# UNITED	STATES

# SECURITIES	AND	EXCHANGE	COMMISSION

# ANNUAL	REPORT	PURSUANT	TO	SECTION	13	OR	15(d)	OF

# THE	SECURITIES	EXCHANGE	ACT	OF	1934

For	the	fiscal	year	ended	December	31,	2015

Commission	file	number	1-9924

# Citigroup	Inc.

(Exact	name	of	registrant	as	specified	in	its	charter)

Delaware

(State	or	other	jurisdiction	of	incorporation	or	organization)

388	Greenwich	Street,	New	York,	NY

(Address	of	principal	executive	offices)

(I.R.S.	Employer	Identification	No.)

(Zip	code)

(Registrant's	telephone	number,	including	area	code)

# Securities	registered	pursuant	to	Section	12(b)	of	the	Act:	See	Exhibit	99.01

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	o

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	o	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

Indicate	by	check	mark	whether	the	registrant	has	submitted	electronically	and	posted	on	its	corporate	Web	site,	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	o

Indicate	by	check	mark	if	disclosure	of	delinquent	filers	pursuant	to	Item	405	of	Regulation	S-K	(§229.405	of	this	chapter)	is	not	contained	herein,	and	will	not	be	contained,	to

the	best	of	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	o

Non-accelerated	filer	o

Smaller	reporting	company	o

	(Do	not	check	if	a	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	o				No	x

The	aggregate	market	value	of	Citigroup	Inc.	common	stock	held	by	non-affiliates	of	Citigroup	Inc.	on	June	30,	2015	was	approximately	$166.1	billion.

Documents	Incorporated	by	Reference:	Portions	of	the	registrant's	proxy	statement	for	the	annual	meeting	of	stockholders	scheduled	to	be	held	on	April	26,	2016,	are incorporated	by	reference	in	this	Form	10-K	in	response	to	Items	10,	11,	12,	13	and	14	of	Part	III.

Available	on	the	web	at	www.citigroup.com

# FORM	10-K	CROSS-REFERENCE	INDEX

# 8. Financial	Statements	and Supplementary	Data 129–308

** See	"Compensation	Discussion	and	Analysis,"	"The	Personnel	and	Compensation Committee	Report,"	and	"2015	Summary	Compensation	Table	and	Compensation Information"

in	the	Proxy	Statement,	incorporated	herein	by	reference.

*** See	"About	the	Annual	Meeting,"	"Stock	Ownership"	and	"Proposal	4:	Approval	of Additional	Authorized	Shares	under	the	Citigroup	2014	Stock	Incentive	Plan" including	Annex	B,	"Equity	Compensation	Plan	Information"	in	the	Proxy	Statement, incorporated	herein	by	reference.

**** See	"Corporate	Governance—Director	Independence,"	"—Certain	Transactions	and Relationships,	Compensation	Committee	Interlocks	and	Insider	Participation,"	and "—Indebtedness"	in	the	Proxy	Statement,	incorporated	herein	by	reference.

***** See	"Proposal	2:	Ratification	of	Selection	of	Independent	Registered	Public Accounting	Firm"	in	the	Proxy	Statement,	incorporated	herein	by	reference.

# CITIGROUP'S	2015	ANNUAL	REPORT	ON	FORM	10-K

| OVERVIEW | 2 |
| :--- | :--- |
| MANAGEMENT'S\tDISCUSSION\tAND |  |
| \t\tANALYSIS\tOF\tFINANCIAL\tCONDITION\tAND |  |
| \t\tRESULTS\tOF\tOPERATIONS | 5 |
| Executive\tSummary | 5 |
| Summary\tof\tSelected\tFinancial\tData | 8 |
| SEGMENT\tAND\tBUSINESS—INCOME\t(LOSS)\n\t\tAND\tREVENUES | 10 |
| SEGMENT\tBALANCE\tSHEET | 12 |
| CITICORP | 13 |
| Global\tConsumer\tBanking\t(GCB) | 14 |
| North\tAmerica\tGCB | 16 |
| Latin\tAmerica\tGCB | 18 |
| Asia\tGCB | 20 |
| Institutional\tClients\tGroup | 23 |
| Corporate/Other | 27 |
| CITI\tHOLDINGS | 28 |
| OFF-BALANCE\tSHEET\n\t\tARRANGEMENTS | 31 |
| CONTRACTUAL\tOBLIGATIONS | 32 |
| CAPITAL\tRESOURCES | 33 |
| RISK\tFACTORS | 54 |
| Managing\tGlobal\tRisk\tTable\tof\tContents | 64 |
| MANAGING\tGLOBAL\tRISK | 65 |
| SIGNIFICANT\tACCOUNTING\tPOLICIES\tAND\n\t\tSIGNIFICANT\tESTIMATES | 120 |
| DISCLOSURE\tCONTROLS\tAND\n\t\tPROCEDURES | 123 |
| MANAGEMENT'S\tANNUAL\tREPORT\tON |  |
| \t\tINTERNAL\tCONTROL\tOVER\tFINANCIAL |  |
| \t\tREPORTING | 124 |
| FORWARD-LOOKING\tSTATEMENTS | 125 |
| REPORT\tOF\tINDEPENDENT\tREGISTERED |  |
| \t\tPUBLIC\tACCOUNTING\tFIRM—INTERNAL |  |
| \t\tCONTROL\tOVER\tFINANCIAL\tREPORTING | 126 |
| REPORT\tOF\tINDEPENDENT\tREGISTERED |  |
| \t\tPUBLIC\tACCOUNTING\tFIRM— |  |
| \t\tCONSOLIDATED\tFINANCIAL\tSTATEMENTS | 127 |
| FINANCIAL\tSTATEMENTS\tAND\tNOTES\n\t\tTABLE\tOF\tCONTENTS | 128 |
| CONSOLIDATED\tFINANCIAL\tSTATEMENTS | 129 |
| NOTES\tTO\tCONSOLIDATED\tFINANCIAL\n\t\tSTATEMENTS | 138 |
| FINANCIAL\tDATA\tSUPPLEMENT | 308 |
| SUPERVISION,\tREGULATION\tAND\tOTHER | 309 |
| CORPORATE\tINFORMATION | 313 |
| Citigroup\tExecutive\tOfficers | 313 |
| Citigroup\tBoard\tof\tDirectors | 313 |

# OVERVIEW

Citigroup's	history	dates	back	to	the	founding	of	the	City Bank	of	New	York	in	1812.

Citigroup	is	a	global	diversified	financial	services	holding	company,	whose businesses	provide	consumers,	corporations,	governments	and	institutions	with	a broad	range	of	financial	products	and	services,	including	consumer	banking	and credit,	corporate	and	investment	banking,	securities	brokerage,	trade	and	securities services	and	wealth	management.	Citi	has	approximately	200	million	customer accounts	and	does	business	in	more	than	160	countries	and	jurisdictions. At	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	approximately	231,000	full-time	employees, compared	to	approximately	241,000	full-time	employees	at	December	31,	2014. Citigroup	currently	operates,	for	management	reporting	purposes,	via	two primary	business	segments:	Citicorp,	consisting	of	Citi's	Global	Consumer Banking	businesses	and	Institutional	Clients	Group;	and	Citi	Holdings,	consisting of	businesses	and	portfolios	of	assets	that	Citigroup	has	determined	are	not	central to	its	core	Citicorp	businesses.	For	a	further	description	of	the	business	segments and	the	products	and	services	they	provide,	see	"Citigroup	Segments"	below, "Management's	Discussion	and	Analysis	of	Financial	Condition	and	Results	of Operations"	and	Note	3	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

Throughout	this	report,	"Citigroup,"	"Citi"	and	"the	Company"	refer	to Citigroup	Inc.	and	its	consolidated	subsidiaries.

Additional	information	about	Citigroup	is	available	on	Citi's	website	at www.citigroup.com.	Citigroup's	recent	annual	reports	on	Form	10-K,	quarterly reports	on	Form	10-Q,	proxy	statements,	as	well	as	other	filings	with	the	U.S. Securities	and	Exchange	Commission	(SEC),	are	available	free	of	charge	through Citi's	website	by	clicking	on	the	"Investors"	page	and	selecting	"All	SEC	Filings." The	SEC's	website	also	contains	current	reports,	information	statements,	and	other information	regarding	Citi	at	www.sec.gov.

Certain	reclassifications,	including	a	realignment	of	certain	businesses,	have been	made	to	the	prior	periods'	financial	statements	to	conform	to	the	current period's	presentation.	For	information	on	certain	recent	such	reclassifications,	see Note	3	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

Please	see	"Risk	Factors"	below	for	a	discussion	of	the	most	significant risks	and	uncertainties	that	could	impact	Citigroup's	businesses,	financial condition	and	results	of	operations.

# As	described	above,	Citigroup	is	managed	pursuant	to	the	following	segments:

# (Chart	continues	on	next	page.)

The	following	are	the	four	regions	in	which	Citigroup	operates.	The	regional	results	are	fully	reflected	in	the	segment	results	above.

*	As	previously	announced,	Citigroup	intends	to	exit	its	consumer	businesses	in	Brazil,	Argentina	and	Colombia.	Effective	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016,	these	businesses,	which	previously	have	been	reported as	part	of	Latin	America	GCB,	will	be	reported	as	part	of	Citi	Holdings.	For	additional	information,	see	"Citicorp"	below.	Citi	intends	to	release	a	revised	Quarterly	Financial	Data	Supplement	reflecting this	realignment	prior	to	the	release	of	its	first	quarter	of	2016	earnings	information.

(1) For	reporting	purposes,	Asia	GCB	includes	the	results	of	operations	of	EMEA	GCB	for	all	periods	presented.

(2) North	America	includes	the	U.S.,	Canada	and	Puerto	Rico,	 Latin	America	includes	Mexico	and	Asia	includes	Japan.

# MANAGEMENT'S	DISCUSSION	AND	ANALYSIS	OF	FINANCIAL	CONDITION

# AND	RESULTS	OF	OPERATIONS

# EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

Citi's	full	year	2015	results	of	operations	reflected	a	solid	overall	performance.	As described	in	more	detail	throughout	this	Executive	Summary,	Citi's	full	year	2015 net	income	of	$17.1	billion	was	its	highest	since	pre-financial	crisis,	when	Citi	was a	very	different	company	in	terms	of	footprint,	mix	of	businesses	and	assets. During	the	year,	Citi	was	able	to	grow	revenues	by	3%	and	make	investments	in	its core	Citicorp	businesses	while	reducing	its	overall	expenses,	thus	improving	its overall	efficiency	ratio.	Loan	and	deposit	growth	in	Citicorp	each	grew	by	5% while	Citi's	overall	balance	sheet	decreased	by	3%	(each	excluding	the	impact	of foreign	currency	translation	into	U.S.	dollars	for	reporting	purposes	(FX translation)).	Citi	also	ended	2015	with	a	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio,	on	a fully	implemented	basis,	of	12.1%.

In	addition	to	these	accomplishments,	Citi	made	significant	progress	on	its execution	priorities	during	2015,	including:

•Efficient	resource	allocation	and	disciplined	expense	management:	As described	above,	Citi	maintained	disciplined	expense	management	during 2015,	even	as	it	continued	to	absorb	increased	regulatory	and	compliance	costs in	Citicorp	and	made	ongoing	business	investments.	Citi's	expense management	during	2015	was	further	aided	by	lower	legal	and	related expenses	and	lower	repositioning	expenses	in	Citicorp	as	compared	to	the prior	year,	as	discussed	further	below.

•Continued	wind	down	of	Citi	Holdings,	while	maintaining	profitability:	Citi significantly	reduced	the	assets	in	Citi	Holdings	during	the	year.	Citi Holdings'	assets	decreased	$55	billion,	or	43%,	from	2014,	ending	the	year	at $74	billion.	In	addition,	as	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	executed agreements	to	further	reduce	Citi	Holdings	GAAP	assets	by	approximately	$7 billion	in	2016	(for	additional	information,	see	"Citi	Holdings"	below).	As discussed	further	below,	Citi	Holdings	also	maintained	profitability	in	2015. •Utilization	of	deferred	tax	assets	(DTAs):	Citi	utilized	approximately	$1.5 billion	in	DTAs	during	2015	(for	additional	information,	see	"Significant Accounting	Policies	and	Significant	Estimates—Income	Taxes"	below	and Note	9	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements).

Citi	was	able	to	achieve	these	results	and	make	ongoing	progress	on	its execution	priorities	during	a	year	with	market	volatility	and	uncertainties, including	macroeconomic	uncertainties,	slower	global	growth	and	market	volatility resulting	from,	among	other	things,	lower	commodity	prices	as	well	as	uncertainty regarding	the	timing	and	pace	of	U.S.	interest	rate	changes.

