dividend Restrictions
For information regarding our ability to pay dividends, see the discussion under “Part I—Item 1. Business—Supervision and Regulation—Dividends, Stock Repurchases and Transfers of Funds”, “MD&A—Capital Management—Dividend Policy and Stock Purchases”, and “Note 12—Regulatory and Capital Adequacy”.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
Information relating to compensation plans under which our equity securities are authorized for issuance is presented in Part III of this report under “Part III—Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.”
36
Table of Contents
Common Stock Performance Graph
The following graph shows the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock compared with an overall stock market index, the S&P Composite 500 Stock Index (“S&P 500 Index”), and a published industry index, the S&P Financial Composite Index (“S&P Financial Index”), over the five-year period commencing December 31, 2008, and ending December 31, 2013. The stock performance graph assumes that $100 was invested in our common stock and each index and that all dividends were reinvested. The stock price performance on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future performance.
Comparison of 5-Year Cummulative Total Return
(Capital One, S&P 500 Index and S&P Financial Index)
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Capital One |
$ | 100.00 | $ | 123.91 | $ | 138.25 | $ | 137.97 | $ | 189.70 | $ | 254.55 | ||||||||||||
| S&P 500 Index |
100.00 | 123.45 | 139.24 | 139.23 | 157.90 | 204.63 | ||||||||||||||||||
| S&P Financial Index |
100.00 | 114.80 | 127.24 | 103.82 | 131.07 | 174.60 | ||||||||||||||||||
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
We did not have any sales of unregistered equity securities in 2013.
37
Table of Contents
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
The following table presents information related to repurchases of shares of our common stock during the fourth quarter of 2013.
| (Dollars in millions, except per share information) |
Total Number of Shares Purchased |
Average Price Paid per Share(3) |
Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans |
Maximum Amount Yet to be Purchased Under the 2013 Stock Repurchase Plan(3) |
||||||||||||
| October 1-31, 2013 |
||||||||||||||||
| Open market repurchases(1)(2) |
5,589,378 | $ | 70.16 | 5,576,988 | $ | 353 | ||||||||||
| November 1-30, 2013 |
||||||||||||||||
| Open market repurchases(1)(2) |
3,221,055 | 69.74 | 3,220,200 | 128 | ||||||||||||
| December 1-31, 2013 |
||||||||||||||||
| Open market repurchases(1)(2) |
1,788,539 | 72.09 | 1,777,785 | — | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total |
10,598,972 | $ | 70.36 | 10,574,973 | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| (1) | Primarily comprised of repurchases under the $1 billion common stock repurchase program (“2013 Stock Repurchase Program”) authorized by our Board of Directors and announced on July 2, 2013, which authorized repurchases through March 31, 2014. As of December 31, 2013 we completed the repurchase program. Shares purchased under the 2013 Stock Repurchase Program are considered treasury stock. |
| (2) | Includes 12,390 shares, 855 shares and 10,754 shares during October, November and December 2013, respectively for shares purchased and share swaps made in connection with stock option exercises and the withholding of shares to cover taxes on restricted stock awards whose restrictions have lapsed. |
| (3) | The amounts exclude commission costs. |
38
Table of Contents
Item 6. Summary of Selected Financial Data
The following table presents selected consolidated financial data and performance metrics for the five-year period ended December 31, 2013. Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. We prepare our consolidated financial statements based on U.S. GAAP, which we refer to as our reported results. This data should be reviewed in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes and with the MD&A included in this Report. The historical financial information presented may not be indicative of our future performance. The comparability of our results of operations between reported periods is impacted by the following transactions completed in 2013 and 2012 :
| • | On November 1, 2013, we completed the acquisition of Beech Street Capital, a privately-held, national originator and servicer of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA multifamily commercial real estate loans. |
| • | On September 6, 2013, we completed the Portfolio Sale to Citibank. Pursuant to the agreement we received $6.4 billion for the net portfolio assets. |
| • | On May 1, 2012, we closed the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. At closing, we acquired approximately 27 million new active accounts, $27.8 billion in outstanding credit card receivables designated as held for investment and $327 million in other net assets. |
| • | On February 17, 2012, we completed the ING Direct acquisition. The acquisition resulted in the addition of loans of $40.4 billion, other assets of $53.9 billion and deposits of $84.4 billion as of the acquisition date. |
We use the term “Acquired Loans” to refer to a limited portion of the credit card loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and the substantial majority of consumer and commercial loans acquired in the ING Direct and CCB acquisitions, which were recorded at fair value at acquisition and subsequently accounted for based on expected cash flows to be collected (under the accounting standard formerly known as “Statement of Position 03-3, Accounting for Certain Loans or Debt Securities Acquired in a Transfer,” commonly referred to as “SOP 03-3”). The period-end carrying value of acquired loans accounted for subsequent to acquisition based on expected cash flows to be collected was $28.6 billion and $37.1 billion as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The difference between the fair value at acquisition and expected cash flows represents the accretable yield, which is recognized into interest income over the life of the loans. The difference between the contractual payments on the loans and expected cash flows represents the nonaccretable difference or the amount of principal and interest not considered collectible, which incorporates future expected credit losses over the life of the loans. Decreases in expected cash flows resulting from further credit deterioration will generally result in an impairment charge recognized in our provision for credit losses and an increase in the allowance for loan and lease losses. Charge offs are not recorded until the expected credit losses within the nonaccretable difference is depleted. In addition, Acquired Loans are not initially classified as delinquent or nonperforming as we expect to collect our net investment in these loans and the nonaccretable difference is expected to absorb the majority of the losses associated with these loans. The accounting and classification of these loans may significantly alter some of our reported credit quality metrics. We therefore supplement certain reported credit quality metrics with metrics adjusted to exclude the impact of these Acquired Loans. For additional information, see “MD&A—Credit Risk Profile” and “Note 4—Loans.”
39
Table of Contents
Five-Year Summary of Selected Financial Data
| Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year Ended December 31, | 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions, except per share data as noted) |
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010(1) | 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Income statement |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest income |
$ | 19,898 | $ | 18,964 | $ | 14,987 | $ | 15,353 | $ | 10,664 | 5 | % | 27 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Interest expense |
1,792 | 2,375 | 2,246 | 2,896 | 2,967 | (25) | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Net interest income |
18,106 | 16,589 | 12,741 | 12,457 | 7,697 | 9 | 30 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Non-interest income(2) |
4,278 | 4,807 | 3,538 | 3,714 | 5,286 | (11) | 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Total net revenue(3) |
22,384 | 21,396 | 16,279 | 16,171 | 12,983 | 5 | 31 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses(4) |
3,453 | 4,415 | 2,360 | 3,907 | 4,230 | (22) | 87 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense(5) |
12,514 | 11,946 | 9,332 | 7,934 | 7,417 | 5 | 28 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations before income taxes |
6,417 | 5,035 | 4,587 | 4,330 | 1,336 | 27 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Income tax provision |
2,025 | 1,301 | 1,334 | 1,280 | 349 | 56 | (2) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations, net of tax |
4,392 | 3,734 | 3,253 | 3,050 | 987 | 18 | 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax |
(233) | (217) | (106) | (307) | (103) | (7) | (105) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Net income |
4,159 | 3,517 | 3,147 | 2,743 | 884 | 18 | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Dividends and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities |
(17) | (15) | (26) | — | — | (13) | 42 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Preferred stock dividends(6) |
(53) | (15) | — | — | (564) | (253) | ** | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Net income available to common shareholders |
$ | 4,089 | $ | 3,487 | $ | 3,121 | $ | 2,743 | $ | 320 | 17 | % | 12 | % | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Common share statistics |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Basic earnings per common share: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Net income from continuing operations |
$ | 7.45 | $ | 6.60 | $ | 7.08 | $ | 6.74 | $ | 0.99 | 13 | % | (7) | % | ||||||||||||||
| Loss from discontinued operations |
(0.40) | (0.39) | (0.23) | (0.67) | (0.24) | (3) | (70) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Net income (loss) per common share. . |
$ | 7.05 | $ | 6.21 | $ | 6.85 | $ | 6.07 | $ | 0.75 | 14 | % | (9) | % | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Diluted earnings per common share: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Net income from continuing operations |
$ | 7.35 | $ | 6.54 | $ | 7.03 | $ | 6.68 | $ | 0.98 | 12 | % | (7) | % | ||||||||||||||
| Loss from discontinued operations |
(0.39) | (0.38) | (0.23) | (0.67) | (0.24) | (3) | (65) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Net income (loss) per common share. . |
$ | 6.96 | $ | 6.16 | $ | 6.80 | $ | 6.01 | $ | 0.74 | 13 | % | (9) | % | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Dividends per common share. |
$ | 0.95 | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.53 | 375 | % | — | % | ||||||||||||||
| Common dividend payout ratio(7) |
13.48 | % | 3.22 | % | 2.92 | % | 3.29 | % | 70.67 | % | 1,026 | bps | 30 | bps | ||||||||||||||
| Stock price per common share at period end. |
$ | 76.61 | $ | 57.93 | $ | 42.29 | $ | 42.56 | $ | 38.34 | 32 | % | 37 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Book value per common share at period end. |
72.89 | 69.56 | 64.51 | 58.62 | 59.04 | 5 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total market capitalization at period end |
43,875 | 33,727 | 19,301 | 19,271 | 17,268 | 30 | 75 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Average balances |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans held for investment(8) |
$ | 192,614 | $ | 187,915 | $ | 128,424 | $ | 128,526 | $ | 99,787 | 3 | % | 46 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Interest-earning assets |
266,423 | 255,079 | 175,265 | 175,683 | 145,552 | 4 | 46 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets |
297,284 | 286,602 | 199,718 | 200,114 | 171,598 | 4 | 44 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest-bearing deposits |
187,700 | 183,314 | 109,644 | 104,743 | 103,078 | 2 | 67 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total deposits |
209,045 | 203,055 | 126,694 | 119,010 | 115,601 | 3 | 60 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Borrowings |
37,807 | 38,025 | 38,022 | 49,620 | 23,522 | (1) | ** | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Common equity |
40,722 | 36,996 | 28,579 | 24,941 | 25,177 | 10 | 29 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total stockholders’ equity |
41,575 | 37,327 | 28,579 | 24,941 | 26,606 | 11 | 31 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40
Table of Contents
| Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year Ended December 31, | 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions, except per share data as noted) |
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010(1) | 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Selected performance metrics |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Purchase volume(9) |
$ | 201,074 | $ | 180,599 | $ | 135,120 | $ | 106,912 | $ | 102,068 | 11 | % | 34 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Total net revenue margin(10) |
8.40 | % | 8.39 | % | 9.29 | % | 9.20 | % | 8.92 | % | 1 | bps | (90 | )bps | ||||||||||||||
| Net interest margin(11) |
6.80 | 6.50 | 7.27 | 7.09 | 5.29 | 30 | (77 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Net charge-offs |
$ | 3,934 | $ | 3,555 | $ | 3,771 | $ | 6,651 | $ | 4,568 | 11 | % | (6 | )% | ||||||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate(12) |
2.04 | % | 1.89 | % | 2.94 | % | 5.18 | % | 4.58 | % | 15 | bps | (105 | )bps | ||||||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate (excluding Acquired Loans)(13) |
2.45 | 2.34 | 3.06 | 5.45 | 4.94 | 11 | (72 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Return on average assets(14) |
1.48 | 1.30 | 1.63 | 1.52 | 0.58 | 18 | (33 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Return on average tangible assets(15) |
1.56 | 1.38 | 1.75 | 1.64 | 0.63 | 18 | (37 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Return on average common equity(16) . |
10.61 | 10.01 | 11.29 | 12.23 | 1.68 | 60 | (128 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Return on average tangible common equity(17) |
17.44 | 17.31 | 22.11 | 27.94 | 3.74 | 13 | (480 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Equity-to-assets ratio(18) |
13.98 | 13.02 | 14.31 | 12.46 | 15.50 | 96 | (129 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense as a % of average loans held for investment(19) |
6.50 | 6.36 | 7.27 | 6.17 | 7.43 | 14 | (91 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Efficiency ratio(20) |
55.91 | 55.83 | 57.33 | 49.06 | 56.21 | 8 | (150 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Effective income tax rate from continuing operations |
31.56 | 25.84 | 29.08 | 29.56 | 26.16 | 572 | (324 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| December 31, | 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions except per share data as noted) |
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010(1) | 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Balance sheet (period end) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans held for investment(8) |
$ | 197,199 | $ | 205,889 | $ | 135,892 | $ | 125,947 | $ | 90,619 | (4 | )% | 52 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Interest-earning assets |
265,170 | 280,096 | 179,878 | 172,071 | 139,751 | (5 | ) | 56 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets |
297,048 | 312,918 | 206,019 | 197,503 | 169,646 | (5 | ) | 52 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest-bearing deposits. |
181,880 | 190,018 | 109,945 | 107,162 | 102,370 | (4 | ) | 73 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total deposits |
204,523 | 212,485 | 128,226 | 122,210 | 115,809 | (4 | ) | 66 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Borrowings |
40,654 | 49,910 | 39,561 | 41,796 | 21,014 | (19 | ) | 26 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Common equity |
40,891 | 39,646 | 29,666 | 26,541 | 26,590 | 3 | 34 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total stockholders’ equity. |
41,744 | 40,499 | 29,666 | 26,541 | 26,590 | 3 | 37 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Credit quality metrics (period end) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Allowance for loan and lease losses |
$ | 4,315 | $ | 5,156 | $ | 4,250 | $ | 5,628 | $ | 4,127 | (16 | )% | 21 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Allowance as a % of loans held of investment (“allowance coverage ratio”) |
2.19 | % | 2.50 | % | 3.13 | % | 4.47 | % | 4.55 | % | (31 | )bps | (63 | )bps | ||||||||||||||
| Allowance as a % of loans held of investment (excluding Acquired Loans)(13) |
2.54 | 3.02 | 3.22 | 4.67 | 4.95 | (48 | ) | (20 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 30+ day performing delinquency rate |
2.63 | 2.70 | 3.35 | 3.52 | 3.98 | (7 | ) | (65 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 30+ day performing delinquency rate (excluding Acquired Loans)(13) |
3.08 | 3.29 | 3.47 | 3.68 | 4.32 | (21 | ) | (18 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 30+ day delinquency rate |
2.96 | 3.09 | 3.95 | 4.23 | N/A | (13 | ) | (86 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 30+ day delinquency rate (excluding Acquired Loans)(13) |
3.46 | 3.77 | 4.09 | 4.43 | N/A | (31 | ) | (32 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Capital ratios |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tier 1 common ratio(21) |
12.23 | % | 10.96 | % | 9.67 | % | 8.77 | % | 10.62 | % | 127 | bps | 129bps | |||||||||||||||
| Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio(22). |
12.61 | 11.34 | 12.01 | 11.63 | 13.75 | 127 | (67 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total risk-based capital ratio(23) . |
14.73 | 13.56 | 14.86 | 16.83 | 17.70 | 117 | (130 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Tangible common equity (“TCE”) ratio(24) |
8.93 | 7.89 | 8.20 | 6.84 | 8.03 | 104 | (31 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Associates |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Full-time equivalent employees (in thousands) |
42.0 | 39.6 | 30.5 | 25.7 | 25.9 | 6 | % | 30 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
41
Table of Contents
| Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year ended December 31, | 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010(1) | 2009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Managed metrics(25) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Average loans held for investment |
$ | 192,614 | $ | 187,915 | $ | 128,424 | $ | 128,622 | $ | 143,514 | 3 | % | 46 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Average interest-earning assets |
266,423 | 255,079 | 175,341 | 175,757 | 186,218 | 4 | 45 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Period-end loans: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Period-end on-balance sheet loans held for investment |
197,199 | 205,889 | 135,892 | 125,947 | 90,619 | (4 | ) | 52 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Period-end off-balance sheet securitized loans |
— | — | — | — | 46,184 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Total period-end managed loans |
$ | 197,199 | $ | 205,889 | $ | 135,892 | $ | 125,947 | $ | 136,803 | (4 | )% | 52 | % | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Period-end total loan accounts (in millions) |
95.6 | 122.1 | 70.0 | 37.4 | 37.8 | (22 | )% | 74 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
| 30+ day performing delinquency rate |
2.63 | % | 2.70 | % | 3.35 | % | 3.52 | % | 4.62 | % | (7 | )bps | (65 | )bps | ||||||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate |
2.04 | 1.89 | 2.94 | 5.18 | 5.87 | 15 | (105 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense as a % of average loans held for investment(19) |
6.50 | 6.36 | 7.27 | 6.17 | 5.17 | 14 | (91 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Efficiency ratio. |
55.91 | 55.83 | 57.33 | 49.06 | 43.35 | 8 | (150 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ** | Change is less than one percent or not meaningful. |