As	the	year-to-date	has	shown,	Citi	expects	the	operating	environment	in	2016 to	remain	challenging,	with	many	of	the	uncertainties	impacting	its	results	of operations	during	2015

continuing	into	2016.	For	a	more	detailed	discussion	of	the	risks	and	uncertainties that	could	impact	Citi's	businesses,	results	of	operations	and	financial	condition during	2016,	see	each	respective	business'	results	of	operations,	"Risk	Factors" and	"Managing	Global	Risk"	below.	While	Citi	may	not	be	able	to	control	all aspects	of	its	operating	environment	in	2016,	it	intends	to	continue	to	build	on	the progress	made	during	2015	by	remaining	focused	on	its	execution	priorities	and target	client	strategy.

# 2015	Summary	Results

# Citigroup

Citigroup	reported	net	income	of	$17.2	billion	or	$5.40	per	share,	compared	to $7.3	billion	or	$2.20	per	share	in	the	prior	year.	Results	in	2015	included	$254 million	($162	million	after-tax)	of	CVA/DVA,	compared	to	negative	$390	million (negative	$240	million	after-tax)	in	2014.	Citigroup	full	year	2014	results	also included	a	charge	of	$3.8	billion	($3.7	billion	after-tax)	to	settle	RMBS	and	CDO- related	claims	recorded	in	Citi	Holdings	and	a	tax	charge	of	$210	million	related	to corporate	tax	reforms	recorded	in	Corporate/Other.

Excluding	the	impact	of	CVA/DVA	in	both	periods	as	well	as	the	impact	of the	mortgage	settlement	and	the	tax	item	in	2014,	Citigroup	reported	net	income	of $17.1	billion	in	2015,	or	$5.35	per	share,	compared	to	$11.5	billion,	or	$3.55	per share,	in	the	prior	year.	(Citi's	results	of	operations	excluding	the	impact	of CVA/DVA	as	well	as	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement	and	the	tax	item	in 2014	are	non-GAAP	financial	measures.	Citi	believes	the	presentation	of	its	results of	operations	excluding	these	impacts	provides	a	more	meaningful	depiction	for investors	of	the	underlying	fundamentals	of	its	businesses.)	The	49%	increase	from the	prior	year	was	primarily	driven	by	lower	expenses	and	lower	net	credit	losses, partially	offset	by	lower	revenues	and	a	reduced	net	loan	loss	reserve	release.

Citi's	revenues	were	$76.4	billion	in	2015,	a	decrease	of	1%	from	the	prior year.	Excluding	CVA/DVA,	revenues	were	$76.1	billion,	down	2%	from	the	prior year,	as	Citicorp	revenues	decreased	by	2%	and	Citi	Holdings	revenues	decreased 1%.	Excluding	CVA/DVA	and	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	Citigroup	revenues increased	3%	from	the	prior	year,	driven	by	an	increase	of	3%	in	both	Citicorp	and Citi	Holdings'	revenues.	(Citi's	results	of	operations	excluding	the	impact	of	FX translation	are	non-GAAP	financial	measures.	Citi	believes	the	presentation	of	its results	of	operations	excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation	provides	a	more meaningful	depiction	for	investors	of	the	underlying	fundamentals	of	its businesses.)

# Expenses

Citigroup	expenses	decreased	21%	versus	the	prior	year	to	$43.6	billion.	Excluding the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement	in	the	prior	year,	Citigroup	expenses declined	15%	driven	by	significantly	lower	legal	and	related	expenses	($1.5	billion compared	to	$5.8	billion	in	the	prior	year)	and

repositioning	costs	($472	million	compared	to	$1.6	billion	in	the	prior	year),	as well	as	the	impact	of	FX	translation	(which	lowered	expenses	by	approximately $2.6	billion	in	2015	compared	to	the	prior	year).	Excluding	the	impact	of	both	the mortgage	settlement	in	the	prior	year	and	FX	translation,	Citigroup's	expenses declined	10%,	mainly	driven	by	the	lower	legal	and	related	expenses	and repositioning	costs.

Excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	which	lowered	reported	expenses	by approximately	$2.4	billion	in	2015	compared	to	the	prior	year,	Citicorp	expenses decreased	9%	also	driven	by	significantly	lower	legal	and	related	expenses	and repositioning	costs.	Citicorp	expenses	in	2015	included	legal	and	related	expenses of	$1.1	billion,	compared	to	$4.8	billion	in	the	prior	year,	and	$278	million	of repositioning	costs,	compared	to	$1.5	billion	in	the	prior	year.

Citi	Holdings'	expenses	were	$4.6	billion,	down	52%	from	the	prior	year. Excluding	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement	in	the	prior	year,	Citi	Holdings' expenses	decreased	22%,	primarily	driven	by	the	ongoing	decline	in	Citi	Holdings assets	as	well	as	lower	legal	and	related	expenses.

# Credit	Costs

Citi's	total	provisions	for	credit	losses	and	for	benefits	and	claims	of	$7.9	billion increased	6%	from	the	prior	year.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement in	the	prior	year,	Citi's	total	provisions	for	credit	losses	and	for	benefits	and	claims increased	7%	as	a	lower	net	loan	loss	reserve	release	was	partially	offset	by	lower net	credit	losses.

Net	credit	losses	of	$7.3	billion	declined	19%	versus	the	prior	year.	Consumer net	credit	losses	declined	19%	to	$7.1	billion,	mostly	reflecting	continued improvements	in	North	America	Citi-branded	cards	and	Citi	retail	services	in Citicorp	as	well	as	the	North	America	mortgage	portfolio	within	Citi	Holdings. Corporate	net	credit	losses	declined	19%	to	$234	million.	As	previously	disclosed, corporate	net	credit	losses	in	2014	included	approximately	$165	million	of	net credit	losses	related	to	the	Pemex	supplier	program	in	Mexico	(for	additional information,	see	"Institutional	Clients	Group"	below).	Excluding	these	net	credit losses	in	the	prior	year,	net	credit	losses	increased	by	approximately	$111	million, primarily	related	to	a	limited	number	of	energy	and	energy-related	corporate	loans, predominantly	incurred	during	the	latter	part	of	2015	(for	additional	information, see	"Institutional	Clients	Group"	and	"Credit	Risk—Corporate	Credit"	below). The	net	release	of	allowance	for	loan	losses	and	unfunded	lending commitments	was	$120	million	in	2015,	compared	to	a	$2.4	billion	release	in	2014, excluding	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement	in	the	prior	year.	Citicorp's	net reserve	build	was	$409	million,	compared	to	a	net	loan	loss	reserve	release	of	$1.4 billion	in	2014.	The	build	in	2015	was	primarily	driven	by	net	loan	loss	reserve builds	in	Institutional	Clients	Group	(ICG)	during	the	latter	part	of	2015,	including approximately	$530	million	for	energy	and	energy-related	exposures.	Overall,	Citi expects	its	credit	costs	in	Citicorp	will	likely	be	higher	in	2016	as	compared	to 2015	given	that	it	believes	the	vast	majority	of	its	net	loan	loss	reserve	releases have	occurred	as	credit	quality	has	largely	stabilized.

Citi	Holdings'	net	reserve	release,	excluding	the	impact	of	the	mortgage settlement	in	the	prior	year,	decreased	$443	million	from	the	prior	year	to	$529 million,	primarily	reflecting	lower	net	releases	related	to	the	North	America mortgage	portfolio.

For	additional	information	on	Citi's	consumer	and	corporate	credit	costs	and allowance	for	loan	losses,	see	"Credit	Risk"	below.

# Capital

Citi	continued	to	grow	its	regulatory	capital	during	2015,	even	as	it	returned approximately	$5.9	billion	of	capital	to	its	shareholders	in	the	form	of	common stock	repurchases	and	dividends.	Citigroup's	Tier	1	Capital	and	Common	Equity Tier	1	Capital	ratios,	on	a	fully	implemented	basis,	were	13.5%	and	12.1%	as	of December	31,	2015,	respectively,	compared	to	11.5%	and	10.6%	as	of	December 31,	2014	(all	based	on	the	Basel	III	Advanced	Approaches	for	determining	risk- weighted	assets).	Citigroup's	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	as	of	December	31, 2015,	on	a	fully	implemented	basis,	was	7.1%,	compared	to	5.9%	as	of	December 31,	2014.	For	additional	information	on	Citi's	capital	ratios	and	related components,	including	the	impact	of	Citi's	DTAs	on	its	capital	ratios,	see	"Capital Resources"	below.

# Citicorp

Citicorp	net	income	increased	50%	from	the	prior	year	to	$16.2	billion. CVA/DVA,	recorded	in	ICG,	was	$269	million	($172	million	after-tax)	in	2015, compared	to	negative	$343	million	(negative	$211	million	after-tax)	in	the	prior year	(for	a	summary	of	CVA/DVA	by	business	within	ICG,	see	"Institutional Clients	Group"	below).	Excluding	CVA/DVA	in	both	periods	and	the	tax	item	in 2014,	Citicorp's	net	income	was	$16.0	billion,	up	43%	from	the	prior	year, primarily	driven	by	the	lower	expenses	and	net	credit	losses,	partially	offset	by lower	revenues	and	the	net	loan	loss	reserve	builds.

Citicorp	revenues	decreased	1%	from	the	prior	year	to	$68.5	billion. Excluding	CVA/DVA,	Citicorp	revenues	were	$68.2	billion	in	2015,	down	2% from	the	prior	year,	reflecting	largely	unchanged	revenues	in	ICG	and	a	6% decrease	in	Global	Consumer	Banking	(GCB)	revenues.	As	referenced	above, excluding	CVA/DVA	and	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	Citicorp's	revenues	grew 3%.

GCB	revenues	of	$33.9	billion	decreased	6%	versus	the	prior	year.	Excluding the	impact	of	FX	translation,	GCB	revenues	decreased	1%,	as	decreases	in	North America	GCB	and	Asia	GCB	were	partially	offset	by	an	increase	in	Latin	America GCB.	North	America	GCB	revenues	decreased	1%	to	$19.4	billion,	as	lower revenues	in	Citi-branded	cards	were	partially	offset	by	higher	retail	banking revenues.	Citi-branded	cards	revenues	of	$7.8	billion	were	down	6%	versus	the prior	year,	reflecting	the	continued	impact	of	lower	average	loans	as	well	as	an increase	in	acquisition	and	rewards	costs	related	to	new	account	acquisitions, particularly	during	the	second	half	of	2015.	Citi	retail	services	revenues	of	$6.4 billion	were	largely	unchanged	versus	the	prior	year,	as	the	continued	impact	of lower	fuel	prices	and	higher	contractual	partner	payments	was	offset	by	modest growth	in	average	loans.	Retail	banking	revenues	increased	6%	from	the	prior

year	to	$5.2	billion,	reflecting	continued	loan	and	deposit	growth	and	improved deposit	spreads.	North	America	GCB	average	deposits	of	$172	billion	increased 1%	year-over-year	and	average	retail	loans	of	$50	billion	grew	7%.	Average	card loans	of	$107	billion	decreased	2%,	while	purchase	sales	of	$263	billion	increased 4%	versus	the	prior	year.	For	additional	information	on	the	results	of	operations	of North	America	GCB	for	2015,	see	"Global	Consumer	Banking—	North	America GCB"	below.

International	GCB	revenues	(consisting	of	EMEA	GCB,	Latin	America	GCB and	Asia	GCB)	decreased	12%	versus	the	prior	year	to	$14.4	billion.	Excluding	the impact	of	FX	translation,	international	GCB	revenues	were	unchanged	versus	the prior	year.	Latin	America	GCB	revenues	increased	3%	versus	the	prior	year,	as increases	in	loan	and	deposit	balances	as	well	as	the	impact	of	business	divestitures were	partially	offset	by	the	continued	impact	of	spread	compression	in	cards.	Asia GCB	revenues	declined	3%	versus	the	prior	year,	reflecting	lower	investment	sales revenues	as	well	as	continued	high	payment	rates	and	the	ongoing	impact	of regulatory	changes	in	cards,	partially	offset	by	growth	in	lending,	deposit	and insurance	products.	For	additional	information	on	the	results	of	operations	of	Latin America	GCB	and	Asia	GCB	(which	includes	the	results	of	operations	of	EMEA GCB	for	reporting	purposes)	for	2015,	including	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	see "Global	Consumer	Banking"	below.	Year-over-year,	international	GCB	average deposits	of	$129	billion	increased	5%,	average	retail	loans	of	$99	billion	increased 3%,	investment	sales	of	$78	billion	decreased	8%,	average	card	loans	of	$26 billion	increased	2%	and	card	purchase	sales	of	$101	billion	increased	6%,	all excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation.

ICG	revenues	were	$33.7	billion	in	2015,	up	2%	from	the	prior	year. Excluding	CVA/DVA,	ICG	revenues	were	largely	unchanged	from	the	prior	year at	$33.5	billion.

Banking	revenues	of	$16.9	billion,	excluding	CVA/DVA	and	the	impact	of mark-to-market	gains	on	hedges	related	to	accrual	loans	within	corporate	lending (see	below),	were	largely	unchanged	compared	to	the	prior	year,	as	lower	equity underwriting	activity	within	investment	banking	as	well	as	the	impact	of	FX translation	was	offset	by	higher	advisory	revenues	and	continued	growth	in	the private	bank.	Investment	banking	revenues	of	$4.5	billion	decreased	3%	versus	the prior	year.	Advisory	revenues	increased	16%	to	$1.1	billion	with	sustained	wallet share	gains	for	the	year.	Debt	underwriting	revenues	increased	1%	to	$2.5	billion, driven	by	wallet	share	gains	in	investment	grade	debt	and	strong	performance	in investment	grade	loans	in	the	second	half	of	2015,	while	equity	underwriting revenues	decreased	28%	to	$902	million,	largely	reflecting	lower	industry-wide underwriting	activity	during	the	year.

Private	bank	revenues,	excluding	CVA/DVA,	increased	8%	to	$2.9	billion from	the	prior	year,	driven	by	higher	loan	and	deposit	balances	as	well	as	growth	in managed	investments	revenue.	Corporate	lending	revenues	rose	8%	to	$2.0	billion, including	$323	million	of	mark-to-market	gains	on	hedges	related	to	accrual	loans compared	to	a	$116	million	gain	in	the	prior	year.	Excluding	the	impact	of	FX translation	and	the	mark-to-market	impact	of	loan	hedges,	corporate

lending	revenues	increased	3%	versus	the	prior	year,	as	growth	in	average	loans was	partially	offset	by	the	impact	of	lower	spreads.	Treasury	and	trade	solutions revenues	of	$7.8	billion	were	relatively	unchanged	versus	the	prior	year.	Excluding the	impact	of	FX	translation,	treasury	and	trade	solutions	revenues	increased	6%, as	continued	growth	in	deposit	balances	and	spreads	was	partially	offset	by	lower trade	revenues.

Markets	and	securities	services	revenues	of	$16.3	billion,	excluding CVA/DVA,	decreased	1%	from	the	prior	year.	Fixed	income	markets	revenues	of $11.3	billion,	excluding	CVA/DVA,	decreased	7%	from	the	prior	year,	as	growth in	rates	and	currencies	was	more	than	offset	by	a	slowdown	in	spread	products, reflecting	the	volatile	trading	environment	during	the	year.	Equity	markets revenues	of	$3.1	billion,	excluding	CVA/DVA,	increased	13%	versus	the	prior year	driven	by	growth	across	all	products.	Securities	services	revenues	of	$2.1 billion	increased	4%	versus	the	prior	year,	and	increased	15%	excluding	the	impact of	FX	translation,	reflecting	increased	client	activity	and	higher	client	balances.	For additional	information	on	the	results	of	operations	of	ICG	for	2015,	see "Institutional	Clients	Group"	below.

Corporate/Other	revenues	increased	to	$907	million	from	$301	million	in	the prior	year,	driven	mainly	by	gains	on	debt	buybacks	during	the	course	of	2015.	For additional	information	on	the	results	of	operations	of	Corporate/Other	in	2015,	see "Corporate/Other"	below.

Citicorp	end-of-period	loans	increased	1%	to	$573	billion	from	the	prior	year, as	a	5%	increase	in	corporate	loans	was	partially	offset	by	a	2%	decrease	in consumer	loans.	Excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	Citicorp	loans	grew	5%, with	8%	growth	in	corporate	loans	and	2%	growth	in	consumer	loans.

# Citi	Holdings

Citi	Holdings'	net	income	was	$1.0	billion	in	2015,	compared	to	a	net	loss	of	$3.5 billion	in	the	prior	year.	CVA/DVA	was	negative	$15	million	(negative	$10 million	after-tax)	in	2015,	compared	to	negative	$47	million	(negative	$29	million after-tax)	in	the	prior	year.	Excluding	the	impact	of	CVA/DVA	in	both	periods	and the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement	in	the	prior	year,	Citi	Holdings'	net	income was	$1.1	billion,	compared	to	$275	million	in	the	prior	year,	primarily	reflecting lower	expenses	and	lower	credit	costs.

Citi	Holdings'	revenues	were	largely	unchanged	from	the	prior	year	at	$7.8 billion.	Excluding	CVA/DVA,	Citi	Holdings'	revenues	decreased	1%	to	$7.9 billion	from	the	prior	year,	primarily	driven	by	the	overall	wind-down	of	the portfolio	and	the	impact	of	redemptions	of	high	cost	debt,	mostly	offset	by	the impact	of	higher	gains	on	asset	sales.	For	additional	information	on	the	results	of operations	of	Citi	Holdings	in	2015,	see	"Citi	Holdings"	below.

At	the	end	of	2015,	Citi	Holdings'	assets	were	$74	billion,	43%	below	the prior	year,	and	represented	approximately	4%	of	Citi's	total	GAAP	assets.	Citi Holdings'	risk-weighted	assets	were	$133	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015,	a decrease	of	30%	from	the	prior	year,	and	represented	11%	of	Citi's	risk-weighted assets	under	Basel	III	(based	on	the	Advanced	Approaches	for	determining	risk- weighted	assets).

# RESULTS	OF	OPERATIONS

# SUMMARY	OF	SELECTED	FINANCIAL	DATA—PAGE	1

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	per-share	amounts	and	ratios | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $46,630 | $47,993 | $46,793 | $46,686 | $47,649 |
| Non-interest\trevenue | 29,724 | 29,226 | 29,931 | 22,844 | 29,986 |
| Revenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $76,354 | $77,219 | $76,724 | $69,530 | $77,635 |
| Operating\texpenses | 43,615 | 55,051 | 48,408 | 50,036 | 50,180 |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | 7,913 | 7,467 | 8,514 | 11,329 | 12,359 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\tincome\ttaxes | $24,826 | $14,701 | $19,802 | $8,165 | $15,096 |
| Income\ttaxes | 7,440 | 7,197 | 6,186 | 397 | 4,020 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $17,386 | $7,504 | $13,616 | $7,768 | $11,076 |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes(1) | (54) | (2) | 270 | (58) | 68 |
| Net\tincome\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $17,332 | $7,502 | $13,886 | $7,710 | $11,144 |
| Net\tincome\tattributable\tto\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 90 | 192 | 227 | 219 | 148 |
| Citigroup's\tnet\tincome | $17,242 | $7,310 | $13,659 | $7,491 | $10,996 |
| Less: |  |  |  |  |  |
| Preferred\tdividends—Basic | $769 | $511 | $194 | $26 | $26 |
| Dividends\tand\tundistributed\tearnings\tallocated\tto\temployee\trestricted\tand |  |  |  |  |  |
| deferred\tshares\tthat\tcontain\tnonforfeitable\trights\tto\tdividends,\tapplicable\tto |  |  |  |  |  |
| basic\tEPS | 224 | 111 | 263 | 164 | 184 |
| Income\tallocated\tto\tunrestricted\tcommon\tshareholders\tfor\tbasic\tEPS | $16,249 | $6,688 | $13,202 | $7,301 | $10,786 |
| Add:\tOther\tadjustments\tto\tincome | — | 1 | 1 | 10 | 16 |
| Income\tallocated\tto\tunrestricted\tcommon\tshareholders\tfor\tdiluted\tEPS | $16,249 | $6,689 | $13,203 | $7,311 | $10,802 |
| Earnings\tper\tshare |  |  |  |  |  |
| Basic |  |  |  |  |  |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $5.43 | $2.21 | $4.26 | $2.51 | $3.68 |
| Net\tincome | 5.41 | 2.21 | 4.35 | 2.49 | 3.71 |
| Diluted |  |  |  |  |  |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $5.42 | $2.20 | $4.25 | $2.44 | $3.58 |
| Net\tincome | 5.40 | 2.20 | 4.34 | 2.42 | 3.60 |
| Dividends\tdeclared\tper\tcommon\tshare | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 |

Statement	continues	on	the	next	page,	including	notes	to	the	table.

|  |  |  | Citigroup	Inc.	and	Consolidated	Subsidiaries | Citigroup	Inc.	and	Consolidated	Subsidiaries | Citigroup	Inc.	and	Consolidated	Subsidiaries |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars,\texcept\tper-share\tamounts,\tratios\tand\tdirect\tstaff | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 |
| At\tDecember\t31: |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tassets | $1,731,210 | $1,842,181 | $1,880,035 | $1,864,328 | $1,873,597 |
| Total\tdeposits | 907,887 | 899,332 | 968,273 | 930,560 | 865,936 |
| Long-term\tdebt | 201,275 | 223,080 | 221,116 | 239,463 | 323,505 |
| Citigroup\tcommon\tstockholders'\tequity | 205,139 | 199,717 | 197,254 | 186,155 | 177,213 |
| Total\tCitigroup\tstockholders'\tequity | 221,857 | 210,185 | 203,992 | 188,717 | 177,525 |
| Direct\tstaff\t(in\tthousands) | 231 | 241 | 251 | 259 | 266 |
| Performance\tmetrics |  |  |  |  |  |
| Return\ton\taverage\tassets | 0.95% | 0.39% | 0.73% | 0.39% | 0.56% |
| Return\ton\taverage\tcommon\tstockholders'\tequity(2) | 8.1 | 3.4 | 7.0 | 4.1 | 6.3 |
| Return\ton\taverage\ttotal\tstockholders'\tequity(2) | 7.9 | 3.5 | 6.9 | 4.1 | 6.3 |
| Efficiency\tratio\t(Total\toperating\texpenses/Total\trevenues) | 57 | 71 | 63 | 72 | 65 |
| Basel\tIII\tratios—full\timplementation |  |  |  |  |  |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital(3) | 12.07% | 10.57% | 10.57% | 8.72% | N/A |
| Tier\t1\tCapital(3) | 13.49 | 11.45 | 11.23 | 9.03 | N/A |
| Total\tCapital(3) | 15.30 | 12.80 | 12.64 | 10.81 | N/A |
| Supplementary\tLeverage\tratio(4) | 7.08 | 5.94 | 5.42 | N/A | N/A |
| Citigroup\tcommon\tstockholders'\tequity\tto\tassets | 11.85% | 10.84% | 10.49% | 9.99% | 9.46% |
| Total\tCitigroup\tstockholders'\tequity\tto\tassets | 12.82 | 11.41 | 10.85 | 10.12 | 9.48 |
| Dividend\tpayout\tratio(5) | 3.0 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 0.8 |
| Book\tvalue\tper\tcommon\tshare | $69.46 | $66.05 | $65.12 | $61.46 | $60.61 |
| Ratio\tof\tearnings\tto\tfixed\tcharges\tand\tpreferred\tstock\tdividends | 2.89x | 2.00x | 2.18x | 1.39x | 1.61x |

(1) See	Note	2	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	additional	information	on	Citi's	discontinued	operations.

(2) The	return	on	average	common	stockholders'	equity	is	calculated	using	net	income	less	preferred	stock	dividends	divided	by	average	common	stockholders'	equity.	The	return	on	average	total Citigroup	stockholders'	equity	is	calculated	using	net	income	divided	by	average	Citigroup	stockholders'	equity.

(3) Capital	ratios	based	on	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	with	full	implementation	assumed	for	capital	components;	risk-weighted	assets	based	on	the	Advanced	Approaches	for	determining	total	risk-weighted assets.

(4) Citi's	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	is	based	on	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	on	a	fully	implemented	basis.

(5)	Dividends	declared	per	common	share	as	a	percentage	of	net	income	per	diluted	share.