| (1) | Effective January 1, 2010, we prospectively adopted two accounting standards related to the transfer and servicing of financial assets and consolidations that changed how we account for securitized loans. The adoption of these accounting standards, which we refer to in this Report as “consolidation accounting standards,” resulted in the consolidation of our credit card securitization trusts and certain other trusts, which added $41.9 billion of assets, consisting primarily of credit card loan receivables underlying the consolidated securitization trusts, along with $44.3 billion of related debt issued by these trusts to third-party investors to our reported consolidated balance sheets and reduced our stockholders’ equity by $2.9 billion and reduced our Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio to 9.9% from 13.8%. The reduction to stockholders’ equity was driven by the establishment of an allowance for loan and lease losses of $4.3 billion (pre-tax) primarily related to receivables held in credit card securitization trusts that were consolidated at the adoption date. Prior period reported amounts have not been restated as the accounting standards were adopted prospectively. Prior to January 1, 2010, in addition to our reported U.S. GAAP results, we presented and analyzed our results on a non-GAAP “managed basis.” Our managed-basis presentation included certain reclassification adjustments that assumed securitized loans accounted for as sales remained on balance sheet, and the earnings from the off-balance sheet securitized loans were reported in our results of operations in the same manner as earnings on retained loans recorded on our consolidated balance sheets. While our managed presentation resulted in differences in the classification of revenues in our consolidated statements of income, net income on a managed basis was the same as our reported net income. We believe this managed-basis information was useful to investors because it enabled them to understand both the credit risks associated with loans reported on our consolidated balance sheets and our retained interests in securitized loans. As a result of the adoption of the consolidation accounting standards, our reported and managed based presentations are generally comparable for periods beginning after January 1, 2010. See “MD&A—Supplemental Tables” and “Exhibit 99.1” for additional information on our non-GAAP managed presentation and other non- GAAP measures. |
| (2) | Includes a bargain purchase gain of $594 million attributable to the ING Direct acquisition recognized in non-interest income in the first quarter of 2012. The bargain purchase gain represents the excess of the fair value of the net assets acquired from ING Direct as of the acquisition date over the consideration transferred. |
| (3) | Total net revenue was reduced by $796 million, $937 million, $371 million, $950 million and $2.1 billion in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively, for the estimated uncollectible amount of billed finance charges and fees. The reserve for estimated uncollectible billed finance charges and fees, which we refer to as the finance charge and fee reserve, totaled $190 million, $307 million, $74 million, $211 million and $624 million as of December 31, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. |
| (4) | Provision for credit losses for 2012 includes expense of $1.2 billion to establish an initial allowance for the receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition accounted for based on contractual cash flows. |
| (5) | Includes purchased credit card relationship intangible amortization of $434 million, $350 million and $21 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, the substantial majority of which is attributable to the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. Also includes core deposit intangible amortization of $165 million, $193 million, $172 million, $199 million and $212 million in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. |
| (6) | Preferred stock dividends in 2009 were attributable to our participation in the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”). |
| (7) | Calculated based on dividends per common share for the period divided by basic earnings per common share for the period. |
| (8) | Loans held for investment includes loans acquired in the CCB, ING Direct and 2012 U.S. card acquisitions. See “Note 4—Loans” for additional information on Acquired Loans. |
| (9) | Consists of credit card purchase transactions, net of returns, for the period for both loans classified as held for investment and loans classified as held for sale. Excludes cash advance and balance transfer transactions. |
| (10) | Calculated based on total net revenue for the period divided by average interest-earning assets for the period. |
42
Table of Contents
| (11) | Calculated based on net interest income for the period divided by average interest-earning assets for the period. |
| (12) | Calculated based on net charge-offs for the period divided by average loans held for investment for the period. |
| (13) | Calculation of ratio adjusted to exclude Acquired Loans from the denominator. See “MD&A—Business Segment Financial Performance,” “MD&A—Credit Risk Profile” and “Note 4—Loans” for additional information on the impact of Acquired Loans on our credit quality metrics. |
| (14) | Calculated based on income from continuing operations, net of tax, for the period divided by average total assets for the period. |
| (15) | Calculated based on income from continuing operations, net of tax, for the period divided by average tangible assets for the period. See “MD&A—Supplemental Tables—Table F: Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures and Calculation of Regulatory Capital Measures Under Basel I” for additional information. |
| (16) | Calculated based on the sum of (i) income from continuing operations, net of tax; (ii) less dividends and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities; (iii) less preferred stock dividends, for the period, divided by average common equity. Our calculation of return on average common equity may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies. |
| (17) | Calculated based on the sum of (i) income from continuing operations, net of tax; (ii) less dividends and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities; (iii) less preferred stock dividends, for the period, divided by average tangible common equity. Our calculation of return on average tangible common equity may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies. See “MD&A—Supplemental Tables—Table F: Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures and Calculation of Regulatory Capital Measures Under Basel I” for additional information. |
| (18) | Calculated based on average stockholders’ equity for the period divided by average total assets for the period. |
| (19) | Calculated based on non-interest expense for the period divided by average loans held for investment for the period. |
| (20) | Calculated based on non-interest expense for the period divided by total net revenue for the period. |
| (21) | Tier 1 common ratio is a regulatory capital measure calculated based on Tier 1 common equity divided by risk-weighted assets. See “MD&A—Capital Management” and “MD&A—Supplemental Tables—Table F: Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures and Calculation of Regulatory Capital Measures Under Basel I” for additional information, including the calculation of this ratio. |
| (22) | Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is a regulatory measure calculated based on Tier 1 capital divided by risk-weighted assets. See “MD&A— Capital Management” and “MD&A—Supplemental Tables—Table F: Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures and Calculation of Regulatory Capital Measures Under Basel I” for additional information, including the calculation of this ratio. |
| (23) | Total risk-based capital ratio is a regulatory measure calculated based on total risk-based capital divided by risk-weighted assets. See “MD&A—Capital Management” and “MD&A—Supplemental Tables—Table F: Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures and Calculation of Regulatory Capital Measures Under Basel I” for additional information, including the calculation of this ratio. |
| (24) | TCE ratio is a non-GAAP measure calculated based on tangible common equity divided by tangible assets. See “MD&A—Supplemental Tables—Table F: Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures and Calculation of Regulatory Capital Measures Under Basel I” for the calculation of this measure and reconciliation to the comparative GAAP measure. The TCE ratio as of December 31, 2013 has been updated from 8.70% as reported in our Exhibit 99.2 of our Current Report Form 8-K as filed on January 16, 2014. |
| (25) | See “MD&A—Supplemental Tables” and Exhibit 99.1 for a reconciliation of non-GAAP managed measures to comparable U.S. GAAP measures. |
43
Table of Contents
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”)
This discussion contains forward-looking statements that are based upon management’s current expectations and are subject to significant uncertainties and changes in circumstances. Please review “Forward-Looking Statements” for more information on the forward-looking statements in this Report. Our actual results may differ materially from those included in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to, those described in this Report in “Part I—Item 1A. Risk Factors.” Unless otherwise specified, references to notes to our consolidated financial statements refers to the notes to our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2013 included in this 2013 Annual Report.
Management monitors a variety of key indicators to evaluate our business results and financial condition. The following MD&A is intended to provide the reader with an understanding of our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity by focusing on changes from year to year in certain key measures used by management to evaluate performance, such as profitability, growth and credit quality metrics. MD&A is provided as a supplement to, and should be read in conjunction with, our audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2013 and accompanying notes. MD&A is organized in the following sections:
| • Executive Summary and Business Outlook
• Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
• Accounting Changes and Developments
• Consolidated Results of Operations
• Business Segment Financial Performance
• Consolidated Balance Sheets Analysis
• Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Variable Interest Entities |
• Capital Management
• Risk Management
• Credit Risk Profile
• Liquidity Risk Profile
• Market Risk Profile
• Supplemental Tables
• Glossary and Acronyms |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND BUSINESS OUTLOOK
In 2013, we continued to deliver strong returns. All three of our business segments delivered growth in total revenues during the year, allowing us to remain focused on providing sustained and improved profitability and shareholder value.
On July 2, 2013, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $1 billion of shares of our common stock (“2013 Stock Repurchase Program”) upon the closing of the Portfolio Sale. As of December 31, 2013, we have completed the repurchase of common stock as part of the 2013 Stock Repurchase Program.
Financial Highlights
We reported net income of $4.2 billion ($6.96 per diluted share) on total net revenue of $22.4 billion for 2013, with each of our three business segments contributing to our earnings. In comparison, we reported net income of $3.5 billion ($6.16 per diluted share) on total net revenue of $21.4 billion for 2012 and $3.1 billion ($6.80 per diluted share) on total net revenue of $16.3 billion in 2011.
Our Tier 1 common ratio, as calculated under Basel I, increased to 12.23% as of December 31, 2013, up 127 basis points from 10.96% as of December 31, 2012. The increase in our Tier 1 common ratio reflects strong internal capital generation from earnings and the full benefit of the decline in risk weighted assets from the Portfolio Sale, which was offset by the decline in capital level from the 2013 Stock Repurchase Program. See “Capital Management” below for additional information.
44
Table of Contents
Below are additional highlights of our performance in 2013. These highlights generally are based on a comparison between 2013 and 2012 results, except as otherwise noted. The changes in our financial condition and credit performance are generally based on our financial condition and credit performance as of December 31, 2013, compared with our financial condition and credit performance as of December 31, 2012. We provide a more detailed discussion of our financial performance in the sections following this “Executive Summary and Business Outlook.”
Total Company
| • | Earnings: Our net income increased by $642 million in 2013, or 18%, to $4.2 billion, compared to $3.5 billion for 2012. A significant driver of the increase in earnings in 2013 was the growth in interest income attributable to (i) the increase in average interest-earning assets as a result of the ING Direct and 2012 U.S. card acquisitions, growth in purchase volumes in the Credit Card business and growth in auto loans, partially offset by the Portfolio Sale and the expected run-off of home loans, and (ii) the decrease in interest expense due to lower costs related to borrowings and debt obligations. Another factor contributing to the increase in earnings was the absence in 2013 of the provision for credit losses of $1.2 billion related to the credit card receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition recorded in the second quarter of 2012. This effect was partially offset by the absence in 2013 of the bargain purchase gain of $594 million recorded in 2012 at the acquisition of ING Direct in the first quarter of 2012 and higher ongoing operating expenses. |
| • | Loans Held for Investment: Period-end loans held for investment decreased by $8.7 billion, or 4%, in 2013, to $197.2 billion as of December 31, 2013, from $205.9 billion as of December 31, 2012. The decrease was partially due to the Portfolio Sale. In addition to the Portfolio Sale, period-end loans held for investment also decreased due to the expected run-off of certain credit card loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition, installment loans in our Credit Card business, home loans in our Consumer Banking business and small-ticket commercial real estate loans in our Commercial Banking business. This run-off was partially offset by continued strong auto loan originations in our Consumer Banking business and commercial and industrial and commercial real estate loan growth in our Commercial Banking business. |
| • | Charge-off and Delinquency Statistics: Our net charge-off rate increased by 15 basis points in 2013 to 2.04%, compared to 1.89% for 2012. The increases in our reported net charge-offs and net charge-off rate were largely due to the run-off of certain credit card loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. Acquired loans from this portfolio generally have no charge-offs, but the balance is included in the denominator. As such, when these loans run-off and are replaced with originated loans, our charge-off rates increase. Our reported 30+ day delinquency rate declined to 2.96% as of December 31, 2013, from 3.09% as of December 31, 2012. We provide information on our credit quality metrics below under “Business Segment Financial Performance” and “Credit Risk Profile.” |
| • | Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses: We reduced our allowance by $841 million to $4.3 billion as of December 31, 2013, from $5.2 billion as of December 31, 2012. The decrease in the allowance was mainly due to an overall improved credit outlook coupled with improvements in delinquency inventories and the reduction in loan balances. In addition, the allowance was reduced by $289 million related to the Portfolio Sale in the third quarter of 2013. The allowance coverage ratio declined to 2.19% as of December 31, 2013, from 2.50% as of December 31, 2012. |
| • | Representation and Warranty Reserve: We recorded a mortgage representation and warranty provision of $309 million in 2013 compared to $349 million in 2012. Our mortgage representation and warranty reserve increased to $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2013, from $899 million as of December 31, 2012. The increase in the reserve is primarily due to increased litigation and estimated settlement rates on active litigation. |
Business Segment Financial Performance
| • | Credit Card: Our Credit Card business generated net income from continuing operations of $2.6 billion in 2013, compared with net income from continuing operations of $1.5 billion in 2012. The increase in net |
45
Table of Contents
| income from continuing operations of $1.1 billion was driven by the absence in 2013 of the provision for credit losses of $1.2 billion to establish an allowance for the credit card receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and the absence in 2013 of the $174 million charge to establish a reserve for estimated uncollectible billed finance charges and fees related to those loans, both of which were recorded in 2012. The improvement also reflects higher revenue attributable to the 2012 U.S. card acquisition coupled with increased purchase volume in our Credit Card business. The increase in net revenues was partially offset by higher operating expenses resulting from the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. Period-end loans held for investment in our Credit Card business decreased by $10.5 billion to $81.3 billion as of December 31, 2013 from $91.8 billion as of December 31, 2012. The decrease was largely due to the Portfolio Sale and continued run-off of our installment loan portfolio and certain other credit card loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. |
| • | Consumer Banking: Our Consumer Banking business generated net income from continuing operations of $1.5 billion in 2013, compared with net income from continuing operations of $1.4 billion in 2012. The modest increase in net income is due to higher interest income related to growth in average interest earning assets in auto partially offset by the run-off of home loans. Period-end loans held for investment in our Consumer Banking business decreased by $4.3 billion, or 6%, to $70.8 billion as of December 31, 2013, from $75.1 billion as of December 31, 2012, due to the run-off of acquired home loans partially offset by strong auto loan originations. |
| • | Commercial Banking: Our Commercial Banking business generated net income from continuing operations of $769 million in 2013, compared with net income from continuing operations of $835 million in 2012. The decrease in net income of $66 million is due to a higher provision for credit losses. The higher provision for credit losses was driven by lower allowance releases, which was partially offset by loan growth in 2013 compared to the prior year. This was partially offset by higher revenues due to growth in commercial real estate and commercial and industrial loans and higher deposit balances and fee-based product and services revenue. Period-end loans held for investment in our Commercial Banking business increased by $6.2 billion, or 16%, to $45.0 billion as of December 31, 2013, from $38.8 billion as of December 31, 2012. The increase was driven by strong loan originations in the commercial and industrial and commercial real estate businesses, which were partially offset by the continued run-off of the small-ticket commercial real estate loan portfolio. |
Business Outlook
We discuss below our current expectations regarding our total company performance and the performance of each of our business segments over the near-term based on market conditions, the regulatory environment and our business strategies as of the time we filed this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The statements contained in this section are based on our current expectations regarding our outlook for our financial results and business strategies. Our expectations take into account, and should be read in conjunction with, our expectations regarding economic trends and analysis of our business as discussed in “Part I—Item 1. Business” and “Part II—Item 7. MD&A” of this Report. Certain statements are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results could differ materially from those in our forward-looking statements. Except as otherwise disclosed, forward-looking statements do not reflect: (i) any change in current dividend or repurchase strategies, (ii) the effect of any acquisitions, divestitures or similar transactions that have not been previously disclosed, or (iii) any changes in laws, regulations or regulatory interpretations, in each case after the date as of which such statements are made. See “Part I—Item 1. Business—Forward-Looking Statements” for more information on the forward-looking statements in this Report and “Part I—Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Report for factors that could materially influence our results.
Total Company Expectations
Our strategies and actions are designed to deliver and sustain strong returns and capital generation through the acquisition and retention of franchise-enhancing customer relationships across our businesses. We believe that
46
Table of Contents
franchise-enhancing customer relationships create and sustain significant long-term value through low risk-adjusted credit costs, long and loyal customer relationships and a gradual build in loan balances and revenues over time. Examples of franchise-enhancing customer relationships include rewards customers and partnerships in our Credit Card business, retail deposit customers in our Consumer Banking business and primary banking relationships with commercial customers in our Commercial Banking business. We intend to grow these customer relationships by continuing to invest in scalable infrastructure and operating platforms, so that we can meet the heightened risk management expectations facing all banks and deliver a “brand-defining” customer experience that builds and sustains a valuable, long-term customer franchise.
We expect 2014 pre-provision net revenue, excluding non-recurring items, of approximately $9.8 billion. In 2014, we expect very modest revenue growth, after adjusting for the Portfolio Sale. We also expect operating expenses in 2014 to be approximately $10.5 billion, excluding non-recurring items. These estimates are expected to vary within a reasonable margin of error. We anticipate that marketing expenses will rise in 2014, although actual marketing expenses will depend on our assessment of the market and competitive opportunities. In addition, we continue to expect portfolio run-off of approximately $1 billion in card loans and $4 billion in home loans in 2014.
We believe our actions have created a well-positioned balance sheet with strong capital and liquidity. In our recent submission in the 2014 CCAR cycle, we requested share repurchases that, if approved, would result in a total payout ratio well above the 2013 industry norm of approximately 50%. See “MD&A—Capital Management-Capital Planning and Regulatory Stress Testing” for more information.
Business Segment Expectations
| • | Credit Card: We expect Domestic Card loan growth in the coming quarters to be muted as planned run-off and other strategic choices we have made continue to mask strong underlying growth in areas we are emphasizing. We expect loan growth in Domestic Card to resume sometime around the second half of 2014, when underlying loan growth will begin to more than offset shrinkage in other parts of the business. Trends in loans and purchase volumes continue to reflect our strategic choices. Overall, we believe that our Domestic Card business continues to be well-positioned and will continue to deliver strong, sustainable and resilient returns and generate capital on a strong trajectory. |
| • | Consumer Banking: In our Consumer Banking business, we expect continued run-off in the acquired Home Loans portfolio to have a significant impact on loan balances. In Auto, we expect credit losses will continue to increase from the historic lows of the past few years and Auto revenues, margins and returns to continue to decline, but remain resilient and within ranges that support an attractive business. In addition, we expect the inexorable impacts of the prolonged low interest rate environment to continue to pressure the economics of our retail deposit businesses even if rates begin to rise in 2014. |
| • | Commercial Banking: Our Commercial Banking business loan growth, credit and profitability trends remain healthy. While increasing competition, particularly in middle-market lending, may continue to impact the pricing and volume of our new loan originations, we expect our focus and specialized approach to deliver strong results in 2014. |
47
Table of Contents
Table 1: Business Segment Results
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Net Revenue(1) |
Net Income (Loss)(2) |
Total Net Revenue(1) |
Net Income (Loss)(2) |
Total Net Revenue(1) |
Net Income (Loss)(2) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
Amount | % of Total |
Amount | % of Total |
Amount | % of Total |
Amount | % of Total |
Amount | % of Total |
Amount | % of Total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Credit Card |
$ | 14,287 | 64 | % | $ | 2,615 | 60 | % | $ | 13,260 | 62 | % | $ | 1,530 | 41 | % | $ | 10,431 | 64 | % | $ | 2,277 | 70 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Consumer Banking |
6,654 | 30 | 1,451 | 33 | 6,570 | 30 | 1,363 | 37 | 4,956 | 30 | 809 | 25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commercial Banking(3) |
2,290 | 10 | 769 | 17 | 2,080 | 10 | 835 | 22 | 1,879 | 12 | 595 | 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other(4) |
(847 | ) | (4 | ) | (443 | ) | (10 | ) | (514 | ) | (2 | ) | 6 | — | (987 | ) | (6 | ) | (428 | ) | (13 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total from continuing operations |
$ | 22,384 | 100 | % | $ | 4,392 | 100 | % | $ | 21,396 | 100 | % | $ | 3,734 | 100 | % | $ | 16,279 | 100 | % | $ | 3,253 | 100 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (1) | Total net revenue consists of net interest income and non-interest income. |
| (2) | Net income for our business segments is reported based on income from continuing operations, net of tax. |
| (3) | Because we have some affordable housing tax-related investments that generate tax-exempt income or tax credits, we make certain reclassifications to our Commercial Banking business results to present revenues on a taxable-equivalent basis. |
| (4) | Includes the residual impact of the allocation of our centralized Corporate Treasury group activities to our business segments as well as other items as described in “Note 19—Business Segments”. |
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP requires management to make a number of judgments, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets, liabilities, income and expenses in the consolidated financial statements. Understanding our accounting policies and the extent to which we use management judgment and estimates in applying these policies is integral to understanding our financial statements. We provide a summary of our significant accounting policies under “Note 1—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”.
We have identified the following accounting policies as critical because they require significant judgments and assumptions about highly complex and inherently uncertain matters and the use of reasonably different estimates and assumptions could have a material impact on our reported results of operations or financial condition. These critical accounting policies govern:
| • | Loan loss reserves |
| • | Asset impairment |
| • | Fair value of financial instruments |
| • | Representation and warranty reserves |
| • | Customer rewards reserves |
| • | Income taxes |
We evaluate our critical accounting estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis and update them, as necessary, based on changing conditions. Management has discussed our critical accounting policies and estimates with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors.
Loan Loss Reserves
We maintain an allowance for loan and lease losses that represents management’s estimate of incurred loan and lease losses inherent in our held-for-investment credit card, consumer banking and commercial banking loan portfolios as of each balance sheet date, as well as a reserve for unfunded lending commitments, such as letters of credit and financial guarantees, and binding unfunded loan commitments. We also maintain a separate reserve for the uncollectible portion of billed finance charges and fees on credit card loans.
48
Table of Contents
Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses
We have an established process, using analytical tools and management judgment, to determine our allowance for loan and lease losses. Losses are inherent in our loan portfolio and we calculate the allowance for loan and lease losses by estimating incurred losses for segments of our loan portfolio with similar risk characteristics and record a provision for credit losses. We build our allowance for loan and lease losses and unfunded lending commitment reserves through the provision for credit losses. Our provision for credit losses in each period is driven by charge-offs, changes to allowance for loan and lease losses, and changes to unfunded lending commitments. We recorded a provision for credit losses of $3.5 billion, $4.4 billion and $2.4 billion in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The allowance totaled $4.3 billion as of December 31, 2013, compared with $5.2 billion as of December 31, 2012.
We review and assess our allowance methodologies and adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses on a quarterly basis. Our assessment involves evaluating many factors including, but not limited to, historical loss and recovery experience, recent trends in delinquencies and charge-offs, risk ratings, the impact of bankruptcy filings, the value of collateral underlying secured loans, account seasoning, changes in our credit evaluation, underwriting and collection management policies, seasonality, general economic conditions, changes in the legal and regulatory environment and uncertainties in forecasting and modeling techniques used in estimating our allowance for loan and lease losses. Key factors that have a significant impact on our allowance for loan and lease losses include assumptions about unemployment rates, home prices, and the valuation of commercial properties, consumer real estate, and automobiles.
Although we examine a variety of externally available data, as well as our internal loan performance data, to determine our allowance for loan and lease losses, our estimation process is subject to risks and uncertainties, including a reliance on historical loss and trend information that may not be representative of current conditions and indicative of future performance. Accordingly, our actual credit loss experience may not be in line with our expectations. We provide additional information on the methodologies and key assumptions used in determining our allowance for loan and lease losses for each of our loan portfolio segments in “Note 1—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.” We provide information on the components of our allowance, disaggregated by impairment methodology, and changes in our allowance in “Note 5—Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses.”
Reserve for Unfunded Lending Commitments
In addition to the allowance for loan and lease losses, we also estimate probable losses related to unfunded lending commitments, such as letters of credit and financial guarantees, and binding unfunded loan commitments. Our commercial loan portfolio is primarily composed of larger-balance, non-homogeneous loans. We determine the allowance and reserve for unfunded lending commitments for our commercial loan portfolio by evaluating loans with similar risk characteristics and applying internal risk ratings. We use these risk ratings to assess credit quality and derive a total loss estimate based on an estimated probability of default and loss given default. Factors we consider in determining risk ratings and deriving loss estimates include historical loss experience for loans with similar risk characteristics, the financial condition of the borrower, geography, collateral performance and industry-specific information that management believes is relevant. Management may also apply judgment to adjust the derived loss factors, taking into consideration both quantitative and qualitative factors, including general economic conditions, specific industry and geographic trends, portfolio concentrations, trends in internal credit quality indicators and current and past underwriting standards that have occurred but are not yet reflected in the historical data underlying our loss estimates.
Finance Charge and Fee Reserves
Finance charges and fees on credit card loans, net of amounts that we consider uncollectible, are included in loan receivables and revenue when the finance charges and fees are earned. We continue to accrue finance charges and fees on credit card loans until the account is charged-off; however, when we do not expect full payment of
49
Table of Contents
billed finance charges and fees, we reduce the balance of our credit card loan receivables by the amount of finance charges and fees billed but not expected to be collected and exclude this amount from revenue. Total net revenue was reduced by $796 million, $937 million and $371 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, for the estimated uncollectible amount of billed finance charges and fees. The finance charge and fee reserve totaled $190 million as of December 31, 2013, compared with $307 million as of December 31, 2012.
We review and assess the adequacy of the uncollectible finance charge and fee reserve on a quarterly basis. Our methodology for estimating the uncollectible portion of billed finance charges and fees is consistent with the methodology we use to estimate the allowance for incurred principal losses on our credit card loan receivables.
Asset Impairment
In addition to our loan portfolio, we review other assets for impairment on a regular basis in accordance with applicable impairment accounting guidance. This process requires significant management judgment and involves various estimates and assumptions. Our investment securities and goodwill and intangible assets represent a significant portion of our other assets. Accordingly, below we describe our process for assessing impairment of these assets and the key estimates and assumptions involved in this process.
Investment Securities
We regularly review investment securities for other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) using both quantitative and qualitative criteria. If we intend to sell a security in an unrealized loss position or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security prior to recovery of its amortized cost basis, the entire difference between the amortized cost basis of the security and its fair value is recognized in earnings. If we do not intend to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery of our amortized cost, we evaluate other qualitative criteria to determine whether a credit loss exists. Our evaluation requires significant management judgment and a consideration of many factors, including, but not limited to, the extent and duration of the impairment; the health of and specific prospects for the issuer, including whether the issuer has failed to make scheduled interest or principal payments; recent events specific to the issuer and/or industry to which the issuer belongs; the payment structure of the security; external credit ratings; the value of underlying collateral and current market conditions. Quantitative criteria include assessing whether there has been an adverse change in expected future cash flows. See “Note 3—Investment Securities” for additional information.
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
Goodwill resulting from business combinations prior to January 1, 2009 represents the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of the net assets of businesses acquired. Goodwill resulting from business combinations after January 1, 2009, is generally determined as the excess of the fair value of the consideration transferred, plus the fair value of any non-controlling interests in the acquiree, over the fair value of the net assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of the acquisition date.
Goodwill totaled $14.0 billion and $13.9 billion as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Other intangible assets, which we report on our consolidated balance sheets as a component of other assets, consist primarily of purchased credit card relationships (“PCCR”) and core deposit intangibles. The net carrying value of other intangible assets decreased to $1.8 billion as of December 31, 2013, from $2.6 billion as of December 31, 2012. Goodwill and other intangible assets together represented 5% of our total assets as of both December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. We did not recognize goodwill impairment in 2013, 2012 or 2011.
50
Table of Contents
Goodwill
Goodwill is not amortized but must be allocated to reporting units and tested for impairment on an annual basis or in interim periods if events or circumstances indicate potential impairment. A reporting unit is a business segment or one level below. We have elected not to perform the optional qualitative assessment and proceeded directly to the quantitative impairment test. The goodwill impairment test, performed at October 1 of each year, is a two-step test. The first step identifies whether there is potential impairment by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit to the carrying amount, including goodwill. If the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, the second step of the impairment test is required to measure the amount of any impairment loss.
We do not maintain separate balance sheets at the reporting unit level; therefore, we calculate the carrying values of our reporting units using an economic capital approach based on each reporting unit’s specific regulatory capital requirements (reflective of the final Basel III rules released during 2013) and risks. We compare the total reporting unit carrying values to our total consolidated stockholders’ equity, as discussed further in “Note 7—Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” to assess the appropriateness of our methodology. If the second step of goodwill impairment testing is required for a reporting unit, we undertake an extensive effort to build the specific reporting unit’s balance sheet for the test based on applicable accounting guidance.
Estimating the fair value of reporting units and the assets, liabilities and intangible assets of a reporting unit is a subjective process that involves the use of estimates and judgments, particularly related to cash flows, the appropriate discount rates and an applicable control premium. The fair value of reporting units is calculated using a discounted cash flow model, a form of the income approach. The model projects cash flows based on each reporting unit’s internal forecast and use the perpetuity growth method to calculate terminal values . These cash flows and terminal values are then discounted using appropriate discount rates, which are largely based on our external cost of equity with adjustments for risk inherent in each reporting unit: Cash flows are adjusted, as necessary, in order to maintain each reporting unit’s equity capital requirements. Our discounted cash flow analysis requires management to make judgments about future loan and deposit growth, revenue growth, credit losses, and capital rates. Discount rates used in 2013 for the reporting units ranged from 8.0% to 12.5%. The key inputs into the discounted cash flow analysis were consistent with market data, where available, indicating that assumptions used were within a reasonable range of observable market data. Based on our analysis, fair value exceeded the carrying amount for all reporting units as of our annual testing date, therefore, the second step of impairment testing was unnecessary.