N/A	Not	applicable

# SEGMENT	AND	BUSINESS—INCOME	(LOSS)	AND	REVENUES

The	following	tables	show	the	income	(loss)	and	revenues	for	Citigroup	on	a	segment	and	business	view:

# CITIGROUP	INCOME

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| CITICORP |  |  |  |  |  |
| Global\tConsumer\tBanking |  |  |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $4,255 | $4,412 | $3,918 | (4)% | 13\t% |
| Latin\tAmerica | 928 | 1,158 | 1,251 | (20) | (7) |
| Asia(1) | 1,199 | 1,249 | 1,407 | (4) | (11) |
| Total | $6,382 | $6,819 | $6,576 | (6)% | 4\t% |
| Institutional\tClients\tGroup |  |  |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $3,621 | $4,113 | $3,081 | (12)% | 33\t% |
| EMEA | 2,288 | 2,034 | 2,554 | 12 | (20) |
| Latin\tAmerica | 1,328 | 1,345 | 1,606 | (1) | (16) |
| Asia | 2,214 | 2,042 | 2,184 | 8 | (7) |
| Total | $9,451 | $9,534 | $9,425 | (1)% | 1\t% |
| Corporate/Other | $495 | $(5,375) | $(514) | NM | NM |
| Total\tCiticorp | $16,328 | $10,978 | $15,487 | 49\t% | (29)% |
| Citi\tHoldings | $1,058 | $(3,474) | $(1,871) | NM | (86)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $17,386 | $7,504 | $13,616 | NM | (45)% |
| Discontinued\toperations | $(54) | $(2) | $270 | NM | NM |
| Net\tincome\tattributable\tto\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 90 | 192 | 227 | (53)% | (15)% |
| Citigroup's\tnet\tincome | $17,242 | $7,310 | $13,659 | NM | (46)% |

NM	Not	meaningful

# CITIGROUP	REVENUES

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CITICORP |  |  |  |  |  |
| Global\tConsumer\tBanking |  |  |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $19,448 | $19,669 | $19,798 | (1)% | (1)% |
| Latin\tAmerica | 7,323 | 8,460 | 8,576 | (13) | (1) |
| Asia(1) | 7,091 | 7,888 | 7,931 | (10) | (1) |
| Total | $33,862 | $36,017 | $36,305 | (6)% | (1)% |
| Institutional\tClients\tGroup |  |  |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $13,105 | $12,940 | $11,434 | 1\t% | 13\t% |
| EMEA | 9,799 | 9,415 | 10,061 | 4 | (6) |
| Latin\tAmerica | 3,918 | 4,098 | 4,675 | (4) | (12) |
| Asia | 6,926 | 6,599 | 7,152 | 5 | (8) |
| Total | $33,748 | $33,052 | $33,322 | 2\t% | (1)% |
| Corporate/Other | $907 | $301 | $322 | NM | (7)% |
| Total\tCiticorp | $68,517 | $69,370 | $69,949 | (1)% | (1)% |
| Citi\tHoldings | $7,837 | $7,849 | $6,775 | —\t% | 16\t% |
| Total\tCitigroup\tnet\trevenues | $76,354 | $77,219 | $76,724 | (1)% | 1\t% |

# SEGMENT	BALANCE	SHEET(1)

| In	millions	of	dollars | Global<br>Consumer<br>Banking | Institutional<br>Clients<br>Group | Corporate/Other<br>and<br>consolidating<br>eliminations(2) | Subtotal<br>Citicorp | Citi<br>Holdings | Citigroup<br>Parent<br>company-<br>issued<br>long-term<br>debt	and<br>stockholders'<br>equity(3) | Total<br>Citigroup<br>consolidated |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cash\tand\tdeposits\twith\tbanks | $11,389 | $60,557 | $60,285 | $132,231 | $866 | $— | $133,097 |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\npurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | 127 | 218,336 | — | 218,463 | 1,212 | — | 219,675 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets | 5,290 | 240,022 | 1,382 | 246,694 | 3,262 | — | 249,956 |
| Investments | 7,273 | 108,248 | 220,451 | 335,972 | 6,983 | — | 342,955 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome\tand |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses | 277,323 | 284,871 | — | 562,194 | 42,797 | — | 604,991 |
| Other\tassets | 44,047 | 75,504 | 45,237 | 164,788 | 15,748 | — | 180,536 |
| Liquidity\tassets(4) | 48,148 | 223,811 | (275,553) | (3,594) | 3,594 | — | — |
| Total\tassets | $393,597 | $1,211,349 | $51,802 | $1,656,748 | $74,462 | $— | $1,731,210 |
| Liabilities\tand\tequity |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tdeposits | $301,438 | $587,336 | $12,058 | $900,832 | $7,055 | $— | $907,887 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\nsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase | 4,235 | 142,200 | — | 146,435 | 61 | — | 146,496 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities | 3 | 116,633 | 41 | 116,677 | 835 | — | 117,512 |
| Short-term\tborrowings | 100 | 20,962 | — | 21,062 | 17 | — | 21,079 |
| Long-term\tdebt | 1,891 | 31,924 | 21,307 | 55,122 | 3,996 | 142,157 | 201,275 |
| Other\tliabilities | 16,813 | 73,211 | 17,349 | 107,373 | 6,496 | — | 113,869 |
| Net\tinter-segment\tfunding\t(lending)(3) | 69,117 | 239,083 | (188) | 308,012 | 56,002 | (364,014) | — |
| Total\tliabilities | $393,597 | $1,211,349 | $50,567 | $1,655,513 | $74,462 | $(221,857) | $1,508,118 |
| Total\tequity | — | — | 1,235 | 1,235 | — | 221,857 | 223,092 |
| Total\tliabilities\tand\tequity | $393,597 | $1,211,349 | $51,802 | $1,656,748 | $74,462 | $— | $1,731,210 |

(1) The	supplemental	information	presented	in	the	table	above	reflects	Citigroup's	consolidated	GAAP	balance	sheet	by	reporting	segment	as	of	 December	31,	2015.	The	respective	segment	information depicts	the	assets	and	liabilities	managed	by	each	segment	as	of	such	date.	While	this	presentation	is	not	defined	by	GAAP,	Citi	believes	that	these	non-GAAP	financial	measures	enhance	investors' understanding	of	the	balance	sheet	components	managed	by	the	underlying	business	segments,	as	well	as	the	beneficial	inter-relationships	of	the	asset	and	liability	dynamics	of	the	balance	sheet components	among	Citi's	business	segments.

(2) Consolidating	eliminations	for	total	Citigroup	and	Citigroup	parent	company	assets	and	liabilities	are	recorded	within	the	 Corporate/Other	segment.

(3) The	total	stockholders'	equity	and	the	majority	of	long-term	debt	of	Citigroup	reside	in	the	Citigroup	parent	company	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.	Citigroup	allocates	stockholders'	equity	and	long- term	debt	to	its	businesses	through	inter-segment	allocations	as	shown	above.

(4) Represents	the	attribution	of	Citigroup's	liquidity	assets	(primarily	consisting	of	cash	and	available-for-sale	securities)	to	the	various	businesses	based	on	Liquidity	Coverage	Ratio	(LCR)	assumptions.

Citicorp	is	Citigroup's	global	bank	for	consumers	and	businesses	and	represents	Citi's	core	franchises.	Citicorp	is	focused	on	providing	best-in-class	products	and	services	to customers	and	leveraging	Citigroup's	unparalleled	global	network,	including	many	of	the	world's	emerging	economies.	Citicorp	is	physically	present	in	approximately	100 countries,	many	for	over	100	years,	and	offers	services	in	over	160	countries	and	jurisdictions.	Citi	believes	this	global	network	provides	a	strong	foundation	for	servicing	the broad	financial	services	needs	of	its	large	multinational	clients	and	for	meeting	the	needs	of	retail,	private	banking,	commercial,	public	sector	and	institutional	clients	around the	world.

Citicorp	consists	of	the	following	operating	businesses:	Global	Consumer	Banking	(which	consists	of	consumer	banking	businesses	in	North	America,	EMEA,	Latin America	and	Asia)	and	Institutional	Clients	Group	(which	includes	Banking	and	Markets	and	securities	services).	Citicorp	also	includes	Corporate/Other.	At	December	31, 2015,	Citicorp	had	approximately	$1.7	trillion	of	assets	and	$901	billion	of	deposits,	representing	approximately	96%	of	Citi's	total	assets	and	99%	of	Citi's	total	deposits.

Consistent	with	its	strategy	to	continue	to	efficiently	allocate	its	resources	and	further	simplify	its	Global	Consumer	Bank,	in	February	2016,	Citi	announced	that	it intends	to	exit	its	consumer	businesses	in	Argentina,	Brazil	and	Colombia.	These	consumer	businesses,	consisting	of	approximately	$6	billion	of	assets,	$5	billion	of consumer	loans	and	$3	billion	of	deposits	as	of	December	31,	2015,	contributed	approximately	$1.1	billion	of	revenues,	$900	million	of	expenses	and	a	net	loss	of	$34 million	in	2015.	These	businesses,	which	previously	have	been	reported	as	part	of	Latin	America	GCB,	will	be	reported	as	part	of	Citi	Holdings	beginning	in	the	first	quarter of	2016.	See	also	"Citigroup	Segments"	above	and	"Citi	Holdings"	below.	While	Citi	does	not	intend	to	exit	its	consumer	businesses	in	Venezuela,	these	businesses	are	not significant,	lending	predominantly	to	support	ICG	activities,	and	will	be	reported	as	part	of	ICG	beginning	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016.	Similarly,	Citi's	remaining	indirect investment	in	Banco	de	Chile	will	be	reported	as	part	of	ICG	beginning	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016.

| In	millions	of	dollars	except	as	otherwise	noted | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $42,926 | $43,402 | $42,445 | (1)% | 2\t% |
| Non-interest\trevenue | 25,591 | 25,968 | 27,504 | (1) | (6) |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $68,517 | $69,370 | $69,949 | (1)% | (1)% |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims |  |  |  |  |  |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses | $6,236 | $7,136 | $7,199 | (13)% | (1)% |
| Credit\treserve\tbuild\t(release) | 309 | (1,238) | (811) | NM | (53) |
| Provision\tfor\tloan\tlosses | $6,545 | $5,898 | $6,388 | 11\t% | (8)% |
| Provision\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | 107 | 144 | 167 | (26) | (14) |
| Provision\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | 100 | (152) | 90 | NM | NM |
| Total\tprovisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | $6,752 | $5,890 | $6,645 | 15\t% | (11)% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $39,000 | $45,362 | $40,498 | (14)% | 12\t% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\ttaxes | $22,765 | $18,118 | $22,806 | 26\t% | (21)% |
| Income\ttaxes | 6,437 | 7,140 | 7,319 | (10) | (2) |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $16,328 | $10,978 | $15,487 | 49\t% | (29)% |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | (54) | (2) | 270 | NM | NM |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | 79 | 186 | 211 | (58) | (12) |
| Net\tincome | $16,195 | $10,790 | $15,546 | 50\t% | (31)% |
| Balance\tsheet\tdata\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tend-of-period\t(EOP)\tassets | $1,657 | $1,713 | $1,726 | (3)% | (1)% |
| Average\tassets | 1,712 | 1,753 | 1,711 | (2) | 2 |
| Return\ton\taverage\tassets | 0.95% | 0.62% | 0.91% |  |  |
| Efficiency\tratio | 57 | 65 | 58 |  |  |
| Total\tEOP\tloans | $573 | $565 | $565 | 1 | — |
| Total\tEOP\tdeposits | 901 | 883 | 900 | 2 | (2) |

# GLOBAL	CONSUMER	BANKING

Global	Consumer	Banking	(GCB)	consists	of	Citigroup's	four	geographical	consumer	banking	businesses	that	provide	traditional	banking	services	to	retail	customers through	retail	banking,	including	commercial	banking,	and	Citi-branded	cards	and	Citi	retail	services	(for	additional	information	on	these	businesses,	see	"Citigroup Segments"	above).	GCB	is	a	globally	diversified	business	with	2,994	branches	in	24	countries	around	the	world	as	of	December	31,	2015.	At	December	31,	2015,	GCB	had approximately	$394	billion	of	assets	and	$301	billion	of	deposits.

GCB's	overall	strategy	is	to	leverage	Citi's	global	footprint	and	seek	to	be	the	preeminent	bank	for	the	emerging	affluent	and	affluent	consumers	in	large	urban	centers.	In credit	cards	and	in	certain	retail	markets,	Citi	serves	customers	in	a	somewhat	broader	set	of	segments	and	geographies.	Consistent	with	its	strategy,	since	2012,	Citi	has exited,	or	is	in	the	process	of	exiting,	20	consumer	markets	and	has	reduced	its	branch	footprint	by	25%	to	focus	its	global	presence.

| In	millions	of	dollars	except	as	otherwise	noted | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $26,881 | $27,924 | $27,545 | (4)% | 1\t% |
| Non-interest\trevenue | 6,981 | 8,093 | 8,760 | (14) | (8) |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $33,862 | $36,017 | $36,305 | (6)% | (1)% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $18,264 | $19,951 | $19,801 | (8)% | 1\t% |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses | $6,029 | $6,860 | $7,017 | (12)% | (2)% |
| Credit\treserve\tbuild\t(release) | (318) | (1,148) | (654) | 72 | (76) |
| Provision\t(release)\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | 5 | (23) | 37 | NM | NM |
| Provision\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | 107 | 144 | 167 | (26) | (14) |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | $5,823 | $5,833 | $6,567 | —\t% | (11)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\ttaxes | $9,775 | $10,233 | $9,937 | (4)% | 3\t% |
| Income\ttaxes | 3,393 | 3,414 | 3,361 | (1) | 2 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $6,382 | $6,819 | $6,576 | (6)% | 4\t% |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | 9 | 25 | 14 | (64) | 79 |
| Net\tincome | $6,373 | $6,794 | $6,562 | (6)% | 4\t% |
| Balance\tSheet\tdata\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Average\tassets | $391 | $408 | $401 | (4)% | 2\t% |
| Return\ton\taverage\tassets | 1.63% | 1.67% | 1.65% |  |  |
| Efficiency\tratio | 54 | 55 | 55 |  |  |
| Total\tEOP\tassets | $394 | $406 | $413 | (3) | (2) |
| Average\tdeposits | 300 | 305 | 299 | (2) | 2 |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\taverage\tloans | 2.14% | 2.36% | 2.52% |  |  |
| Revenue\tby\tbusiness |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail\tbanking | $14,777 | $15,461 | $15,991 | (4)% | (3)% |
| Cards(1) | 19,085 | 20,556 | 20,314 | (7) | 1 |
| Total | $33,862 | $36,017 | $36,305 | (6)% | (1)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tby\tbusiness |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail\tbanking | $1,989 | $1,787 | $1,897 | 11\t% | (6)% |
| Cards(1) | 4,393 | 5,032 | 4,679 | (13) | 8 |
| Total | $6,382 | $6,819 | $6,576 | (6)% | 4\t% |

(Table	continues	on	next	page.)

| Total	revenue—as	reported | $33,862 | $36,017 | $36,305 | (6)% | (1)% |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(2) | — | (1,969) | (2,573) |  |  |
| Total\trevenues—ex-FX | $33,862 | $34,048 | $33,732 | (1)% | 1\t% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses—as\treported | $18,264 | $19,951 | $19,801 | (8)% | 1\t% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(2) | — | (1,171) | (1,382) |  |  |
| Total\toperating\texpenses—ex-FX | $18,264 | $18,780 | $18,419 | (3)% | 2\t% |
| Total\tprovisions\tfor\tLLR\t&amp;\tPBC—as\treported | $5,823 | $5,833 | $6,567 | —\t% | (11)% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(2) | — | (470) | (558) |  |  |
| Total\tprovisions\tfor\tLLR\t&amp;\tPBC—ex-FX | $5,823 | $5,363 | $6,009 | 9\t% | (11)% |
| Net\tincome—as\treported | $6,373 | $6,794 | $6,562 | (6)% | 4\t% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(2) | — | (197) | (416) |  |  |
| Net\tincome—ex-FX | $6,373 | $6,597 | $6,146 | (3)% | 7\t% |

(1) Includes	both	Citi-branded	cards	and	Citi	retail	services.