As part of the annual goodwill impairment test, we also assess our market capitalization based on the average market price relative to the aggregate fair value of our reporting units and determined that any excess fair value in our reporting units at that time could be attributed to a reasonable control premium compared to historical control premiums seen in the industry.
We will continue to regularly monitor our market capitalization in 2014, overall economic conditions and other events or circumstances that may result in an impairment of goodwill in the future.
Other Intangible Assets
Intangible assets with definitive useful lives are amortized over their estimated lives and evaluated for potential impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances suggest that an asset’s or asset group’s carrying value may not be fully recoverable. An impairment loss, generally calculated as the difference between the estimated fair value and the carrying value of an asset or asset group, is recognized if the sum of the estimated undiscounted cash flows relating to the asset or asset group is less than the corresponding carrying value. We did not recognize impairment on other intangible assets in 2013, 2012 or 2011.
51
Table of Contents
Mortgage Servicing Rights
Mortgage servicing rights (“MSR”) are initially recorded at fair value when mortgage loans are sold or securitized in the secondary market and the right to service these loans is retained for a fee. Subsequently, our consumer related MSRs are carried at fair value on our consolidated balance sheets with changes in fair value recognized in non-interest income. Our commercial mortgage related MSRs are subsequently measured under the amortization method and are periodically evaluated for impairment, which is recognized as a reduction in non-interest income. See “Note 7—Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” and “Note 18—Fair Value of Financial Instruments” for additional information.
Fair Value
Fair value is defined as the price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date (also referred to as an exit price). The fair value accounting guidance provides a three-level fair value hierarchy for classifying financial instruments. This hierarchy is based on whether the inputs to the valuation techniques used to measure fair value are observable or unobservable. Fair value measurement of a financial asset or liability is assigned to a level based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:
Level 1: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities
Level 2: Observable market-based inputs, other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or
liabilities
Level 3: Unobservable inputs
The degree of management judgment involved in determining the fair value of a financial instrument is dependent upon the availability of quoted prices in active markets or observable market parameters. When quoted prices and observable data in active markets are not fully available, management judgment is necessary to estimate fair value. Changes in market conditions, such as reduced liquidity in the capital markets or changes in secondary market activities, may reduce the availability and reliability of quoted prices or observable data used to determine fair value.
We have developed policies and procedures to determine when markets for our financial assets and liabilities are inactive if the level and volume of activity has declined significantly relative to normal conditions. If markets are determined to be inactive, it may be appropriate to adjust price quotes received. When significant adjustments are required to price quotes or inputs, it may be appropriate to utilize an estimate based primarily on unobservable inputs.
Significant judgment may be required to determine whether certain financial instruments measured at fair value are included in Level 2 or Level 3. In making this determination, we consider all available information that market participants use to measure the fair value of the financial instrument, including observable market data, indications of market liquidity and orderliness, and our understanding of the valuation techniques and significant inputs used. Based upon the specific facts and circumstances of each instrument or instrument category, judgments are made regarding the significance of the Level 3 inputs to the instruments’ fair value measurement in its entirety. If Level 3 inputs are considered significant, the instrument is classified as Level 3. The process for determining fair value using unobservable inputs is generally more subjective and involves a high degree of management judgment and assumptions.
Our financial instruments recorded at fair value on a recurring basis represented approximately 14% and 21% of our total assets as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Financial assets for which the fair value was determined using significant Level 3 inputs represented approximately 8% and 5% of these financial instruments as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
52
Table of Contents
We discuss changes in the valuation inputs and assumptions used in determining the fair value of our financial instruments, including the extent to which we have relied on significant unobservable inputs to estimate fair value and our process for corroborating these inputs, in “Note 18—Fair Value of Financial Instruments.”
Key Controls Over Fair Value Measurement
We have a governance framework and a number of key controls that are intended to ensure that our fair value measurements are appropriate and reliable. Our governance framework provides for independent oversight and segregation of duties. Our control processes include review and approval of new transaction types, price verification and review of valuation judgments, methods, models, process controls and results. Groups independent from our trading and investing functions, including our Corporate Valuations Group (“CVG”), Fair Value Committee and Model Validation Group, participate in the review and validation process. The fair valuation governance process is set up in a manner that allows the Chairperson of the Fair Value Committee (“FVC”) to escalate valuation disputes that cannot be resolved at the FVC to a more senior committee called the Valuations Advisory Committee for resolution. The Valuations Advisory Committee (“VAC”) is chaired by the Chief Financial Officer and includes other senior management. The VAC is only convened to review escalated valuation disputes and did not meet during 2013.
The CVG performs periodic independent verification of fair value measurements to determine if assigned fair values are reasonable. For example, in cases where we rely on third party pricing services to obtain fair value measures, we analyze pricing variances among different pricing sources and validate the final price used by comparing the information to additional sources, including dealer pricing indications in transaction results and other internal sources, where necessary. Additional validation procedures performed by the CVG include reviewing (either directly or indirectly through the reasonableness of assigned fair values) valuation inputs and assumptions, and monitoring acceptable variances between recommended prices and validation prices. The CVG and the Trade Analytics and Valuation team perform due diligence reviews of the third party pricing services by comparing their prices with prices from other sources and reviewing other control documentation. Additionally, when necessary, the CVG and Trade Analytics and Valuation Team (“TAV”) challenge prices from third party vendors to ensure reasonableness of prices through a pricing challenge process. This may include a request for a transparency of the assumptions used by the third party.
The FVC, which includes representation from business areas, our Risk Management division and our Finance division, is a forum for discussing fair market valuations, inputs, assumptions, methodologies, variance thresholds, valuation control environment and material risks or concerns related to fair market valuations. Additionally, the FVC is empowered to resolve valuation disputes between the primary valuation providers and the CVG. It provides guidance and oversight to ensure an appropriate valuation control environment. The FVC regularly reviews and approves our valuation methodologies to ensure that our methodologies and practices are consistent with industry standards and adhere to regulatory and accounting guidance. The Chief Financial Officer determines when material issues or concerns regarding valuations shall be raised to the Audit Committee or other delegated committee of the Board of Directors.
We have a model policy, established by an independent Model Risk Office, which governs the validation of models and related supporting documentation to ensure the appropriate use of models for pricing. The Model Validation Group is part of the Model Risk Office and validates all models and provides ongoing monitoring of their performance, including the validation and monitoring of the performance of all valuation models.
Representation and Warranty Reserve
In connection with their sales of mortgage loans, certain subsidiaries entered into agreements containing varying representations and warranties about, among other things, the ownership of the loan, the validity of the lien securing the loan, the loan’s compliance with any applicable loan criteria established by the purchaser, including underwriting guidelines and the ongoing existence of mortgage insurance, and the loan’s compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws. We may be required to repurchase the mortgage loan, indemnify the investor or insurer, or reimburse the investor for loan and lease losses incurred on the loan in the event of a material breach of contractual representations or warranties.
53
Table of Contents
We have established representation and warranty reserves for losses that we consider to be both probable and reasonably estimable associated with the mortgage loans sold by each subsidiary, including both litigation and non-litigation liabilities. The reserve-setting process relies heavily on estimates, which are inherently uncertain, and requires the application of judgment. In establishing the representation and warranty reserves, we consider a variety of factors, depending on the category of purchaser and rely on historical data. These factors include, but are not limited to, the historical relationship between loan losses and repurchase outcomes; the percentage of current and future loan defaults that we anticipate will result in repurchase requests over the lifetime of the loans; the percentage of those repurchase requests that we anticipate will result in actual repurchases; and estimated collateral valuations. We evaluate these factors and update our loss forecast models on a quarterly basis to estimate our lifetime liability.
Our aggregate representation and warranty mortgage repurchase reserves, which we report as a component of other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets, totaled $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2013, compared with $899 million as of December 31, 2012. The adequacy of the reserves and the ultimate amount of losses incurred by us or one of our subsidiaries will depend on, among other things, actual future mortgage loan performance, the actual level of future repurchase and indemnification requests, the actual success rates of claimants, developments in litigation, actual recoveries on the collateral and macroeconomic conditions (including unemployment levels and housing prices).
As part of our business planning processes, we have considered various outcomes relating to the potential future representation and warranty liabilities of our subsidiaries that are possible but do not rise to the level of being both probable and reasonably estimable outcomes justifying an incremental accrual under applicable accounting standards. Our current best estimate of reasonably possible future losses from representation and warranty claims beyond what was in our reserve as of December 31, 2013 is approximately $2.6 billion, a decline from our estimate of $2.7 billion as of December 31, 2012. Notwithstanding our ongoing attempts to estimate a reasonably possible amount of future losses beyond our current accrual levels based on current information, it is possible that actual future losses will exceed both the current accrual level and our current estimate of the amount of reasonably possible losses. This estimate involves considerable judgment, and reflects that there is still significant uncertainty regarding the numerous factors that may impact the ultimate loss levels, including, but not limited to, anticipated litigation outcomes, future repurchase and indemnification claim levels, ultimate repurchase and indemnification rates, future mortgage loan performance levels, actual recoveries on the collateral and macroeconomic conditions (including unemployment levels and housing prices). In light of the significant uncertainty as to the ultimate liability our subsidiaries may incur from these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period. See “Note 20—Commitments, Contingencies, Guarantees, and Others” for additional information.
Customer Rewards Reserve
We offer products, primarily credit cards, which offer reward program members with various rewards, such as cash, gift cards, airline tickets or merchandise. The majority of our rewards do not expire and there is no limit on the number of reward points an eligible card member may earn. Customer rewards costs, which we generally record as an offset to interchange income, are driven by various factors, such as card member charge volume, customer participation in the rewards program and contractual arrangements with redemption partners. We establish a customer rewards reserve that reflects management’s judgment regarding rewards earned that are expected to be redeemed and the estimated redemption cost.
We use financial models to estimate ultimate redemption rates of rewards earned to date by current card members based on historical redemption trends, current enrollee redemption behavior, card product type, year of program enrollment, enrollment tenure and card spend levels. Our current assumption is that the vast majority of all rewards earned will eventually be redeemed. We use a weighted-average cost per reward redeemed during the previous twelve months, adjusted as appropriate for recent changes in redemption costs, including mix of rewards redeemed, to estimate future redemption costs.
54
Table of Contents
We continually evaluate our reserve methodology and assumptions based on developments in redemption patterns, cost per point redeemed, contract changes and other factors. Changes in the ultimate redemption rate and weighted-average cost per point have the effect of either increasing or decreasing the reserve through the current period provision by an amount estimated to cover the cost of all points previously earned but not yet redeemed by card members as of the end of the reporting period. We recognized customer rewards expense of $1.6 billion, $1.3 billion and $1.0 billion in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Our customer rewards liability, which is included in other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets, totaled $2.3 billion and $2.1 billion as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Income Taxes
Our annual provision for income tax expense is based on our income, statutory tax rates and other provisions of tax law applicable to us in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. Tax laws are complex and subject to different interpretations by the taxpayer and respective governmental taxing authorities. Significant judgment, including evaluating uncertainties, is required in determining our tax positions and calculating our tax expense. We review our tax positions quarterly and adjust the balances as new information becomes available.
Our income tax expense consists of two components: current and deferred taxes. Our current income tax expense approximates taxes to be paid or refunded for the current period. It also includes income tax expense related to our uncertain tax positions and revisions of our estimate of accrued income taxes resulting from the resolution of income tax controversies. Our deferred income tax expense results from changes in our deferred tax assets and liabilities between periods.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities represent decreases or increases in taxes expected to be paid in the future because of future reversals of temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities, as well as from net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets are recognized subject to management’s judgment that realization is “more likely than not.” We evaluate the recoverability of these future tax deductions by assessing the adequacy of expected taxable income from all sources, including taxable income in carryback years, reversal of taxable temporary differences, forecasted operating earnings and available tax planning strategies. These sources of income rely heavily on estimates. We use our historical experience and our short- and long-range business forecasts to provide insight.
As of December 31, 2013, we have recorded deferred tax assets, net of deferred tax liabilities and valuation allowances, of approximately $3.7 billion, an increase of $0.8 billion from $2.9 billion at December 31, 2012. We have recorded a valuation allowance of $139 million and $123 million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. We expect to fully realize the net deferred tax asset amounts in future periods. If changes in circumstances lead us to change our judgment about our ability to realize deferred tax assets in future years, we will adjust our valuation allowances in the period that our change in judgment occurs and record a corresponding increase or charge to income.
We provide additional information on income taxes in “Consolidated Results of Operations” and in “Note 17—Income Taxes.”
ACCOUNTING CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS
See “Note 1—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for information on accounting standards adopted in 2013, as well as recently issued accounting standards not yet required to be adopted and the expected impact of these changes in accounting standards. To the extent we believe the adoption of new accounting standards has had or will have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity, we discuss the impacts in the applicable section(s) of MD&A.
55
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The section below provides a comparative discussion of our consolidated financial performance between 2013 and 2012 and between 2012 and 2011. Following this section, we provide a discussion of our business segment results. You should read this section together with our “Executive Summary and Business Outlook,” where we discuss trends and other factors that we expect will affect our future results of operations.
Net Interest Income
Net interest income represents the difference between the interest income and applicable fees earned on our interest-earning assets, which include loans and investment securities, and the interest expense on our interest-bearing liabilities, which include interest-bearing deposits, senior and subordinated notes, securitized debt and other borrowings. We include in interest income any past due fees on loans that we deem collectible. Our net interest margin based on our consolidated results represents the difference between the yield on our interest-earning assets and the cost of our interest-bearing liabilities, including the impact of non-interest bearing funding. We expect net interest income and our net interest margin to fluctuate based on changes in interest rates and changes in the amount and composition of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.
56
Table of Contents
Table 2 below presents, for each major category of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, the average outstanding balances, interest income earned, interest expense incurred, average yield and rate for 2013, 2012 and 2011.
Table 2: Average Balances, Net Interest Income and Net Interest Yield(1)
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
Average Balance |
Interest Income/ Expense(2)(3) |
Yield/ Rate |
Average Balance |
Interest Income/ Expense(2)(3) |
Yield/ Rate |
Average Balance |
Interest Income/ Expense(2)(3) |
Yield/ Rate |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Assets: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest-earning assets: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Credit card: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Domestic |
$ | 74,950 | $ | 10,876 | 14.51 | % | $ | 71,857 | $ | 10,153 | 14.13 | % | $ | 53,465 | $ | 7,562 | 14.14 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| International |
7,973 | 1,295 | 16.24 | 8,255 | 1,292 | 15.66 | 8,645 | 1,359 | 15.72 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Credit card |
82,923 | 12,171 | 14.68 | 80,112 | 11,445 | 14.29 | 62,110 | 8,921 | 14.36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Consumer banking |
72,652 | 4,428 | 6.09 | 72,061 | 4,516 | 6.27 | 34,967 | 3,348 | 9.57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commercial banking |
40,866 | 1,587 | 3.88 | 36,136 | 1,528 | 4.23 | 31,311 | 1,482 | 4.73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other |
168 | 36 | 21.43 | 157 | 55 | 35.03 | 202 | 28 | 13.86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Total loans, including loans held for sale |
196,609 | 18,222 | 9.27 | 188,466 | 17,544 | 9.31 | 128,590 | 13,779 | 10.72 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Investment securities(4) |
63,522 | 1,575 | 2.48 | 57,424 | 1,329 | 2.31 | 39,513 | 1,137 | 2.88 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cash equivalents and other interest-earning assets |
6,292 | 101 | 1.61 | 9,189 | 91 | 0.99 | 7,162 | 71 | 0.99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Total interest-earning assets |
$ | 266,423 | $ | 19,898 | 7.47 | % | $ | 255,079 | $ | 18,964 | 7.43 | % | $ | 175,265 | $ | 14,987 | 8.55 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Cash and due from banks |
2,461 | 4,573 | 1,926 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Allowance for loan and lease losses |
(4,572 | ) | (4,640 | ) | (4,865 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Premises and equipment, net |
3,770 | 3,342 | 2,731 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other assets |
29,202 | 28,248 | 24,661 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets |
$ | 297,284 | $ | 286,602 | $ | 199,718 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liabilities and stockholders’ equity: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest-bearing liabilities: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits |
$ | 187,700 | $ | 1,241 | 0.66 | % | $ | 183,314 | $ | 1,403 | 0.77 | % | $ | 109,644 | $ | 1,187 | 1.08 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Securitized debt obligations |
10,697 | 183 | 1.71 | 14,138 | 271 | 1.92 | 20,715 | 422 | 2.04 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Senior and subordinated notes |
12,440 | 315 | 2.53 | 11,012 | 345 | 3.13 | 9,244 | 300 | 3.25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other borrowings |
14,670 | 53 | 0.36 | 12,875 | 356 | 2.77 | 8,063 | 337 | 4.18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing liabilities |
$ | 225,507 | $ | 1,792 | 0.79 | % | $ | 221,339 | $ | 2,375 | 1.07 | % | $ | 147,666 | $ | 2,246 | 1.52 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Non-interest bearing deposits |
21,345 | 19,741 | 17,050 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other liabilities |
8,857 | 8,196 | 6,423 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities |
255,709 | 249,275 | 171,139 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stockholders’ equity |
41,575 | 37,327 | 28,579 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity |
$ | 297,284 | $ | 286,602 | $ | 199,718 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income/spread |
$ | 18,106 | 6.68 | % | $ | 16,589 | 6.36 | % | $ | 12,741 | 7.03 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Impact of non-interest bearing funding |
0.12 | 0.14 | 0.24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Net interest margin |
6.80 | % | 6.50 | % | 7.27 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (1) | Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. |
| (2) | Past due fees included in interest income totaled approximately $1.7 billion in both 2013 and 2012, and $1.1 billion in 2011. |
| (3) | Interest income and interest expense and the calculation of average yields on interest-earning assets and average rates on interest-bearing liabilities include the impact of hedge accounting. |
| (4) | Prior to the second quarter of 2013, average balances for investment securities were calculated based on fair value amounts. Effective in the second quarter of 2013, average balances are calculated based on the amortized cost of investment securities. The impact of this change on prior period yields is not material. |
57
Table of Contents
Net interest income of $18.1 billion in 2013 increased by $1.5 billion, or 9%, from 2012, driven by a 4% increase in average interest-earning assets and a 5% (30 basis point) increase in net interest margin to 6.80%.
| • | Average Interest-Earning Assets: The increase in average interest-earning assets in 2013 compared to 2012 reflects the full year impact of loans and investment securities from the ING Direct acquisition and the addition of loans from the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. Growth in average interest-earning assets was also driven by continued strong growth in commercial and auto loans, which was partially offset by the continued run-off of home loans in our Consumer Banking business, the expected run-off of higher-margin, higher-loss receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and installment loans in our Credit Card business, as well as the Portfolio Sale in the third quarter of 2013. |
| • | Net Interest Margin: The increase in our net interest margin in 2013 compared to 2012 was primarily attributable to a reduction in our cost of funds, which was due in part to the redemption of $3.65 billion of our trust preferred securities on January 2, 2013, which generally carried a higher coupon than other funding sources available to us. Our lowered cost of funds also reflects the continued benefit from the shift in the mix of our funding to lower cost consumer and commercial banking deposits from higher cost wholesale sources and a decline in deposit interest rates as a result of the continued overall low interest rate environment. |
Net interest income of $16.6 billion in 2012 increased by $3.8 billion, or 30%, from 2011, driven by a 46% increase in average interest-earning assets, which was partially offset by an 11% (77 basis points) decline in our net interest margin to 6.50%.
| • | Average Interest-Earning Assets: The significant increase in average interest-earning assets reflects the addition of the ING Direct loan portfolio of $40.4 billion in the first quarter of 2012 and the addition of the $27.8 billion in outstanding receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and designated as held for investment in the second quarter of 2012. Growth in average interest-earning assets was also driven by continued strong growth in commercial and auto loans, which was partially offset by the continued expected run-off of home loans in our Consumer Banking business, as well as the expected run-off of higher-margin, higher-loss receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and installment loans in our Credit Card business. The run-off of home loans accelerated slightly as a result of the low mortgage interest rate environment. |
| • | Net Interest Margin: The decrease in our net interest margin in 2012 was attributable to a decline in the average yield on our interest-earning assets, largely due to the shift in the mix of our interest-earning assets to a larger proportion of lower yielding assets resulting from the acquired ING Direct home loan and investment securities portfolios and temporarily higher cash balances from equity and debt offerings. The ING Direct interest-earning assets generally have lower yields than our legacy loan and investment securities portfolios. In addition, the establishment of a finance charge and fee reserve of $174 million in the second quarter of 2012 for the receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and premium amortization related to the ING Direct and 2012 U.S. card acquisitions of $391 million in 2012 contributed to the reduction in the average yield on interest-earning assets. The decrease in the average yield on interest-earnings assets was partially offset by a reduction in our cost of funds. We have continued to benefit from the shift in the mix of our funding to lower cost consumer and commercial banking deposits from higher cost wholesale sources and a decline in deposit interest rates as a result of the continued overall low interest rate environment. |
58
Table of Contents
Table 3 displays the change in our net interest income between periods and the extent to which the variance is attributable to: (i) changes in the volume of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities or (ii) changes in the interest rates related to these assets and liabilities.
Table 3: Rate/Volume Analysis of Net Interest Income(1)
| 2013 vs. 2012 | 2012 vs. 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
Total Variance |
Volume | Rate | Total Variance |
Volume | Rate | ||||||||||||||||||
| Interest income: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Credit card |
$ | 726 | $ | 408 | $ | 318 | $ | 2,524 | $ | 2,572 | $ | (48 | ) | |||||||||||
| Consumer banking |
(88 | ) | 37 | (125 | ) | 1,168 | 2,626 | (1,458 | ) | |||||||||||||||
| Commercial banking |
59 | 190 | (131 | ) | 46 | 214 | (168 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
| Other |
(19 | ) | 4 | (23 | ) | 27 | (7 | ) | 34 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Total loans, including loans held for sale |
678 | 639 | 39 | 3,765 | 5,405 | (1,640 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Investment securities |
246 | 147 | 99 | 192 | 445 | (253 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
| Cash equivalents and other interest-earning assets |
10 | (35 | ) | 45 | 20 | 20 | — | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Total interest income |
934 | 751 | 183 | 3,977 | 5,870 | (1,893 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Interest expense: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits |
(162 | ) | 33 | (195 | ) | 216 | 635 | (419 | ) | |||||||||||||||
| Securitized debt obligations |
(88 | ) | (61 | ) | (27 | ) | (151 | ) | (127 | ) | (24 | ) | ||||||||||||
| Senior and subordinated notes |
(30 | ) | 41 | (71 | ) | 45 | 56 | (11 | ) | |||||||||||||||
| Other borrowings |
(303 | ) | 44 | (347 | ) | 19 | 158 | (139 | ) | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Total interest expense |
(583 | ) | 57 | (640 | ) | 129 | 722 | (593 | ) | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Net interest income |
$ | 1,517 | $ | 694 | $ | 823 | $ | 3,848 | $ | 5,148 | $ | (1,300 | ) | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| (1) | We calculate the change in interest income and interest expense separately for each item. The change in net interest income attributable to both volume and rates is allocated based on the relative dollar amount of each item. |
Non-Interest Income
Non-interest income primarily consists of service charges and other customer-related fees, interchange income (net of rewards expense), other non-interest income and, in 2012, the bargain purchase gain attributable to the ING Direct acquisition in the amount of $594 million. Other non-interest income includes the pre-tax provision for home loan representation and warranty related to continuing operations. It also includes gains and losses from the sale of investment securities, gains and losses on derivatives not accounted for in hedge accounting relationships and hedge ineffectiveness, which we generally do not allocate to our business segments because they relate to centralized asset/liability and market risk management activities undertaken by our Corporate Treasury group.
59
Table of Contents
Table 4 displays the components of non-interest income for 2013, 2012 and 2011.
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |||||||||
| Service charges and other customer-related fees |
$ | 2,118 | $ | 2,106 | $ | 1,979 | ||||||
| Interchange fees, net |
1,896 | 1,647 | 1,318 | |||||||||
| Bargain purchase gain(1) |
— | 594 | — | |||||||||
| Net other-than-temporary impairment |
(41 | ) | (52 | ) | (21 | ) | ||||||
| Other non-interest income: |
||||||||||||
| (Provision) benefit for mortgage representation and warranty(2) |
24 | (42 | ) | (43 | ) | |||||||
| Net gains from the sale of investment securities |
7 | 45 | 259 | |||||||||
| Net fair value gains (losses) on free-standing derivatives(3)(4) |
3 | (36 | ) | (197 | ) | |||||||
| Other(5) |
271 | 545 | 243 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Other non-interest income |
305 | 512 | 262 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Total non-interest income |
$ | 4,278 | $ | 4,807 | $ | 3,538 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| (1) | Represents the amount by which the fair value of the net assets acquired in the ING Direct acquisition, as of the acquisition date exceeded the consideration transferred. |
| (2) | Represents mortgage representation and warranty provision related to continuing operations. We recorded a total provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses of $309 million, $349 million and $212 million for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The remaining portion of the provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses is included, net of tax, in discontinued operations. |
| (3) | Excludes changes in cumulative credit risk valuation adjustments related to derivatives in a gain position. Credit risk valuation adjustments for derivative assets totaled $7 million, $9 million and $23 million as of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. See “Note 10—Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” for additional information. |
| (4) | Includes mark-to-market derivative losses of $78 million and $277 million in 2012 and 2011, respectively, related to interest-rate swaps we entered into in 2011 to partially hedge the interest rate risk of the net assets associated with the ING Direct acquisition. |
| (5) | Other includes derivative hedge ineffectiveness losses of $43 million and $36 million in 2013 and 2012, respectively, and gains of $15 million in 2011. Other also includes income of $162 million in 2012 related to the sale of Visa stock shares. |
Non-interest income of $4.3 billion in 2013 decreased by $529 million, or 11%, from non-interest income of $4.8 billion in 2012. The decrease in non-interest income reflected the combined impact of the absence of the bargain purchase gain of $594 million recognized at acquisition of ING Direct and income of $162 million from the sale of Visa stock shares, both of which were recorded in 2012. The impact of these items was partially offset by the favorable impact of increased customer related fees and interchange fees from purchase volume growth, due in part to the acquisitions, fee based products and services revenue, a reduction in the provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses and a reduction in fair value losses on free standing derivatives.
Non-interest income of $4.8 billion in 2012 increased by $1.3 billion, or 36%, from non-interest income of $3.5 billion in 2011. This increase reflected the combined impact of: (i) the bargain purchase gain of $594 million recorded at acquisition of ING Direct; (ii) increased net interchange and other fees resulting from continued growth and market share from new account originations, due in part to the ING Direct and the 2012 U.S. card acquisitions; (iii) income of $162 million from the sale of Visa stock shares in the first quarter of 2012; and (iv) mark-to-market gains of $85 million recognized on retained interests in mortgage-related securities. The favorable impact of these items was partially offset by expected customer refunds of approximately $115 million related to cross-sell activities in our Domestic Card business, approximately $214 million lower net gains from the sale of available for sale securities recorded in 2012 versus 2011, and a mark-to-market derivative loss of $78 million recognized in the first quarter of 2012 related to the settlement of interest-rate swaps we entered into in 2011 to partially hedge the interest rate risk of the net assets associated with the ING Direct acquisition.
60
Table of Contents
Provision for Credit Losses
Our provision for credit losses in each period is driven by charge-offs, changes to the allowance for loan and lease losses, and changes to the reserve for unfunded lending commitments. We recorded a provision for credit losses of $3.5 billion in 2013, compared with $4.4 billion in 2012 and $2.4 billion in 2011. The provision for credit losses as a percentage of net interest income was 19.1%, 26.6%, and 18.5% in 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
The decrease in the provision for credit losses of $962 million in 2013 from 2012 was driven by the absence of the provision for credit losses of $1.2 billion recorded in the second quarter of 2012 to establish an allowance for credit card loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition, and lower provision for credit losses in our non-acquired portfolio as underlying credit has improved. This was partially offset by (i) an increase in charge offs on the portfolio of Acquired Loans, as the Acquired Loans have run-off and have been replaced with originated loans which do not have a credit mark to absorb the charge-offs (ii) lower allowance release in our Commercial Banking business due to stabilization of the credit outlook in the current year compared to 2012, and (iii) higher charge offs on our Auto portfolio in our Consumer Banking segment reflecting portfolio growth and increased charge off rates from historically low levels.
The increase in the provision for credit losses of $2.0 billion in 2012 from 2011 was primarily related to the addition of the $26.2 billion in outstanding receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition designated as held for investment that had existing revolving privileges at acquisition. These loans were recorded at a fair value of $26.9 billion, resulting in a net premium of $705 million at acquisition, and we recorded an allowance of $1.2 billion for these loans.
We provide additional information on the provision for credit losses and changes in the allowance for loan and lease losses under the “Credit Risk Profile—Summary of Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses”, “Note 4—Loans” and “Note 5—Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses.” For information on the allowance methodology for each of our loan categories, see “Note 1—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”
Non-Interest Expense
Non-interest expense consists of ongoing operating costs, such as salaries and associate benefits, occupancy and equipment costs, professional services, communications and data processing technology expenses and other miscellaneous expenses. Non-interest expense also includes marketing costs, merger-related expense and amortization of intangibles. Table 5 displays the components of non-interest expense for 2013, 2012 and 2011.
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |||||||||
| Salaries and associate benefits |
$ | 4,432 | $ | 3,876 | $ | 3,023 | ||||||
| Occupancy and equipment |
1,504 | 1,327 | 1,025 | |||||||||
| Marketing |
1,373 | 1,364 | 1,337 | |||||||||
| Professional services |
1,303 | 1,270 | 1,198 | |||||||||
| Communications and data processing |
885 | 778 | 681 | |||||||||
| Amortization of intangibles |
671 | 609 | 222 | |||||||||
| Acquisition-related |
193 | 336 | 45 | |||||||||
| Other non-interest expense: |
||||||||||||
| Collections |
470 | 544 | 563 | |||||||||
| Fraud losses |
218 | 190 | 122 | |||||||||
| Bankcard, regulatory and other fee assessments |
562 | 525 | 394 | |||||||||
| Other |
903 | 1,127 | 722 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Other non-interest expense |
2,153 | 2,386 | 1,801 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Total non-interest expense |
$ | 12,514 | $ | 11,946 | $ | 9,332 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
61
Table of Contents
Non-interest expense of $12.5 billion in 2013 increased by $568 million, or 5%, from 2012. The increase reflected higher operating expenses attributable to the acquired businesses and the growth in our auto loan and commercial loan portfolios. These increases were partially offset by a reduction in acquisition-related costs and other non-interest expenses.