(2) Reflects	the	impact	of	FX	translation	into	U.S.	dollars	at	the	2015	average	exchange	rates	for	all	periods	presented.

# NORTH	AMERICA	GCB

North	America	GCB	provides	traditional	retail	banking,	including	commercial	banking,	and	its	Citi-branded	cards	and	Citi	retail	services	card	products	to	retail	customers and	small	to	mid-size	businesses,	as	applicable,	in	the	U.S.	North	America	GCB's	U.S.	cards	product	portfolio	includes	its	proprietary	portfolio	(including	the	Citi	Double Cash,	Thank	You	and	Value	cards)	and	co-branded	cards	(including,	among	others,	American	Airlines	and	Hilton	Worldwide)	within	Citi-branded	cards	as	well	as	its	co- brand	and	private	label	relationships	within	Citi	retail	services.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	North	America	GCB's	780	retail	bank	branches	are	concentrated	in	the	six	key	metropolitan	areas	of	New	York,	Chicago,	Miami,

Washington,	D.C.,	Los	Angeles	and	San	Francisco.	Also	as	of	December	31,	2015,	North	America	GCB	had	approximately	10.9	million	retail	banking	customer	accounts, $51.8	billion	of	retail	banking	loans	and	$172.8	billion	of	deposits.	In	addition,	North	America	GCB	had	approximately	113.4	million	Citi-branded	and	Citi	retail	services credit	card	accounts,	with	$113.3	billion	in	outstanding	card	loan	balances.

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	as	otherwise	noted | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $17,481 | $17,203 | $16,656 | 2\t% | 3\t% |
| Non-interest\trevenue | 1,967 | 2,466 | 3,142 | (20) | (22) |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $19,448 | $19,669 | $19,798 | (1)% | (1)% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $9,186 | $9,706 | $9,853 | (5)% | (1)% |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses | $3,753 | $4,206 | $4,636 | (11)% | (9)% |
| Credit\treserve\tbuild\t(release) | (339) | (1,242) | (1,036) | 73 | (20) |
| Provision\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | 7 | (8) | 6 | NM | NM |
| Provisions\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | 38 | 40 | 59 | (5) | (32) |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | $3,459 | $2,996 | $3,665 | 15\t% | (18)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\ttaxes | $6,803 | $6,967 | $6,280 | (2)% | 11\t% |
| Income\ttaxes | 2,548 | 2,555 | 2,362 | — | 8 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $4,255 | $4,412 | $3,918 | (4)% | 13\t% |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | — | (1) | — | 100 | — |
| Net\tincome | $4,255 | $4,413 | $3,918 | (4)% | 13\t% |
| Balance\tSheet\tdata\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Average\tassets | $208 | $211 | $204 | (1)% | 3\t% |
| Return\ton\taverage\tassets | 2.05% | 2.09% | 1.92% |  |  |
| Efficiency\tratio | 47 | 49 | 50 |  |  |
| Average\tdeposits | $171.8 | $170.7 | $166.0 | 1 | 3 |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\taverage\tloans | 2.39% | 2.70% | 3.09% |  |  |
| Revenue\tby\tbusiness |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail\tbanking | $5,208 | $4,917 | $5,389 | 6\t% | (9)% |
| Citi-branded\tcards | 7,809 | 8,290 | 8,220 | (6) | 1 |
| Citi\tretail\tservices | 6,431 | 6,462 | 6,189 | — | 4 |
| Total | $19,448 | $19,669 | $19,798 | (1)% | (1)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tby\tbusiness |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail\tbanking | $659 | $355 | $416 | 86\t% | (15)% |
| Citi-branded\tcards | 2,075 | 2,391 | 1,945 | (13) | 23 |
| Citi\tretail\tservices | 1,521 | 1,666 | 1,557 | (9) | 7 |
| Total | $4,255 | $4,412 | $3,918 | (4)% | 13\t% |

Net	income	decreased	by	4%	due	to	lower	loan	loss	reserve	releases	and	lower revenues,	partially	offset	by	lower	expenses	and	lower	net	credit	losses.

Revenues	decreased	1%,	reflecting	lower	revenues	in	Citi-branded	cards, partially	offset	by	higher	revenues	in	retail	banking.

Retail	banking	revenues	increased	6%.	The	increase	was	primarily	driven	by 7%	growth	in	average	loans,	9%	growth	in	average	checking	deposits,	improved deposit	spreads	and	slightly	higher	mortgage	origination	revenues,	partially	offset by	lower	net	gains	on	branch	sales	(approximately	$40	million)	and	mortgage portfolio	sales	(approximately	$80	million)	as	well	as	a	lower	mortgage	repurchase reserve	release	(approximately	$50	million)	compared	to	2014.	This	growth	in retail	banking	revenues	occurred	despite	the	fact	that,	consistent	with	GCB's strategy,	during	2015,	North	America	GCB	closed	or	sold	69	branches	(a	9% decline	from	the	prior	year),	with	announced	plans	to	sell	or	close	an	additional	50 branches	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016.	With	these	actions,	over	90%	of	North America	GCB's	retail	banking	footprint	will	be	concentrated	in	its	six	key metropolitan	areas.

Cards	revenues	decreased	3%	due	to	a	2%	decline	in	average	loans,	partially offset	by	a	4%	increase	in	purchase	sales.	In	Citi-branded	cards,	revenues decreased	6%,	primarily	reflecting	an	increase	in	acquisition	and	rewards	costs, particularly	during	the	second	half	of	2015	as	North	America	GCB	deployed	its investment	spending	(as	discussed	below)	to	grow	its	new	account	acquisitions	in its	core	products.	North	America	GCB	expects	the	increased	acquisition	and rewards	costs	within	Citi-branded	cards	to	continue	to	negatively	impact	revenues in	2016.	The	decrease	in	Citi-branded	cards	revenues	was	also	due	to	the	continued impact	of	lower	average	loans	(down	4%),	driven	primarily	by	continued	high customer	payment	rates	during	the	year,	partially	offset	by	a	6%	increase	in purchase	sales.

Citi	retail	services	revenues	were	largely	unchanged	as	the	continued	impact of	lower	fuel	prices,	which	negatively	impacts	purchase	sales	in	the	fuel	portfolios, and	higher	contractual	partner	payments	was	offset	by	the	impact	of	higher	spreads and	volumes	(1%	increase	in	average	loans).	The	higher	contractual	partner payments	resulted	from	the	business	sharing	the	benefits	of	higher	yields	and	lower net	credit	losses	with	its	retail	partners.	Purchase	sales	were	unchanged	as	the continued	impact	of	lower	fuel	prices	was	offset	by	volume	growth.	North	America GCB	expects	the	negative	impact	of	lower	fuel	prices	on	Citi	retail	services revenues	to	continue	in	the	near	term.

Expenses	decreased	5%,	primarily	due	to	ongoing	cost	reduction	initiatives, including	as	a	result	of	the	branch	rationalization	strategy,	and	lower	repositioning charges,	partially	offset	by	increased	investment	spending	(including	marketing, among	other	areas)	in	Citi-branded	cards,	which	is	expected	to	continue	into	2016. Provisions	increased	15%	largely	due	to	lower	net	loan	loss	reserve	releases (73%),	partially	offset	by	lower	net	credit	losses	(11%).	Net	credit	losses	declined in	Citi-branded	cards	(down	14%	to	$1.9	billion)	and	in	Citi	retail	services	(down 8%	to	$1.7	billion).	The	lower	loan	loss	reserve	release

reflected	overall	credit	stabilization	in	the	cards	portfolios	during	2015.	As	a	result of	this	stabilization,	North	America	GCB	expects	to	experience	modest	loan	loss reserve	builds	during	2016.

In	addition	to	the	trends	discussed	above	expected	to	impact	North	America GCB's	results	of	operations	in	2016,	North	America	GCB	expects	to	make additional	investments	in	its	U.S.	cards	businesses	during	2016,	including investments	in	connection	with	Citi's	planned	acquisition	of	the	Costco	portfolio, the	closing	of	which	is	currently	expected	to	occur	mid-2016,	as	well	as	the expected	impact	of	renewing	certain	important	partnership	programs	in	a competitive	environment	(see	also	"Risk	Factors—Operational	Risks"	below). While	North	America	GCB	believes	these	investments	are	necessary	for	the	growth of	its	U.S.	cards	businesses,	they	will	reduce	the	pretax	earnings	of	the	businesses during	2016.

Net	income	increased	by	13%	due	to	lower	net	credit	losses,	higher	loan	loss reserve	releases	and	lower	expenses,	partially	offset	by	lower	revenues.

Revenues	decreased	1%,	with	lower	revenues	in	retail	banking,	partially	offset by	higher	revenues	in	Citi-branded	cards	and	Citi	retail	services.	Retail	banking revenues	of	$4.9	billion	decreased	9%	due	to	lower	mortgage	origination	revenues and	spread	compression	in	the	deposit	portfolios,	partially	offset	by	continued volume-related	growth	(average	loans	increased	9%	and	average	deposits	increased 3%)	and	gains	from	branch	sales.

Cards	revenues	increased	2%	as	average	loans	increased	3%	versus	2013.	In Citi-branded	cards,	revenues	increased	1%	as	a	4%	increase	in	purchase	sales	and higher	net	interest	spreads,	driven	by	the	continued	reduction	of	promotional balances	in	the	portfolio,	mostly	offset	lower	average	loans.	The	decline	in	average loans	was	driven	primarily	by	the	reduction	in	promotional	balances,	and	to	a	lesser extent,	increased	customer	payment	rates	during	the	year.

Citi	retail	services	revenues	increased	4%,	primarily	due	to	a	12%	increase	in average	loans	driven	by	the	Best	Buy	acquisition	in	September	2013,	partially offset	by	continued	declines	in	fee	revenues	primarily	reflecting	higher	yields	and improving	credit	and	the	resulting	increase	in	contractual	partner	payments.	Citi retail	services	revenues	also	benefited	from	lower	funding	costs,	partially	offset	by a	decline	in	net	interest	spreads	due	to	a	higher	percentage	of	promotional	balances within	the	portfolio.

Expenses	decreased	1%	as	ongoing	cost	reduction	initiatives	were	partially offset	by	higher	repositioning	charges,	increased	investment	spending	and	an increase	in	Citi	retail	services	expenses	due	to	the	impact	of	the	Best	Buy	portfolio acquisition.

Provisions	decreased	18%	due	to	lower	net	credit	losses	(9%)	and	higher	loan loss	reserve	releases	(21%).	Net	credit	losses	declined	in	Citi-branded	cards	(down 14%	to	$2.2	billion)	and	in	Citi	retail	services	(down	2%	to	$1.9	billion).	The	loan loss	reserve	release	increased	due	to	the	continued	improvement	in	Citi-branded cards,	partially	offset	by	a	lower	loan	loss	reserve	release	in	Citi	retail	services	due to	reserve	builds	for	new	loans	originated	in	the	Best	Buy	portfolio.

# LATIN	AMERICA	GCB

Latin	America	GCB	provides	traditional	retail	banking,	including	commercial	banking,	and	its	Citi-branded	card	products	to	retail	customers	and	small	to	mid-size businesses,	as	applicable,	with	the	largest	presence	in	Mexico.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Latin	America	GCB	includes	branch	networks	in	Brazil,	Argentina,	Colombia	and Venezuela	as	well	as	Banco	Nacional	de	Mexico,	or	Banamex,	Mexico's	second-largest	bank.

At	December	31,	2015,	Latin	America	GCB	had	1,694	retail	branches	(1,492	through	Banamex	in	Mexico),	with	approximately	31.9	million	retail	banking	customer accounts,	$24.0	billion	in	retail	banking	loans	and	$40.8	billion	in	deposits.	In	addition,	the	business	had	approximately	7.8	million	Citi-branded	card	accounts	with $7.5	billion	in	outstanding	loan	balances.	As	announced	in	February	2016,	Citi	intends	to	exit	its	consumer	businesses	in	Argentina,	Brazil	and	Colombia.	For	additional information,	see	"Citigroup	Segments"	and	"Citicorp"	above.

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	as	otherwise	noted | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $4,843 | $5,672 | $5,726 | (15)% | (1)% |
| Non-interest\trevenue | 2,480 | 2,788 | 2,850 | (11) | (2) |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $7,323 | $8,460 | $8,576 | (13)% | (1)% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $4,444 | $4,974 | $4,931 | (11)% | 1\t% |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses | $1,549 | $1,861 | $1,610 | (17)% | 16\t% |
| Credit\treserve\tbuild\t(release) | 94 | 120 | 363 | (22) | (67) |
| Provision\t(release)\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | 1 | (1) | — | NM | — |
| Provision\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | 69 | 104 | 108 | (34) | (4) |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims\t(LLR\t&amp;\tPBC) | $1,713 | $2,084 | $2,081 | (18)% | —\t% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\ttaxes | $1,166 | $1,402 | $1,564 | (17)% | (10)% |
| Income\ttaxes | 238 | 244 | 313 | (2) | (22) |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $928 | $1,158 | $1,251 | (20)% | (7)% |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | 3 | 6 | 3 | (50) | 100 |
| Net\tincome | $925 | $1,152 | $1,248 | (20)% | (8)% |
| Balance\tSheet\tdata\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Average\tassets | $64 | $76 | $79 | (16)% | (4)% |
| Return\ton\taverage\tassets | 1.45% | 1.52% | 1.66% |  |  |
| Efficiency\tratio | 61 | 59 | 57 |  |  |
| Average\tdeposits | $40.8 | $44.5 | $43.6 | (8) | 2 |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\taverage\tloans | 4.67% | 4.86% | 4.42% |  |  |
| Revenue\tby\tbusiness |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail\tbanking | $5,078 | $5,678 | $5,831 | (11)% | (3)% |
| Citi-branded\tcards | 2,245 | 2,782 | 2,745 | (19) | 1 |
| Total | $7,323 | $8,460 | $8,576 | (13)% | (1)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tby\tbusiness |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail\tbanking | $590 | $740 | $762 | (20)% | (3)% |
| Citi-branded\tcards | 338 | 418 | 489 | (19) | (15) |
| Total | $928 | $1,158 | $1,251 | (20)% | (7)% |
| FX\ttranslation\timpact |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\trevenues—as\treported | $7,323 | $8,460 | $8,576 | (13)% | (1)% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(1) | — | (1,382) | (1,784) |  |  |
| Total\trevenues—ex-FX | $7,323 | $7,078 | $6,792 | 3\t% | 4\t% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses—as\treported | $4,444 | $4,974 | $4,931 | (11)% | 1\t% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(1) | — | (737) | (904) |  |  |
| Total\toperating\texpenses—ex-FX | $4,444 | $4,237 | $4,027 | 5\t% | 5\t% |
| Provisions\tfor\tLLR\t&amp;\tPBC—as\treported | $1,713 | $2,084 | $2,081 | (18)% | —\t% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(1) | — | (373) | (456) |  |  |
| Provisions\tfor\tLLR\t&amp;\tPBC—ex-FX | $1,713 | $1,711 | $1,625 | —\t% | 5\t% |
| Net\tincome—as\treported | $925 | $1,152 | $1,248 | (20)% | (8)% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(1) | — | (180) | (338) |  |  |
| Net\tincome—ex-FX | $925 | $972 | $910 | (5)% | 7\t% |

The	discussion	of	the	results	of	operations	for	Latin	America	GCB	below	excludes	the	impact	of	FX	translation	for	all	periods	presented.	Presentations	of	the	results	of operations,	excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	are	non-GAAP	financial	measures.	For	a	reconciliation	of	certain	of	these	metrics	to	the	reported	results,	see	the	table above.

Net	income	decreased	5%	as	higher	expenses	were	partially	offset	by	higher revenues.

Revenues	increased	3%,	primarily	due	to	the	approximately	$180	million	gain on	sale	in	the	third	quarter	of	2015	related	to	the	Mexico	merchant	acquiring business.	Excluding	this	gain,	revenues	increased	1%	as	the	impact	of	modest volume	growth	was	mostly	offset	by	the	absence	of	gains	and	revenues	from businesses	divested	in	2014,	including	as	a	result	of	the	sale	of	the	Honduras consumer	business	in	the	second	quarter	and	the	partial	sale	of	Citi's	indirect investment	in	Banco	de	Chile	in	the	first	quarter,	as	well	as	continued	spread compression	in	cards.	Revenues	were	also	impacted	by	continued	slow	economic growth	in	the	region	during	2015.

Retail	banking	revenues	increased	6%,	excluding	the	gain	on	sale	related	to the	merchant	acquiring	business	and	the	business	divestitures	in	2014.	This increase	in	retail	banking	revenues	reflected	volume	growth,	including	an	increase in	average	loans	(4%)	and	average	deposits	(5%),	partially	offset	by	a	decline	in investment	sales	(15%).	Cards	revenues	decreased	2%,	primarily	due	to	higher payment	rates	in	Mexico	resulting	from	the	business'	focus	on	higher	credit	quality customers,	consistent	with	GCB's	strategy,	as	well	as	muted	volumes	(low purchase	sales	growth	and	unchanged	average	loans).	Cards	revenues	were	also negatively	impacted	by	ongoing	shifts	in	consumer	behavior,	including	due	to	the previously-disclosed	regulatory	reforms	enacted	in	2013	in	Mexico.	Latin	America GCB	expects	the	cards	payment	rate	in	Mexico	to	remain	elevated	in	2016. Expenses	increased	5%,	primarily	due	to	higher	regulatory	and	compliance costs,	higher	technology	spending	and	mandatory	salary	increases	in	certain countries,	partially	offset	by	lower	repositioning	charges,	lower	legal	and	related costs	and	ongoing	efficiency	savings.

Provisions	were	unchanged	as	higher	net	credit	losses	were	partially	offset	by a	lower	net	loan	loss	reserve	build.	Net	credit	losses	increased	1%,	largely reflecting	portfolio	growth	as	well	as	net	credit	losses	incurred	in	the	commercial banking	portfolio	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015	associated	with	a	wind-down portfolio	in	Brazil,	most	of	which	was	offset	by	the	release	of	previously- established	loan	loss	reserves.	The	higher	net	credit	losses	were	partially	offset	by the	absence	of	a	$71	million	charge-off	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2014	related	to Citi's	homebuilder	exposure	in	Mexico.	The	net	loan	loss	reserve	build	declined 13%,	primarily	due	to	lower	builds	related	to	Mexico	cards,	partially	offset	by higher	builds	related	to	Brazil	in	the	second	half	of	2015,	as	well	as	the	absence	of the	releases	related	to	the	Mexico	homebuilder	exposure	in	2014.

# Argentina/Venezuela

For	additional	information	on	Citi's	exposures	and	risks	in	Argentina	and Venezuela,	see	"Managing	Global	Risk—Country	Risk"	below.

Net	income	increased	7%	as	higher	revenues	were	partially	offset	by	higher expenses	and	credit	costs.

Revenues	increased	4%,	primarily	due	to	volume	growth	and	spread	and	fee growth	in	Mexico,	partially	offset	by	continued	spread	compression	in	the	region and	slower	overall	economic	growth	in	certain	Latin	America	markets,	including Mexico	and	Brazil	during	2014.	Retail	banking	revenues	increased	3%	as	average loans	increased	6%,	investment	sales	increased	25%	and	average	deposits	increased 6%,	partially	offset	by	lower	spreads	in	Brazil	and	Colombia.	Cards	revenues increased	8%	as	average	loans	increased	5%	and	purchase	sales	increased	1%, excluding	the	impact	of	Credicard's	results	in	the	prior-year	period	(for	additional information,	see	Note	2	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements).	The	increase	in cards	revenues	was	partially	offset	by	lower	economic	growth	and	slowing	cards purchase	sales	in	Mexico	due	to	the	regulatory	reforms	enacted	during	2013,	as referenced	above.

Expenses	increased	5%,	primarily	due	to	mandatory	salary	increases	in	certain countries,	higher	legal	and	related	costs,	increased	repositioning	charges	and	higher technology	spending,	partially	offset	by	productivity	and	repositioning	savings.

Provisions	increased	5%,	primarily	due	to	higher	net	credit	losses,	which	were partially	offset	by	a	lower	loan	loss	reserve	build.	Net	credit	losses	increased	22%, driven	by	portfolio	growth	and	continued	seasoning	in	the	Mexico	cards	portfolio. Net	credit	losses	were	also	impacted	by	both	the	slower	economic	growth	and regulatory	reforms	in	Mexico	as	well	as	the	$71	million	charge-off	related	to	Citi's homebuilder	exposure	in	Mexico.

# ASIA	GCB

Asia	GCB	provides	traditional	retail	banking,	including	commercial	banking,	and	its	Citi-branded	card	products	to	retail	customers	and	small	to	mid-size	businesses,	as applicable.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	most	significant	revenues	in	the	region	were	from	Korea,	Singapore,	Hong	Kong,	Australia,	India,	Taiwan,	Malaysia,	Thailand,

Indonesia	and	the	Philippines.	In	addition,	for	reporting	purposes,	Asia	GCB	includes	the	results	of	operations	of	EMEA	GCB,	which	provides	traditional	retail	banking, including	commercial	banking,	and	Citi-branded	card	products	to	retail	customers	and	small	to	mid-size	businesses,	primarily	in	Poland,	Russia	and	the	United	Arab Emirates.

At	December	31,	2015,	on	a	combined	basis,	the	businesses	had	520	retail	branches,	approximately	17.5	million	retail	banking	customer	accounts,	$71.0	billion	in	retail banking	loans	and	$87.8	billion	in	deposits.	In	addition,	the	business	had	approximately	16.9	million	Citi-branded	card	accounts	with	$17.7	billion	in	outstanding	loan balances.

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	as	otherwise	noted (1) | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $4,557 | $5,049 | $5,163 | (10)% | (2)% |
| Non-interest\trevenue | 2,534 | 2,839 | 2,768 | (11) | 3 |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $7,091 | $7,888 | $7,931 | (10)% | (1)% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $4,634 | $5,271 | $5,017 | (12)% | 5\t% |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses | $727 | $793 | $771 | (8)% | 3\t% |
| Credit\treserve\tbuild\t(release) | (73) | (26) | 19 | NM | NM |
| Provision\t(release)\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | (3) | (14) | 31 | 79 | NM |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses | $651 | $753 | $821 | (14)% | (8)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\ttaxes | $1,806 | $1,864 | $2,093 | (3)% | (11)% |
| Income\ttaxes | 607 | 615 | 686 | (1) | (10) |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $1,199 | $1,249 | $1,407 | (4)% | (11)% |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | 6 | 20 | 11 | (70) | 82 |
| Net\tincome | $1,193 | $1,229 | $1,396 | (3)% | (12)% |
| Balance\tSheet\tdata\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Average\tassets | $120 | $122 | $119 | (2)% | 3\t% |
| Return\ton\taverage\tassets | 0.99% | 1.01% | 1.17% |  |  |
| Efficiency\tratio | 65 | 67 | 63 |  |  |
| Average\tdeposits | $87.9 | $89.7 | $89.4 | (2) | — |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\taverage\tloans | 0.80% | 0.82% | 0.84% |  |  |
| Revenue\tby\tbusiness |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail\tbanking | $4,491 | $4,866 | $4,771 | (8)% | 2\t% |
| Citi-branded\tcards | 2,600 | 3,022 | 3,160 | (14) | (4) |
| Total | $7,091 | $7,888 | $7,931 | (10)% | (1)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tby\tbusiness |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail\tbanking | $740 | $692 | $719 | 7\t% | (4)% |
| Citi-branded\tcards | 459 | 557 | 688 | (18) | (19) |
| Total | $1,199 | $1,249 | $1,407 | (4)% | (11)% |

| Total	revenues—as	reported | $7,091 | $7,888 | $7,931 | (10)% | (1)% |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(2) | — | (587) | (789) |  |  |
| Total\trevenues—ex-FX | $7,091 | $7,301 | $7,142 | (3)% | 2\t% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses—as\treported | $4,634 | $5,271 | $5,017 | (12)% | 5\t% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(2) | — | (434) | (478) |  |  |
| Total\toperating\texpenses—ex-FX | $4,634 | $4,837 | $4,539 | (4)% | 7\t% |
| Provisions\tfor\tloan\tlosses—as\treported | $651 | $753 | $821 | (14)% | (8)% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(2) | — | (97) | (102) |  |  |
| Provisions\tfor\tloan\tlosses—ex-FX | $651 | $656 | $719 | (1)% | (9)% |
| Net\tincome—as\treported | $1,193 | $1,229 | $1,396 | (3)% | (12)% |
| Impact\tof\tFX\ttranslation(2) | — | (17) | (78) |  |  |
| Net\tincome—ex-FX | $1,193 | $1,212 | $1,318 | (2)% | (8)% |

The	discussion	of	the	results	of	operations	for	Asia	GCB	below	excludes	the	impact	of	FX	translation	for	all	periods	presented.	Presentations	of	the	results	of	operations, excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	are	non-GAAP	financial	measures.	For	a	reconciliation	of	certain	of	these	metrics	to	the	reported	results,	see	the	table	above.