Non-interest expense of $11.9 billion for 2012 increased $2.6 billion, or 28%, from 2011. The increase was primarily due to higher operating expenses and merger-related costs related to our recent acquisitions, increased salaries and associate benefits attributable to increased headcount, higher infrastructure costs attributable to acquired businesses and our continued investment in our auto loan business and increased amortization of intangibles resulting from the ING Direct and 2012 U.S. card acquisitions. We recorded PCCR intangible amortization expense related to the 2012 U.S. card acquisition of $350 million in 2012. We recorded other intangible amortization expense related to the ING Direct and 2012 U.S. card acquisitions of $147 million in 2012.
Income Taxes
We recorded an income tax provision of $2.0 billion (31.6% effective income tax rate) in 2013, compared with an income tax provision of $1.3 billion (25.8% effective income tax rate) in 2012 and income tax provision of $1.3 billion (29.1% effective income tax rate) in 2011. Our effective tax rate on income from continuing operations varies between periods due, in part, to fluctuations in our pre-tax earnings, which affects the relative tax benefit of tax-exempt income, tax credits and other permanent tax items.
The increase in our effective income tax rate in 2013 from 2012 was primarily attributable to increased pre-tax income, which reduced the relative benefit of tax-exempt income, tax credits and other permanent items, and the absence of discrete tax benefits of $251 million recorded in 2012 for the non-taxable bargain purchase gain of $594 million related to the acquisition of ING Direct, a deferred tax benefit for changes in our state tax position resulting from the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and consolidation of ING Bank, fsb with our existing banking operations, and the resolution of certain tax issues and audits. In comparison, we recorded $16 million of discrete tax expense in 2013 primarily related to adjustments to acquired tax attributes based upon the final tax returns filed, changes to enacted statutory tax rates, and resolution of certain tax issues and audits.
The decrease in our effective income tax rate in 2012 from 2011 was primarily attributable to the recording of the discrete tax benefits of $251 million described above in 2012. In comparison, in 2011 we recorded discrete tax benefits of $121 million, primarily related to the release of valuation allowances against certain state deferred tax assets and net operating loss carry-forwards, as well as the resolution of certain tax issues and audits.
Our effective income tax rate, excluding the impact of discrete tax items discussed above, was 31.4%, 30.7% and 31.7% in 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. The higher effective income tax rate before discrete items in 2013 and 2011 in comparison to 2012 was primarily due to lower affordable housing and other business tax credits as a percentage of pre-tax earnings.
We provide additional information on items affecting our income taxes and effective tax rate under “Note 17—Income Taxes.”
Loss from Discontinued Operations, Net of Tax
Loss from discontinued operations reflects ongoing costs, which primarily consist of mortgage loan repurchase representation and warranty charges related to the mortgage origination operations of GreenPoint’s wholesale mortgage banking unit that we closed in 2007.
We recorded a loss from discontinued operations, net of tax, of $233 million, $217 million and $106 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The variance in the loss from discontinued operations is attributable to the
62
Table of Contents
provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses. We recorded a total pre-tax provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses of $309 million, $349 million and $212 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The portion of these amounts included in loss from discontinued operations totaled $333 million ($210 million net of tax) in 2013, $307 million ($194 million net of tax) in 2012 and $169 million ($120 million net of tax) in 2011.
We provide additional information on the provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses and the related reserve for potential representation and warranty claims in “Consolidated Balance Sheets Analysis—Potential Mortgage Representation and Warranty Liabilities” and “Note 20—Commitments, Contingencies, Guarantees, and Others.”
BUSINESS SEGMENT FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Our principal operations are currently organized into three major business segments, which are defined based on the products and services provided or the type of customer served: Credit Card, Consumer Banking and Commercial Banking. The operations of acquired businesses have been integrated into our existing business segments. Certain activities that are not part of a segment, such as management of our corporate investment portfolio and asset/liability management by our centralized Corporate Treasury group, are included in the “Other” category.
The results of our individual businesses, which we report on a continuing operations basis, reflect the manner in which management evaluates performance and makes decisions about funding our operations and allocating resources. Our business segment results are intended to reflect each segment as if it were a stand-alone business. We use an internal management and reporting process to derive our business segment results. Our internal management and reporting process employs various allocation methodologies, including funds transfer pricing, to assign certain balance sheet assets, deposits and other liabilities and their related revenue and expenses directly or indirectly attributable to each business segment. Total interest income and net fees are directly attributable to the segment in which they are reported. The net interest income of each segment reflects the results of our funds transfer pricing process, which is primarily based on a matched maturity method that takes into consideration market rates. Our funds transfer pricing process provides a funds credit for sources of funds, such as deposits generated by our Consumer Banking and Commercial Banking businesses, and a funds charge for the use of funds by each segment. The allocation process is unique to each business segment and acquired businesses.
We may periodically change our business segments or reclassify business segment results based on modifications to our management reporting methodologies and changes in organizational alignment. In the first quarter of 2012, we re-aligned the loan categories reported by our Commercial Banking business and the loan customer and product types included within each category. As a result of this re-alignment, we now report three product categories: commercial and multifamily real estate, commercial and industrial loans and small-ticket commercial real estate, which is a run-off portfolio. We previously reported four categories within our Commercial Banking business: commercial and multifamily real estate, middle market, specialty lending and small-ticket commercial real estate. Middle market and specialty lending related products are included in commercial and industrial loans. All affordable housing tax-related investments, some of which were previously included in the “Other” segment, are now included in the commercial and multifamily real estate category of our Commercial Banking business. Prior period amounts have been recast to conform to the current period presentation.
We refer to the business segment results derived from our internal management accounting and reporting process as our “managed” presentation, which differs in some cases from our reported results prepared based on U.S. GAAP. There is no comprehensive, authoritative body of guidance for management accounting equivalent to U.S. GAAP; therefore, the managed presentation of our business segment results may not be comparable to similar information provided by other financial service companies. In addition, our individual business segment results should not be used as a substitute for comparable results determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
63
Table of Contents
Below we summarize our business segment results for 2013, 2012 and 2011 and provide a comparative discussion of these results. We also discuss changes in our financial condition and credit performance statistics as of December 31, 2013, compared with December 31, 2012. We provide additional information on the allocation methodologies used to derive our business segment results and a reconciliation of our total business segment results to our reported consolidated results in “Note 19—Business Segments.” We provide information on the outlook for each of our business segments is presented above under “Executive Summary and Business Outlook.”
Credit Card Business
The primary sources of revenue for our Credit Card business are interest income, fees collected from customers and interchange fees. Expenses primarily consist of the provision for credit losses, operating costs such as salaries and associate benefits, occupancy and equipment, professional services, communications and data processing technology expenses, as well as marketing expenses. Rewards costs are generally netted against interchange fees.
Our Credit Card business generated net income from continuing operations of $2.6 billion, $1.5 billion and $2.3 billion in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
On September 6, 2013, we completed the Portfolio Sale. We received $6.4 billion for the net portfolio assets and recognized $26 million of lower of cost or fair value adjustments related to the portfolio assets.
Table 6 summarizes the financial results of our Credit Card business, which is comprised of Domestic Card, including installment loans, and International Card, and displays selected key metrics for the periods indicated.
Table 6: Credit Card Business Results
| (Dollars in millions) |
Year Ended December 31, | Change | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Selected income statement data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income |
$ | 10,967 | $ | 10,182 | $ | 7,822 | 8 | % | 30 | % | ||||||||||
| Non-interest income |
3,320 | 3,078 | 2,609 | 8 | 18 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total net revenue(1) |
14,287 | 13,260 | 10,431 | 8 | 27 | |||||||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses |
2,824 | 4,061 | 1,870 | (30 | ) | 117 | ||||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense |
7,439 | 6,854 | 5,035 | 9 | 36 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations before income taxes |
4,024 | 2,345 | 3,526 | 72 | (33 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Income tax provision |
1,409 | 815 | 1,249 | 73 | (35 | ) | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations, net of tax |
$ | 2,615 | $ | 1,530 | $ | 2,277 | 71 | % | (33 | )% | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Selected performance metrics: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Average loans held for investment(2) |
$ | 79,207 | $ | 80,009 | $ | 62,110 | (1 | )% | 29 | % | ||||||||||
| Average yield on loans held for investment(3) |
15.37 | % | 14.31 | % | 14.36 | % | 106 | bps | (5 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Total net revenue margin(4) |
18.04 | 16.57 | 16.79 | 147 | (22 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Net charge-offs |
$ | 3,285 | $ | 2,944 | $ | 3,056 | 12 | % | (4 | )% | ||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate(5) |
4.15 | % | 3.68 | % | 4.92 | % | 47 | bps | (124 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Card loan premium amortization and other intangible accretion(6) |
$ | 198 | $ | 206 | $ | — | (4 | )% | * | *% | ||||||||||
| PCCR intangible amortization |
434 | 350 | 21 | 24 | 1,567 | |||||||||||||||
| Purchase volume(7) |
201,074 | 180,599 | 135,120 | 11 | 34 | |||||||||||||||
64
Table of Contents
| December 31, | ||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
2013 | 2012 | Change | |||||||||||||
| Selected period-end data: |
||||||||||||||||
| Loans held for investment(2) |
$ | 81,305 | $ | 91,755 | (11 | )% | ||||||||||
| 30+ day performing delinquency rate(8) |
3.46 | % | 3.61 | % | (15 | )bps | ||||||||||
| 30+ day delinquency rate(9) |
3.54 | 3.69 | (15 | ) | ||||||||||||
| Nonperforming loan rate(10) |
0.11 | 0.11 | * | * | ||||||||||||
| Allowance for loan and lease losses . |
$ | 3,214 | $ | 3,979 | (19 | )% | ||||||||||
| Allowance coverage ratio(11) |
3.95 | % | 4.34 | % | (39 | )bps | ||||||||||
| ** | Change is less than one percent or not meaningful. |
| (1) | We recognize billed finance charges and fee income on open-ended loans in accordance with the contractual provisions of the credit arrangements and estimate the uncollectible amount on a quarterly basis. The estimated uncollectible amount of billed finance charges and fees is reflected as a reduction in revenue and is not included in our net charge-offs. Total net revenue was reduced by $796 million, $937 million and $371 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, for the estimated uncollectible amount of billed finance charges and fees. The finance charge and fee reserve totaled $190 million and $307 million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. |
| (2) | Credit card period-end loans held for investment and average loans held for investment include accrued finance charges and fees, net of the estimated uncollectible amount. |
| (3) | Calculated by dividing interest income for the period by average loans held for investment during the period for the specified loan category. Interest income also includes interest income on loans held for sale. The transfer of Best Buy loan portfolio from loans held for investment to loans held for sale resulted in an increase in the average yield for the Total Credit Card business of 90 basis points in 2013. |
| (4) | Calculated by dividing total net revenue for the period by average loans held for investment during the period for the specified loan category. Interest income also includes interest income on loans held for sale. The transfer of Best Buy loan portfolio from loans held for investment to loans held for sale resulted in an increase in the net revenue margin for the Total Credit Card business of 100 basis points in 2013. |
| (5) | Calculated by dividing net charge-offs for the period by average loans held for investment during the period for the specified loan category. The net charge-off rate for 2012 reflects a cumulative adjustment we made in November 2012 related to the timing of charge- offs for delinquent U.K. loans for which revolving privileges have been revoked as part of a loan workout. We previously charged off such loans in the period the account became 180 days past due. Effective November 2012, we began charging off these loans in the period that the account becomes 120 days past due, consistent with our charge-off practice for installment loans. |
| (6) | Represents the net reduction in interest income attributable to the amortization of premiums on purchased loans accounted for based on contractual cash flows and the accretion of other intangibles associated with the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. |
| (7) | Consists of purchase transactions, net of returns for the period for both loans classified as held for investment and loans classified as held for sale. Excludes cash advance and balance transfer transactions. |
| (8) | Calculated by dividing 30+ day performing delinquent loans as of the end of the period by the period-end loans held for investment. |
| (9) | Calculated by dividing 30+ day delinquent loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. |
| (10) | Calculated by dividing nonperforming loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. Nonperforming credit card loans generally include international card loans that are 90 or 120 days delinquent. |
| (11) | Calculated by dividing the allowance for loan and lease losses as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. |
The completion of the 2012 U.S. card acquisition in May 2012 along with the transfer of the Best Buy loan portfolio to held for sale from held for investment and subsequent Portfolio Sale in 2013 were the most significant drivers of changes in the financial performance of our Credit Card business for 2013 compared with 2012. Our Credit Card business results for 2013 reflect the full impact of the addition of loans from the acquisition, while 2012 results reflect only a partial period impact of the loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. In addition, our Credit Card business results for 2013 reflect the absence of the provision for credit losses of $1.2 billion to establish an allowance for the credit card receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and the absence of the charge of $174 million to establish a reserve for estimated uncollectible billed finance charges and fees related to these loans, both of which were recorded in the first half of 2012, as well as a reduction in the provision for credit losses for the transferred Best Buy loan portfolio as charge-offs of finance charges, fee and principal are reflected in the carrying value of loans classified as held for sale.