Net	income	decreased	2%,	primarily	due	to	lower	revenues,	partially	offset	by lower	expenses.

Revenues	decreased	3%,	primarily	due	to	an	industry-wide	slowdown	in investment	sales,	particularly	in	the	second	half	of	2015,	as	well	as	spread compression	and	higher	payment	rates	and	the	ongoing	impact	of	regulatory changes	in	cards,	partially	offset	by	volume	growth.

Retail	banking	revenues	decreased	2%,	mainly	due	to	a	decline	in	investment sales	revenue,	particularly	in	Taiwan,	Singapore,	India,	Korea	and	Indonesia, reflecting	weaker	customer	confidence	due	to	slowing	economic	growth	and volatility	in	the	capital	markets,	as	well	as	spread	compression,	particularly	in Poland.	This	decline	in	revenues	was	partially	offset	by	higher	volumes,	driven	by lending	(2%	increase	in	average	loans),	deposit	products	(5%	increase	in	average deposits)	and	higher	insurance	fee	revenues.	Citi	expects	investment	sales	revenues could	continue	to	be	challenged	in	2016,	depending	upon	overall	consumer sentiment,	economic	growth	and	the	capital	markets	environment	in	the	region. Cards	revenues	decreased	5%,	primarily	due	to	spread	compression,	including continued	high	payment	rates,	and	the	ongoing	impact	of	regulatory	changes, particularly	in	Singapore,	Taiwan,	Australia,	Malaysia	and	Poland,	partially	offset by	modest	volume	growth	(a	3%	increase	in	average	loans	and	a	5%	increase	in purchase	sales).	Cards	revenues	were	also	impacted	by	the	weaker	customer confidence,	primarily	in	the	second	half	of	2015.	Spread	compression	and regulatory	changes	will	likely	continue	to	have	a	negative	impact	on	cards	revenues in	the	near	term.

Expenses	decreased	4%,	primarily	due	to	the	absence	of	repositioning	charges in	Korea	in	2014	and	efficiency	savings,	partially	offset	by	higher	regulatory	and compliance	costs,

investment	spending,	volume-related	growth	and	compensation	expense.

Provisions	decreased	1%,	primarily	due	to	higher	loan	loss	reserve	releases, largely	offset	by	an	increase	in	net	credit	losses	related	to	the	consumer	business	in Russia	due	to	a	deterioration	in	the	economic	environment.	Overall	credit	quality remained	stable	across	the	region	during	2015.

Net	income	decreased	8%,	primarily	due	to	higher	expenses,	partially	offset	by lower	credit	costs	and	higher	revenues.

Revenues	increased	2%,	reflecting	higher	retail	banking	revenues,	partially offset	by	lower	cards	revenues.	Retail	banking	revenues	increased	4%,	due	to higher	insurance	fee	revenues	and	volume	growth	(average	retail	loans	increased 8%	and	average	retail	deposits	increased	2%),	partially	offset	by	the	ongoing impact	of	regulatory	changes	and	continued	spread	compression.

Cards	revenues	decreased	1%,	due	to	the	impact	of	regulatory	changes, particularly	in	Korea,	Indonesia	and	Singapore,	spread	compression	and	customer deleveraging,	largely	offset	by	a	2%	increase	in	average	loans	and	a	3%	increase	in purchase	sales	driven	by	growth	in	China,	India,	Singapore	and	Hong	Kong. Expenses	increased	7%,	primarily	due	to	higher	repositioning	charges	in Korea,	investment	spending	and	volume-related	growth,	partially	offset	by	higher efficiency	savings.

Provisions	decreased	9%,	primarily	due	to	higher	overall	loan	loss	reserve releases,	partially	offset	by	a	loan	loss	reserve	build	related	to	the	consumer business	in	Russia.

# INSTITUTIONAL	CLIENTS	GROUP

Institutional	Clients	Group	(ICG)	provides	corporate,	institutional,	public	sector	and	high-net-worth	clients	around	the	world	with	a	full	range	of	wholesale	banking	products and	services,	including	fixed	income	and	equity	sales	and	trading,	foreign	exchange,	prime	brokerage,	derivative	services,	equity	and	fixed	income	research,	corporate lending,	investment	banking	and	advisory	services,	private	banking,	cash	management,	trade	finance	and	securities	services.	ICG	transacts	with	clients	in	both	cash instruments	and	derivatives,	including	fixed	income,	foreign	currency,	equity	and	commodity	products.

ICG	revenue	is	generated	primarily	from	fees	and	spreads	associated	with	these	activities.	ICG	earns	fee	income	for	assisting	clients	in	clearing	transactions,	providing brokerage	and	investment	banking	services	and	other	such	activities.	Revenue	generated	from	these	activities	is	recorded	in	Commissions	and	fees	and	Investment	banking.	In addition,	as	a	market	maker,	ICG	facilitates	transactions,	including	holding	product	inventory	to	meet	client	demand,	and	earns	the	differential	between	the	price	at	which	it buys	and	sells	the	products.	These	price	differentials	and	the	unrealized	gains	and	losses	on	the	inventory	are	recorded	in	Principal	transactions.	Other	primarily	includes mark-to-market	gains	and	losses	on	credit	derivatives,	gains	and	losses	on	available-for-sale	(AFS)	securities	and	other	non-recurring	gains	and	losses.	Interest	income	earned on	inventory	and	loans	held	less	interest	paid	to	customers	on	deposits	is	recorded	as	Net	interest	revenue.	Revenue	is	also	generated	from	transaction	processing	and	assets under	custody	and	administration.

ICG's	international	presence	is	supported	by	trading	floors	in	approximately	80	countries	and	a	proprietary	network	in	over	95	countries	and	jurisdictions.	At December	31,	2015,	ICG	had	approximately	$1.2	trillion	of	assets	and	$587	billion	of	deposits,	while	two	of	its	businesses,	securities	services	and	issuer	services,	managed approximately	$15.1	trillion	of	assets	under	custody	compared	to	$16.1	trillion	at	the	end	of	2014.	The	decline	in	assets	under	custody	from	2014	was	primarily	due	to	the impact	of	FX	translation	and	a	decline	in	market	volumes.

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	as	otherwise	noted | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Commissions\tand\tfees | $3,855 | $3,995 | $3,980 | (4)% | —\t% |
| Administration\tand\tother\tfiduciary\tfees | 2,424 | 2,520 | 2,576 | (4) | (2) |
| Investment\tbanking | 4,110 | 4,269 | 3,862 | (4) | 11 |
| Principal\ttransactions | 5,823 | 5,905 | 6,489 | (1) | (9) |
| Other(1) | 1,337 | 661 | 905 | NM | (27) |
| Total\tnon-interest\trevenue | $17,549 | $17,350 | $17,812 | 1\t% | (3)% |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue\t(including\tdividends) | 16,199 | 15,702 | 15,510 | 3 | 1 |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $33,748 | $33,052 | $33,322 | 2\t% | (1)% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $18,985 | $19,391 | $19,645 | (2)% | (1)% |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses | $207 | $276 | $182 | (25)% | 52\t% |
| Credit\treserve\tbuild\t(release) | 627 | (90) | (157) | NM | 43 |
| Provision\t(release)\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | 95 | (129) | 53 | NM | NM |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses | $929 | $57 | $78 | NM | (27)% |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\ttaxes | $13,834 | $13,604 | $13,599 | 2\t% | —\t% |
| Income\ttaxes | 4,383 | 4,070 | 4,174 | 8 | (2) |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $9,451 | $9,534 | $9,425 | (1)% | 1\t% |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | 52 | 118 | 110 | (56) | 7 |
| Net\tincome | $9,399 | $9,416 | $9,315 | —\t% | 1\t% |
| Average\tassets\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) | $1,266 | $1,287 | $1,258 | (2)% | 2\t% |
| Return\ton\taverage\tassets | 0.74% | 0.73% | 0.74% |  |  |
| Efficiency\tratio | 56 | 59 | 59 |  |  |
| Revenues\tby\tregion |  |  |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $13,105 | $12,940 | $11,434 | 1\t% | 13\t% |
| EMEA | 9,799 | 9,415 | 10,061 | 4 | (6) |
| Latin\tAmerica | 3,918 | 4,098 | 4,675 | (4) | (12) |
| Asia | 6,926 | 6,599 | 7,152 | 5 | (8) |
| Total | $33,748 | $33,052 | $33,322 | 2\t% | (1)% |

(1)	Increase	in	2015	primarily	reflects	mark-to-market	gains	on	credit	derivatives.

| North	America | $3,621 | $4,113 | $3,081 | (12)% | 33	% |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| EMEA | 2,288 | 2,034 | 2,554 | 12 | (20) |
| Latin\tAmerica | 1,328 | 1,345 | 1,606 | (1) | (16) |
| Asia | 2,214 | 2,042 | 2,184 | 8 | (7) |
| Total | $9,451 | $9,534 | $9,425 | (1)% | 1\t% |
| Average\tloans\tby\tregion\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) |  |  |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $125 | $111 | $98 | 13\t% | 13\t% |
| EMEA | 59 | 58 | 55 | 2 | 5 |
| Latin\tAmerica | 39 | 40 | 38 | (3) | 5 |
| Asia | 62 | 68 | 65 | (9) | 5 |
| Total | $285 | $277 | $256 | 3\t% | 8\t% |
| EOP\tdeposits\tby\tbusiness\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Treasury\tand\ttrade\tsolutions | $392 | $380 | $380 | 3\t% | —\t% |
| All\tother\tICG\tbusinesses | 195 | 175 | 189 | 11 | (7) |
| Total | $587 | $555 | $569 | 6\t% | (2)% |

# ICG	Revenue	Details—Excluding	CVA/DVA	and	Gain/(Loss)	on	Loan	Hedges

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Investment\tbanking\trevenue\tdetails |  |  |  |  |  |
| Advisory | $1,102 | $949 | $851 | 16\t% | 12\t% |
| Equity\tunderwriting | 902 | 1,246 | 1,059 | (28) | 18 |
| Debt\tunderwriting | 2,539 | 2,512 | 2,504 | 1 | — |
| Total\tinvestment\tbanking | $4,543 | $4,707 | $4,414 | (3)% | 7\t% |
| Treasury\tand\ttrade\tsolutions | 7,767 | 7,767 | 7,720 | — | 1 |
| Corporate\tlending—excluding\tgain\t(loss)\ton\tloan\thedges(1) | 1,694 | 1,749 | 1,518 | (3) | 15 |
| Private\tbank | 2,860 | 2,660 | 2,494 | 8 | 7 |
| Total\tbanking\trevenues\t(ex-CVA/DVA\tand\tgain\t(loss)\ton\tloan\n\t\thedges) | $16,864 | $16,883 | $16,146 | —\t% | 5\t% |
| Corporate\tlending—gain/(loss)\ton\tloan\thedges(1) | $323 | $116 | $(287) | NM | NM |
| Total\tbanking\trevenues\t(ex-CVA/DVA\tand\tincluding\tgain\n\t\t(loss)\ton\tloan\thedges) | $17,187 | $16,999 | $15,859 | 1\t% | 7\t% |
| Fixed\tincome\tmarkets | $11,346 | $12,148 | $13,625 | (7)% | (11)% |
| Equity\tmarkets | 3,128 | 2,774 | 2,815 | 13 | (1) |
| Securities\tservices | 2,130 | 2,048 | 1,974 | 4 | 4 |
| Other | (312) | (574) | (606) | 46 | 5 |
| Total\tMarkets\tand\tsecurities\tservices\t(ex-CVA/DVA) | $16,292 | $16,396 | $17,808 | (1)% | (8)% |
| Total\tICG\t(ex-CVA/DVA) | $33,479 | $33,395 | $33,667 | —\t% | (1)% |
| CVA/DVA\t(excluded\tas\tapplicable\tin\tlines\tabove)(2) | 269 | (343) | (345) | NM | 1 |
| \t\t\t\t\tFixed\tincome\tmarkets | 215 | (359) | (300) | NM | (20) |
| \t\t\t\t\tEquity\tmarkets | 52 | 24 | (39) | NM | NM |
| \t\t\t\t\tPrivate\tbank | 2 | (8) | (6) | NM | (33) |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $33,748 | $33,052 | $33,322 | 2\t% | (1)% |

(1) Hedges	on	accrual	loans	reflect	the	mark-to-market	on	credit	derivatives	used	to	economically	hedge	the	corporate	loan	accrual	portfolio.	The	fixed	premium	costs	of	these	hedges	are	netted	against the	corporate	lending	revenues	to	reflect	the	cost	of	credit	protection.