Key factors affecting the results of our Credit Card business for 2013, compared with 2012, and changes in financial condition and credit performance between December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 include the following:
| • | Net Interest Income: Net interest income increased by $785 million, or 8%, in 2013 to $11.0 billion from $10.2 billion in 2012. The increase in net interest income is primarily driven by (i) higher average yield on |
65
Table of Contents
| loans held for investment, (ii) the increase in interest and non interest income in 2013 due to the full year impact of 2012 U.S. card acquisition, and (iii) the absence of the charge recorded in the second quarter of 2012 to establish the finance charge and fee reserve for the loans acquired in the 2012 U.S card acquisition. The higher average yield on loans held for investment was driven largely by the transfer of the Best Buy loan portfolio to the loans held for sale category in the first quarter of 2013. This was partially offset by a decrease in average loans held for investment due to the Portfolio Sale and expected continued run-off of our installment loan portfolio and other credit card loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. |
| • | Non-Interest Income: Non-interest income increased by $242 million, or 8% in 2013 to $3.3 billion from $3.1 billion in 2012. The increase was primarily driven by higher net interchange fees from growth in purchase volume due in part to the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. Purchase volume increased by $20.5 billion, or 11%, in 2013. Other factors include increased customer-related fees from the addition of acquired credit card accounts and the absence of charges incurred in the first and second quarters of 2012 for expected refunds to customers affected by certain cross-sell sales practices in our Domestic Card business. |
| • | Provision for Credit Losses: The provision for credit losses related to our Credit Card business decreased by $1.3 billion to $2.8 billion in 2013, from $4.1 billion in 2012. The decrease was primarily driven by the absence of the provision for credit losses of $1.2 billion recorded in the second quarter of 2012 to establish an allowance for credit card loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. |
| • | Non-Interest Expense: Non-interest expense increased by $585 million, or 9%, in 2013 to $7.4 billion from $6.9 billion in 2012. The increase was largely due to higher operating expenses resulting from the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. This includes PCCR intangible amortization expense of $434 million in 2013, compared with $350 million in 2012. |
| • | Loans Held for Investment: Period-end loans held for investment in our Credit Card business decreased by $10.5 billion, or 11% as of December 31, 2013. The decrease was due in part to the Portfolio Sale in 2013, as well as the expected continued run-off of our installment loan portfolio and certain other credit card loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition partially offset by growth in certain other credit card segments. |
| • | Charge-off and Delinquency Statistics: Our reported net charge-off rate increased to 4.15% in 2013, from 3.68% in 2012. The 30+ day delinquency rate decreased to 3.54% as of December 31, 2013, from 3.69% as of December 31, 2012. The increase in reported net charge-off rates in 2013 were largely due to the impact of charge-offs from the 2012 U.S. card acquisition which was recorded at fair value. Charges offs are recorded on Acquired Loans when the nonaccretable difference on the loans are reduced to zero. Charge offs related to the 2012 U.S. card acquisition were included in the numerator in calculating our net charge-off rates in 2013. |
Key factors affecting the results of our Credit Card business for 2012, compared with 2011, and changes in financial condition and credit performance between December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 include the following:
| • | Net Interest Income: Net interest income increased by $2.4 billion, or 30%, in 2012, primarily attributable to the substantial increase in average loans held for investment resulting from the 2012 U.S. card acquisition in the second quarter of 2012, which was partially offset by a modest reduction in average loan yields due to the establishment of a finance charge and fee reserve for the loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and net premium amortization related to these loans. |
| • | Non-Interest Income: Non-interest income increased by $469 million, or 18%, in 2012. The increase was primarily driven by higher net interchange fees generated from purchase volume growth and customer-related fees resulting from the addition of customer accounts associated with the 2012 U.S. card acquisition in the second quarter of 2012. This increase was partially offset by charges of approximately $115 million expected refunds to customers affected by certain cross-sell activities in our Domestic Card business and the discontinuance of revenue recognition for billings to customers affected by the cross-sell activities. |
66
Table of Contents
| • | Provision for Credit Losses: The provision for credit losses related to our Credit Card business increased to $4.1 billion in 2012, from $1.9 billion in 2011. The significant increase in the provision in 2012 was primarily driven by the provision of $1.2 billion recorded in the second quarter of 2012 to establish an allowance for the receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition with revolving privileges. We recorded an additional provision for credit losses for these loans of $107 million in the second half of 2012. The provision for credit losses, excluding the allowance build related to the receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition, totaled $2.8 billion in 2012, reflecting a relative stabilization in credit performance improvement compared to significant credit performance improvement in 2011 that resulted in a large allowance release of $1.2 billion in 2011. |
| • | Non-Interest Expense: Non-interest expense increased by $1.8 billion, or 36%, in 2012. The increase was largely due to higher operating expenses resulting from the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and the amortization of intangibles and other assets associated with the 2012 U.S. card acquisition, including PCCR intangible amortization expense of $350 million in 2012. Other items contributing to the increase in non-interest expense include merger-related expenses associated with the 2012 U.S. card acquisition, expense of $75 million recognized in the first quarter of 2012 for expected customer refunds attributable to issues associated with cross-selling certain other products to credit card customers, regulatory fines of $60 million related to cross-sell activities in the Domestic Card business and expense of $98 million for net litigation reserves to cover interchange and other legal matters in the second quarter of 2012. |
| • | Total Loans: Period-end loans in our Credit Card business increased by $26.7 billion, or 41%, in 2012, to $91.8 billion as of December 31, 2012. The increase was primarily due to the addition of the $27.8 billion in outstanding receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition classified as held for investment. Excluding the addition of these receivables, period-end loans held for investment decreased by $1.1 billion, or 2%, due to the expected continued run-off of our installment loan portfolio as well as the expected run-off of higher-margin, higher-loss receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. |
| • | Charge-off and Delinquency Statistics: Our reported net charge-off rate decreased to 3.68% in 2012, from 4.92% in 2011. Our reported charge-offs reflect the absence of charge-offs for the receivables acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition accounted for based on estimated cash flows expected to be collected over the life of the loans. Charges offs are recorded on Acquired Loans when the nonaccretable difference on the loans are reduced to zero. The decrease in the net-charge off rates was also due in part to the addition of loans acquired in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition to the denominator in calculating our reported charge-off rates. The 30+ day delinquency rate decreased to 3.69% as of December 31, 2012, from 3.86% as of December 31, 2011. |
Domestic Card Business
Domestic Card generated net income from continuing operations of $2.4 billion in 2013, compared with net income from continuing operations of $1.4 billion in 2012 and $2.3 billion in 2011. Domestic Card accounted for 90% of total revenues for our Credit Card business in 2013 compared with 89% in 2012 and 87% in 2011. Income attributable to Domestic Card represented 91% of income for our Credit Card business in 2013, compared with 92% in 2012 and 102% in 2011.
67
Table of Contents
Table 6.1 summarizes the financial results for Domestic Card and displays selected key metrics for the periods indicated.
Table 6.1: Domestic Card Business Results
| (Dollars in millions) |
Year Ended December 31, | Change | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Selected income statement data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income |
$ | 9,887 | $ | 9,129 | $ | 6,717 | 8 | % | 36 | % | ||||||||||
| Non-interest income |
2,957 | 2,725 | 2,368 | 9 | 15 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total net revenue |
12,844 | 11,854 | 9,085 | 8 | 30 | |||||||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses |
2,502 | 3,683 | 1,317 | (32 | ) | 180 | ||||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense |
6,645 | 5,997 | 4,153 | 11 | 44 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations before income taxes |
3,697 | 2,174 | 3,615 | 70 | (40 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Income tax provision |
1,316 | 770 | 1,287 | 71 | (40 | ) | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations, net of tax |
$ | 2,381 | $ | 1,404 | $ | 2,328 | 70 | % | (40 | )% | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Selected performance metrics: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Average loans held for investment(1) . |
$ | 71,234 | $ | 71,754 | $ | 53,464 | (1 | )% | 34 | % | ||||||||||
| Average yield on loans held for investment(2) |
15.27 | % | 14.15 | % | 14.14 | % | 112 | bps | 1 | bps | ||||||||||
| Total net revenue margin(3) |
18.03 | 16.52 | 16.99 | 151 | (47 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Net charge-offs |
$ | 2,904 | $ | 2,532 | $ | 2,522 | 15 | % | — | % | ||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate(4) |
4.08 | % | 3.53 | % | 4.72 | % | 55 | bps | (119 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Card loan premium amortization and other intangible accretion(5) |
$ | 198 | $ | 206 | $ | — | (4 | )% | * | *% | ||||||||||
| PCCR intangible amortization |
434 | 350 | 21 | 24 | 1,567 | |||||||||||||||
| Purchase volume(6) |
186,901 | 166,694 | 122,366 | 12 | 36 | |||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
December 31, | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | Change | ||||||||||||||||||
| Selected period-end data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans held for investment(1) |
$ | 73,255 | $ | 83,141 | (12 | )% | ||||||||||||||
| 30+ day delinquency rate(7) |
3.43 | % | 3.61 | % | (18 | )bps | ||||||||||||||
| Allowance for loan and lease losses |
$ | 2,836 | $ | 3,526 | (20 | )% | ||||||||||||||
| ** | Change is less than one percent or not meaningful. |
| (1) | Credit card period-end loans held for investment and average loans held for investment include accrued finance charges and fees, net of the estimated uncollectible amount. |
| (2) | Calculated by dividing interest income for the period by average loans held for investment during the period for the specified loan category. Interest income includes interest income on loans held for sale. The transfer of Best Buy loan portfolio from loans held for investment to loans held for sale resulted in an increase in the average yield for the Domestic Card business of 99 basis points in 2013. |
| (3) | Calculated by dividing total net revenue for the period by average loans held for investment during the period. Interest income includes interest income on loans held for sale. The transfer of Best Buy loan portfolio from loans held for investment to loans held for sale resulted in an increase in the net revenue margin for the Domestic Card business of 111 basis points in 2013. |
| (4) | Calculated by dividing net charge-offs for the period by average loans held for investment during the period. |
| (5) | Represents the net reduction in interest income attributable to the amortization of premiums on purchased loans accounted for based on contractual cash flows and the accretion of other intangibles associated with the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. |
68
Table of Contents
| (6) | Consists of credit card purchase transactions, net of returns, for the period for both loans classified as held for investment and loans classified as held for sale. Excludes cash advance and balance transfer transactions |
| (7) | Calculated by dividing 30+ day delinquent loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. |
Because our Domestic Card business accounts for the substantial majority of our Credit Card business, the key factors driving the results for this division are similar to the key factors affecting our total Credit Card business. The primary drivers of the improvement in results for our Domestic Card business in 2013, compared with 2012 included: (i) higher interest income primarily driven by higher average yield on loans held for investment driven largely by the transfer of the Best Buy loan portfolio to the held for sale category in the first quarter of 2013, as well as the absence of the charge recorded in the second quarter of 2012 to establish the finance charge and fee reserve for the acquired credit card loans; (ii) the increase in interest and non interest income in 2013 due to the full year impact of 2012 U.S. card acquisition and (iii) the absence of provision for credit losses of $1.2 billion recorded in the second quarter of 2012 to establish an allowance for acquired credit card loans. These impacts were partially offset by higher operating expenses attributable to the addition of loans and increased amortization of intangibles and other assets associated with the 2012 U.S. card acquisition.
Domestic Card generated net income from continuing operations of $1.4 billion in 2012, compared with net income from continuing operations of $2.3 billion in 2011. The decrease in Domestic Card net income in 2012 from 2011 reflected an increase in total net revenue largely due to the addition of loans from the 2012 U.S. card acquisition, which was more than offset by the unfavorable impact of several items related to the 2012 U.S. card acquisition. These items included: (i) a significant increase in the provision for credit losses resulting from an initial allowance build of $1.2 billion related to the portfolio purchased in the 2012 U.S. card acquisition; and (ii) an increase in non-interest expense largely resulting from operating expenses related to the 2012 U.S. card acquisition and the amortization of intangibles and other assets associated with the 2012 U.S. card acquisition, including PCCR intangible amortization expense of $350 million in 2012.
International Card Business
International Card generated net income from continuing operations of $234 million in 2013, compared with net income from continuing operations of $126 million in 2012 and a net loss from continuing operations of $51 million in 2011. International Card accounted for 10% of total net revenues for our Credit Card business in 2013, compared with 11% in 2012 and 13% in 2011. Income attributable to International Card represented 9% of income for our Credit Card business in 2013, compared with 8% of the net income for 2012. Our International Card business posted a loss that represented 2% of income for our Credit Card business in 2011.
69
Table of Contents
Table 6.2 summarizes the financial results for International Card and displays selected key metrics for the periods indicated.
Table 6.2: International Card Business Results
| (Dollars in millions) |
Year Ended December 31, | Change | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Selected income statement data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income |
$ | 1,080 | $ | 1,053 | $ | 1,105 | 3 | % | (5 | )% | ||||||||||
| Non-interest income |
363 | 353 | 241 | 3 | 46 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total net revenue |
1,443 | 1,406 | 1,346 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses |
322 | 378 | 553 | (15 | ) | (32 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense |
794 | 857 | 882 | (7 | ) | (3 | ) | |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income/(Loss) from continuing operations before income taxes |
327 | 171 | (89 | ) | 91 | 292 | ||||||||||||||
| Income tax provision/(benefit) |
93 | 45 | (38 | ) | 107 | 218 | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income/(Loss) from continuing operations, net of tax |
$ | 234 | $ | 126 | $ | (51 | ) | 86 | % | 347 | % | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Selected performance metrics: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Average loans held for investment(1) . |
$ | 7,973 | $ | 8,255 | $ | 8,645 | (3 | )% | (5 | )% | ||||||||||
| Average yield on loans held for investment(2) |
16.24 | % | 15.66 | % | 15.72 | % | 58 | bps | (6 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Total net revenue margin(3) |
18.10 | 17.03 | 15.57 | 107 | 146 | |||||||||||||||
| Net charge-offs |
$ | 381 | $ | 412 | $ | 534 | (8 | )% | (23 | )% | ||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate(4) |
4.78 | % | 4.98 | % | 6.18 | % | (20 | )bps | (120 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Purchase volume(5) |
$ | 14,173 | $ | 13,905 | $ | 12,754 | 2 | % | 9 | % | ||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
December 31, | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | Change | ||||||||||||||||||
| Selected period-end data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans held for investment(1) |
$ | 8,050 | $ | 8,614 | (7 | )% | ||||||||||||||
| 30+ day performing delinquency rate(6) |
3.71 | % | 3.58 | % | 13 | bps | ||||||||||||||
| 30+ day delinquency rate(7) |
4.56 | 4.49 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||
| Nonperforming loan rate(8) |
1.10 | 1.16 | (6 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
| Allowance for loan and lease losses |
$ | 378 | $ | 453 | (17 | )% | ||||||||||||||
| ** | Change is less than one percent or not meaningful. |
| (1) | Credit card period-end loans held for investment and average loans held for investment include accrued finance charges and fees, net of the estimated uncollectible amount. |
| (2) | Calculated by dividing interest income for the period by average loans held for investment during the period. |
| (3) | Calculated by dividing total net revenue for the period by average loans held for investment during the period. |
| (4) | Calculated by dividing net charge-offs for the period by average loans held for investment during the period. The net charge-off rate for 2012 reflects a cumulative adjustment we made in November 2012 related to the timing of charge-offs for delinquent U.K. loans for which revolving privileges have been revoked as part of a loan workout. We previously charged off such loans in the period the account became 180 days past due. Effective November 2012, we began charging off these loans in the period that the account becomes 120 days past due, consistent with our charge-off practice for installment loans. |
| (5) | Consists of purchase transactions, net of returns for the period. Excludes cash advance and balance transfer transactions. |
| (6) | Calculated by dividing 30+ day performing delinquent loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. |
| (7) | Calculated by dividing 30+ day delinquent loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. |
| (8) | Calculated by dividing nonperforming loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. Nonperforming credit card loans include international card loans that are generally 90 or 120 days delinquent. |
70
Table of Contents
Our International Card business generated net income from continuing operations of $234 million in 2013, compared with net income from continuing operations of $126 million in 2012. The primary drivers of the improvement in results for our International Card business in 2013, compared with 2012 included: (i) the absence of charges recorded in the second quarter of 2012 associated with refunds to U.K. customers due to retrospective regulatory requirements pertaining to Payment Protection Insurance, which had an unfavorable impact on total net revenue and non-interest expense in 2012, and (ii) a reduction in the provision for credit losses attributable to lower net charge-offs, reflecting the improvement in the credit environment in Canada and the U.K.
Our International Card business generated net income from continuing operations of $126 million in 2012, compared with a net loss from continuing operations of $51 million in 2011. The International Card net income in 2012, compared with net loss in 2011, was driven by a decrease in the provision for credit losses, attributable to lower net charge-offs resulting from credit improvement in Canada and the U.K., and the absence of an allowance build of $105 million for the Hudson Bay Corporation loan portfolio we acquired in January 2011.
Consumer Banking Business
The primary sources of revenue for our Consumer Banking business are net interest income from loans and deposits and non-interest income from customer fees. Expenses primarily consist of the provision for credit losses, ongoing operating costs, such as salaries and associate benefits, occupancy and equipment, professional services, communications and data processing technology expenses, as well as marketing expenses.
Our Consumer Banking business generated net income from continuing operations of $1.5 billion in 2013, compared with net income from continuing operations of $1.4 billion in 2012 and $809 million in 2011. Our results primarily reflect an increase in average balances in our auto portfolio offset by lower yields. This was partially offset by declining average balances and yields in our home loan portfolio.
On February 17, 2012, we acquired ING Direct, which resulted in the addition of loans with carrying value of $40.4 billion and deposits of $84.4 billion at acquisition. The substantial majority of the lending and retail deposit businesses acquired are reported in our Consumer Banking business; however, the results of our Consumer Banking business for the first quarter of 2012 reflect only a partial-quarter impact from the operations of ING Direct.
71
Table of Contents
Table 7 summarizes the financial results of our Consumer Banking business and displays selected key metrics for the periods indicated.
Table 7: Consumer Banking Business Results
| (Dollars in millions) |
Change | |||||||||||||||||||
| Year Ended December 31, | 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Selected income statement data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income |
$ | 5,905 | $ | 5,788 | $ | 4,236 | 2 | % | 37 | % | ||||||||||
| Non-interest income |
749 | 782 | 720 | (4 | ) | 9 | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total net revenue |
6,654 | 6,570 | 4,956 | 1 | 33 | |||||||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses |
656 | 589 | 452 | 11 | 30 | |||||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense |
3,745 | 3,871 | 3,244 | (3 | ) | 19 | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations before income taxes |
2,253 | 2,110 | 1,260 | 7 | 67 | |||||||||||||||
| Income tax provision |
802 | 747 | 451 | 7 | 66 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations, net of tax |
$ | 1,451 | $ | 1,363 | $ | 809 | 6 | % | 68 | % | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Selected performance metrics: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Average loans held for investment:(1) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Auto |
$ | 29,446 | $ | 24,976 | $ | 19,419 | 18 | % | 29 | % | ||||||||||
| Home loan |
39,322 | 42,764 | 11,322 | (8 | ) | 278 | ||||||||||||||
| Retail banking |
3,699 | 4,096 | 4,097 | (10 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total consumer banking |
$ | 72,467 | $ | 71,836 | $ | 34,838 | 1 | % | 106 | % | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Average yield on loans held for investment(2) |
6.10 | % | 6.28 | % | 9.60 | % | (18 | )bps | (332 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Average deposits |
$ | 169,683 | $ | 162,637 | $ | 86,883 | 4 | % | 87 | % | ||||||||||
| Average deposit interest rate |
0.63 | % | 0.70 | % | 0.96 | % | (7 | )bps | (26 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Core deposit intangible amortization . |
$ | 138 | $ | 159 | $ | 132 | (13 | )% | 20 | % | ||||||||||
| Net charge-offs |
616 | 531 | 484 | 16 | 10 | |||||||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate(3) |
0.85 | % | 0.74 | % | 1.39 | % | 11 | bps | (65 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate (excluding Acquired Loans)(4) |
1.51 | 1.45 | 1.59 | 6 | (14 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Auto loan originations |
$ | 17,388 | $ | 15,960 | $ | 12,476 | 9 | % | 28 | % | ||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) |
December 31, | Change | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Selected period-end data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans held for investment:(1) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Auto |
$ | 31,857 | $ | 27,123 | 17 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Home loan |
35,282 | 44,100 | (20 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
| Retail banking |
3,623 | 3,904 | (7 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Total consumer banking |
$ | 70,762 | $ | 75,127 | (6 | )% | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| 30+ day performing delinquency rate(5) |
3.20 | % | 2.65 | % | 55 | bps | ||||||||||||||
| 30+ day performing delinquency rate (excluding Acquired Loans)(4) |
5.32 | 5.14 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||
| 30+ day delinquency rate(6) |
3.89 | 3.34 | 55 | |||||||||||||||||
| 30+ day delinquency rate (excluding Acquired Loans)(4) |
6.47 | 6.49 | (2 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
| Nonperforming loans rate(7) |
0.86 | 0.85 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Nonperforming loans rate (excluding Acquired Loans)(4) |
1.44 | 1.66 | (22 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
| Nonperforming asset rate(8) |
1.12 | 1.02 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||
| Nonperforming asset rate (excluding Acquired Loans)(4) |
1.86 | 1.98 | (12 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
| Allowance for loan and lease losses |
$ | 752 | $ | 711 | 6 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Allowance coverage ratio(9) |
1.06 | % | 0.95 | % | 11 | bps | ||||||||||||||
| Deposits |
$ | 167,652 | $ | 172,396 | (3 | )% | ||||||||||||||
| Loans serviced for others |
7,665 | 15,333 | (50 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
72
Table of Contents
| ** | Change is less than one percent or not meaningful. |
| (1) | Loans held for investment includes loans acquired in the ING Direct and CCB acquisitions. The carrying value of consumer banking Acquired Loans was $28.2 billion and $36.5 billion as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The average balance of consumer banking loans held for investment, excluding Acquired Loans, was $40.8 billion, $36.7 billion and $30.3 billion in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. |
| (2) | Calculated by dividing interest income for the period by average loans held for investment during the period. |
| (3) | Calculated by dividing net charge-offs for the period by average loans held for investment during the period. |
| (4) | Calculation of ratio adjusted to exclude Acquired Loans from the denominator. See “Credit Risk Profile” and “Note 4—Loans” for additional information on the impact of Acquired Loans on our credit quality metrics. |
| (5) | Calculated by dividing 30+ day performing delinquent loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. |
| (6) | Calculated by dividing 30+ day delinquent loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. |
| (7) | Calculated by dividing nonperforming loans as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. Nonperforming loans generally include loans that have been placed on nonaccrual status and certain restructured loans whose contractual terms have been restructured in a manner that grants a concession to a borrower experiencing financial difficulty. |
| (8) | Calculated by dividing nonperforming assets as of the end of the period by the sum of period-end loans held for investment, foreclosed properties, and other foreclosed assets. |
| (9) | Calculated by dividing the allowance for loan and lease losses as of the end of the period by period-end loans held for investment. |
Key factors affecting the results of our Consumer Banking business for 2013, compared with 2012, and changes in financial condition and credit performance between December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 include the following:
| • | Net Interest Income: Net interest income increased by $117 million, or 2%, in 2013 to $5.9 billion from $5.8 billion in 2012. The increase in net interest income is primarily attributable to growth in our auto loans, partially offset by lower auto and deposits margins. While average loan balances have grown in 2013 as compared to 2012, we have continued to see a decline in gross interest income due to overall lower average yields on loans. The decrease in auto yields is primarily attributable to a shift in the credit quality mix of our portfolio, as well as increased competition in the marketplace. The average yield on auto loans for 2013 was 9.8%, as compared to 11.0% in 2012. The decrease in home loans was largely driven by the continued expected run-off of the acquired home loans portfolio. The average yield on home loans was 3.4% in 2013 compared to 3.6% in 2012. Average deposit balances increased to $169.7 billion in 2013 from $162.6 billion in 2012, while the average deposit interest rate declined to 0.63% in 2013 from 0.70% in 2012. We expect the yields in our Consumer Banking business to continue to decline as we face increased competition in auto loans, the continued shift to higher credit quality in our auto loan portfolio, and continued deposit rate compression. |
| • | Non-Interest Income: Non-interest income decreased by $33 million, or 4%, to $749 million in 2013 from $782 million in 2012 related to the mark-to-market gains on retained interests in interest-only strips and negative amortization mortgage securities recognized in the third quarter of 2012. |
| • | Provision for Credit Losses: The provision for credit losses increased by $67 million or 11% in 2013 to $656 million, reflecting higher auto loan charge-offs attributable to auto portfolio growth and an increase in the auto charge-off rate from historically low levels. As discussed above under “Summary of Selected Financial Data,” the substantial majority of the ING Direct home loan portfolio is accounted for based on estimated cash flows expected to be collected over the life of the loans. Because accounting based on estimated cash flows takes into consideration future credit losses expected to be incurred, charge-offs are not recorded until the expected credit losses within the nonaccretable difference is depleted. |
| • | Non-Interest Expense: Non-interest expense decreased by $126 million, or 3%, in 2013 to $3.7 billion. The decrease was largely due to the absence of ING Direct acquisition-related costs and other one-time items incurred in 2012, which were partially offset by increased expenses related to the growth in our auto loan portfolio. |
73
Table of Contents
| • | Loans Held for Investment: Period-end loans held for investment in our Consumer Banking business declined by $4.4 billion, or 6%, in 2013, to $70.8 billion as of December 31, 2013, due to the continued expected run-off of acquired home loans, partially offset by higher period-end auto loan balances due to the continued high volume of auto loan originations. |
| • | Deposits: Period-end deposits in our Consumer Banking business declined by $4.7 billion, or 3%, in 2013 to $167.7 billion as of December 31, 2013, primarily due to the expected run-off of our legacy National Direct Bank deposits. |
| • | Charge-off and Delinquency Statistics: The reported net charge-off rate increased to 0.85% in 2013, from 0.74% in 2012. The 30+ day delinquency rate increased to 3.89% as of December 31, 2013, from 3.34% as of December 31, 2012. The increase in the net charge-off rates reflect moderately higher auto loan charge-offs, partially offset by improved home loan performance. The overall delinquency rates increased moderately largely due to the run-off of the acquired home loans, which were included in the denominator in calculating the delinquency rates. |
Key factors affecting the results of our Consumer Banking business for 2012, compared with 2011, and changes in financial condition and credit performance between December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 include the following:
| • | Net Interest Income: Net interest income increased by $1.6 billion, or 37%, in 2012. The increase was primarily attributable to the addition of home loans from the ING Direct acquisition, continued growth and strong margin performance in our auto loan portfolio and the addition of low-rate deposits from the ING Direct acquisition. With the addition of deposits from ING Direct, average deposits increased to $162.6 billion in 2012, from $86.9 billion in 2011, while the average deposit interest rate fell to 0.70% in 2012, from 0.96% in 2011. The favorable impact from these items was modestly offset by the expected run-off of acquired home loans. |
| • | Non-Interest Income: Non-interest income increased by $62 million, or 9%, in 2012. The increase was primarily attributable to mark-to-market gains on retained interests in interest-only strips and negative amortization mortgage securities recognized in the third quarter of 2012. |
| • | Provision for Credit Losses: The provision for credit losses increased by $137 million in 2012 to $589 million. The increase was largely due to higher auto loan balances, which more than offset the benefit from lower net charge-off rates and continued credit performance improvement. We recorded an allowance build of $59 million in 2012, compared with an allowance release of $23 million in 2011. |
| • | Non-Interest Expense: Non-interest expense increased by $627 million, or 19%, in 2012. The increase was largely attributable to operating expenses related to ING Direct, merger-related expenses associated with the acquisition and higher infrastructure expenditures resulting from continued investments in the home loan business and growth in auto loan balances as a result of increased auto loan originations. |
| • | Loans Held for Investment: Period-end loans in the Consumer Banking business increased by $38.8 billion, or 107%, in 2012 to $75.1 billion as of December 31, 2012, primarily due to the acquisition of $40.4 billion of ING Direct home loans and growth in auto loan originations, which were partially offset by the expected continued run-off of our acquired home loan portfolios. |
| • | Deposits: Period-end deposits in the Consumer Banking business increased by $83.9 billion, or 95%, in 2012 to $172.4 billion as of December 31, 2012, primarily due to the addition of ING Direct deposits of $84.4 billion. |
| • | Charge-off and Delinquency Statistics: The net charge-off rate decreased to 0.74% in 2012, from 1.39% in 2011. The 30+ day delinquency rate decreased to 3.34% as of December 31, 2012, from 5.99% as of December 31, 2011. The improvement in our reported net charge-off and delinquency rates for our Consumer Banking business reflects the impact of the addition of the ING Direct home loan portfolio. The overall improvement in credit quality metrics, excluding Acquired Loans, reflects improved credit performance in our legacy consumer loan portfolios. |
74
Table of Contents
Commercial Banking Business
The primary sources of revenue for our Commercial Banking business are net interest income from loans and deposits and non-interest income from customer fees. Because we have some affordable housing tax-related investments that generate tax-exempt income or tax credits, we make certain reclassifications to our Commercial Banking business results to present revenues on a taxable-equivalent basis. Expenses primarily consist of the provision for credit losses, ongoing operating costs, such as salaries and associate benefits, occupancy and equipment, professional services, communications and data processing technology expenses, as well as marketing expenses.
Our Commercial Banking business generated net income from continuing operations of $769 million in 2013, compared with net income from continuing operations of $835 million in 2012 and $595 million in 2011.
On November 1, 2013, we acquired Beech Street Capital, a privately-held, national originator and servicer of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA multifamily commercial real estate loans. The Beech Street Capital results are reported within the Commercial Banking business.
Table 8 summarizes the financial results of our Commercial Banking business and displays selected key metrics for the periods indicated.
Table 8: Commercial Banking Business Results
| (Dollars in millions) |
Change | |||||||||||||||||||
| Year Ended December 31, | 2013 vs. 2012 |
2012 vs. 2011 |
||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Selected income statement data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income |
$ | 1,895 | $ | 1,740 | $ | 1,596 | 9 | % | 9 | % | ||||||||||
| Non-interest income |
395 | 340 | 283 | 16 | 20 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total net revenue |
2,290 | 2,080 | 1,879 | 10 | 11 | |||||||||||||||
| Provision (benefit) for credit losses |
(24 | ) | (270 | ) | 31 | 91 | (971 | ) | ||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense |
1,119 | 1,059 | 925 | 6 | 14 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations before income taxes |
1,195 | 1,291 | 923 | (7 | ) | 40 | ||||||||||||||
| Income tax provision |
426 | 456 | 328 | (7 | ) | 39 | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Income from continuing operations, net of tax |
$ | 769 | $ | 835 | $ | 595 | (8 | )% | 40 | % | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Selected performance metrics: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Average loans held for investment:(1) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Commercial and multifamily real estate |
$ | 18,636 | $ | 16,256 | $ | 14,166 | 15 | % | 15 | % | ||||||||||
| Commercial and industrial |
21,062 | 18,304 | 15,437 | 15 | 19 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total commercial lending |
39,698 | 34,560 | 29,603 | 15 | 17 | |||||||||||||||
| Small-ticket commercial real estate |
1,073 | 1,353 | 1,671 | (21 | ) | (19 | ) | |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Total commercial banking |
$ | 40,771 | $ | 35,913 | $ | 31,274 | 14 | % | 15 | % | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Average yield on loans held for investment(2) |
3.88 | % | 4.25 | % | 4.74 | % | (37 | )bps | (49 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Average deposits |
$ | 30,702 | $ | 28,266 | $ | 25,033 | 9 | % | 13 | % | ||||||||||
| Average deposit interest rate |
0.27 | % | 0.32 | % | 0.49 | % | (5 | )bps | (17 | )bps | ||||||||||
| Core deposit intangible amortization . |
$ | 27 | $ | 34 | $ | 40 | (21 | )% | (15 | )% | ||||||||||
| Net charge-offs |
14 | 42 | 177 | (67 | ) | (76 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Net charge-off rate(3) |
0.03 | % | 0.12 | % | 0.57 | % | (9 | )bps | (45 | )bps | ||||||||||
75