(2) Funding	valuation	adjustments	(FVA)	is	included	within	CVA	for	presentation	purposes.	For	additional	information,	see	Note 25	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

The	discussion	of	the	results	of	operations	for	ICG	below	excludes	the	impact	of	CVA/DVA	for	all	periods	presented.	Presentations	of	the	results	of	operations,	excluding	the impact	of	CVA/DVA	and	the	impact	of	gains/(losses)	on	hedges	on	accrual	loans,	are	non-GAAP	financial	measures.	For	a	reconciliation	of	these	metrics	to	the	reported results,	see	the	table	above.

Net	income	decreased	4%,	primarily	driven	by	higher	credit	costs,	partially	offset by	lower	expenses.

•Revenues	were	largely	unchanged,	reflecting	lower	revenues	in	Markets	and securities	services	(decrease	of	1%)	and	a	modest	increase	in	revenues	in Banking	(increase	of	1%,	but	unchanged	excluding	the	gains/(losses)	on hedges	on	accrual	loans).	Citi	expects	revenues	in	ICG,	particularly	in	its Markets	and	securities	services	businesses,	will	likely	continue	to	reflect	the overall	market	environment.

# Within	Banking:

•Investment	banking	revenues	decreased	3%,	largely	reflecting	an	industry- wide	activity	decline	in	underwriting	activity.	Advisory	revenues	increased 16%,	reflecting	increased	target	client	activity	and	strength	in	the	overall M&A	market.	Equity	underwriting	revenues	decreased	28%	driven	by	the lower	market	activity	and	a	decline	in	wallet	share	resulting	from	continued share	fragmentation.	Debt	underwriting	revenues	increased	1%,	driven	by increased	wallet	share	in	investment	grade	debt	and	strong	performance	in investment	grade	loans	in	the	second	half	of	2015,	partially	offset	by	the	lower market	activity	and	decreased	wallet	share	in	high-yield	and	leveraged	loans. •Treasury	and	trade	solutions	revenues	were	largely	unchanged.	Excluding	the impact	of	FX	translation,	revenues	increased	6%,	as	continued	growth	in deposit	balances	across	regions	and	improved	spreads,	particularly	in	North America,	were	partially	offset	by	continued	declines	in	trade	balances	and spreads.	End-of-period	deposit	balances	increased	3%	(7%	excluding	the impact	of	FX	translation),	largely	driven	by	Asia	and	Latin	America.	Average trade	loans	decreased	12%	(9%	excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation),	as	the business	maintained	origination	volumes	while	reducing	lower	spread	assets and	increasing	asset	sales	to	optimize	returns	(see	"Managing	Global	Risk— Liquidity	Risk"	below).

•Corporate	lending	revenues	increased	8%.	Excluding	the	impact	of gains/(losses)	on	hedges	on	accrual	loans,	revenues	decreased	3%.	Excluding the	impact	of	FX	translation	and	gains/(losses)	on	hedges	on	accrual	loans, revenues	increased	3%	as	continued	growth	in	average	loan	balances,	lower hedge	premium	costs	and	an	improvement	in	mark-to-market	adjustments were	partially	offset	by	lower	spreads,	particularly	in	EMEA. •Private	bank	revenues	increased	8%,	reflecting	strength	in	North	America, Asia	and	EMEA,	primarily	due	to	growth	in	loan	volumes	and	deposit balances,	improved	spreads	in	banking	and	higher	managed	investments revenues,	partially	offset	by	continued	spread	compression	in	lending.

# Within	Markets	and	securities	services:

•Fixed	income	markets	revenues	decreased	7%,	driven	by	North	America, primarily	due	to	a	volatile	trading	environment	during	2015	due	to macroeconomic	uncertainty.	The	decrease	in	fixed	income	markets	revenues resulted	from	a	decline	in	spread	products	revenues	(credit	markets, securitized	markets	and	municipals),	partially	offset	by	strength	in	rates	and currencies.	Rates	and	currencies	revenues	increased	4%	due	to	higher	revenues in	local	markets	and	overall	G10	products,	partially	offset	by	G10	foreign exchange.

•Equity	markets	revenues	increased	13%,	primarily	reflecting	improved performance	across	products,	including	derivatives	and	prime	finance,	with strength	in	Asia	and	EMEA.

•Securities	services	revenues	increased	4%.	Excluding	the	impact	of	FX translation,	revenues	increased	15%,	reflecting	increased	client	activity	and higher	client	balances.

Expenses	decreased	2%	as	efficiency	savings,	the	impact	of	FX	translation	and lower	repositioning	charges	were	partially	offset	by	increased	regulatory	and compliance	costs	and	compensation	expense.

Provisions	increased	$872	million	to	$929	million,	primarily	reflecting	a	net loan	loss	reserve	build	($722	million),	compared	to	a	net	loan	loss	reserve	release ($219	million)	in	2014.	The	net	loan	loss	reserve	build	included	approximately $530	million	for	energy	and	energy-related	exposures,	including	$250	million	in the	fourth	quarter	of	2015,	due	to	the	significant	decline	in	commodity	prices during	the	second	half	of	2015.	(For	additional	information	on	Citi's	energy	and energy-related	exposures,	see	"Managing	Global	Risk—Credit	Risk—Corporate Credit"	below.)	The	remainder	of	the	build	during	2015	was	primarily	due	to volume	growth	and	overall	macroeconomic	conditions.

The	higher	net	loan	loss	reserve	build	during	2015	was	partially	offset	by lower	net	credit	losses.	Net	credit	losses	decreased	25%,	primarily	due	to	the absence	of	net	credit	losses	of	approximately	$165	million	related	to	the	Petróleos Mexicanos	(Pemex)	supplier	program,	which	were	incurred	during	2014	(for additional	information,	see	Citi's	Form	8-K	filed	with	the	SEC	on	February	28, 2014),	partially	offset	by	increased	net	credit	losses	related	to	a	limited	number	of energy	and	energy-related	exposures,	including	approximately	$75	million	in	the fourth	quarter	of	2015.

Looking	to	2016,	cost	of	credit	in	ICG	will	largely	depend	on	the	price	of	oil and	other	commodity	prices	as	well	as	macroeconomic	conditions.	To	the	extent commodity	prices	remain	at	year-end	2015	levels,	or	deteriorate	further,	ICG expects	to	incur	additional	loan	loss	reserve	builds	in	its	energy	and	energy-related portfolios,	which	could	be	significant,	and	Citi's	corporate	non-accrual	loans	could be	negatively	impacted.	Such	events	as	well	as	macroeconomic	conditions	could also	negatively	impact	Citi's	other	corporate	credit	portfolios.

Net	income	increased	1%,	primarily	driven	by	lower	expenses,	largely	offset	by lower	revenues.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the	net	fraud	loss	of	$360	million	in Mexico	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2013,	net	income	decreased	1%,	primarily	driven by	the	lower	revenues	and	higher	expenses,	largely	offset	by	lower	credit	costs.

•Revenues	decreased	1%,	reflecting	lower	revenues	in	Markets	and	securities services	(decrease	of	8%),	partially	offset	by	higher	revenues	in	Banking (increase	of	7%,	or	5%	excluding	the	gains/(losses)	on	hedges	on	accrual loans).

•Investment	banking	revenues	increased	7%,	reflecting	a	stronger	overall market	environment	and	improved	wallet	share	with	ICG's	target	clients, partially	offset	by	a	modest	decline	in	overall	wallet	share.	The	decline	in overall	wallet	share	was	primarily	driven	by	equity	and	debt	underwriting	and reflected	market	fragmentation.	Advisory	revenues	increased	12%,	reflecting the	increased	target	client	activity	and	an	expansion	of	the	overall	M&A market.	Equity	underwriting	revenues	increased	18%	largely	in	line	with overall	growth	in	market	fees.	Debt	underwriting	revenues	were	largely unchanged.

•Treasury	and	trade	solutions	revenues	increased	1%.	Excluding	the	impact	of FX	translation,	revenues	increased	3%	as	continued	higher	deposit	balances, fee	growth	and	trade	activity	were	partially	offset	by	the	impact	of	spread compression	globally.	End-of-period	deposit	balances	were	unchanged,	but increased	3%	excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	largely	driven	by	North America.	Average	trade	loans	decreased	9%	(7%	excluding	the	impact	of	FX translation).

•Corporate	lending	revenues	increased	52%.	Excluding	the	impact	of gains/(losses)	on	hedges	on	accrual	loans,	revenues	increased	15%,	primarily due	to	continued	growth	in	average	loan	balances	and	lower	funding	costs. •Private	bank	revenues	increased	7%	due	to	growth	in	client	business	volumes and	improved	spreads	in	banking,	higher	capital	markets	activity	and	an increase	in	assets	under	management	in	managed	investments,	partially	offset by	continued	spread	compression	in	lending.

•Fixed	income	markets	revenues	decreased	11%,	driven	by	a	decrease	in	rates and	currencies	revenues,	partially	offset	by	increased	securitized	products	and commodities	revenues.	Rates	and	currencies	revenues	declined	due	to historically	muted	levels	of	volatility,	uncertainties	around	Russia	and	Greece and	lower	client	activity	in	the	first	half	of	2014.	In	addition,	the	first	half	of 2013	included	a	strong	performance	in	rates	and	currencies,	driven	in	part	by the	impact	of	quantitative	easing	globally.	Municipals	and	credit	markets revenues	declined	due	to	challenging	trading	conditions	resulting	from macroeconomic	uncertainties,	particularly	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2014.	These declines	were	partially	offset	by	increased

securitized	products	and	commodities	revenues,	largely	in	North	America. •Equity	markets	revenues	decreased	1%,	primarily	reflecting	weakness	in EMEA,	particularly	cash	equities,	driven	by	volatility	in	Europe,	largely	offset by	improved	performance	in	prime	finance	due	to	increased	customer	flows. •Securities	services	revenues	increased	4%.	Excluding	the	impact	of	FX translation,	revenues	increased	5%	due	to	increased	volumes,	assets	under custody	and	overall	client	activity.

Expenses	decreased	1%	as	efficiency	savings,	the	absence	of	the	net	fraud	loss and	lower	performance-based	compensation	were	partially	offset	by	higher repositioning	charges	and	legal	and	related	expenses	as	well	as	increased regulatory	and	compliance	costs.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the	net	fraud	loss, expenses	increased	1%,	as	higher	repositioning	charges	and	legal	and	related expenses	as	well	as	increased	regulatory	and	compliance	costs	were	partially	offset by	efficiency	savings	and	lower	performance-based	compensation.

Provisions	decreased	27%,	primarily	reflecting	a	release	for	unfunded	lending commitments	in	the	corporate	loan	portfolio,	compared	to	a	build	in	2013,	partially offset	by	higher	net	credit	losses	and	a	lower	loan	loss	reserve	release	driven	by	the overall	economic	environment.	Net	credit	losses	increased	52%,	largely	related	to the	Pemex	supplier	program	during	2014	as	well	as	write-offs	related	to	a	specific counterparty.

# CORPORATE/OTHER

Corporate/Other	includes	certain	unallocated	costs	of	global	staff	functions	(including	finance,	risk,	human	resources,	legal	and	compliance),	other	corporate	expenses	and unallocated	global	operations	and	technology	expenses,	Corporate	Treasury	and	discontinued	operations.	At	December	31,	2015,	Corporate/Other	had	$52	billion	of	assets, or	3%	of	Citigroup's	total	assets.	For	additional	information,	see	"Managing	Global	Risk—Liquidity	Risk"	below.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $(154) | $(224) | $(610) | 31\t% | 63\t% |
| Non-interest\trevenue | 1,061 | 525 | 932 | NM | (44) |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $907 | $301 | $322 | NM | (7)% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $1,751 | $6,020 | $1,052 | (71)% | NM |
| Provisions\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | — | — | — | — | — |
| Loss\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\ttaxes | $(844) | $(5,719) | $(730) | 85\t% | NM |
| Income\ttaxes\t(benefits) | (1,339) | (344) | (216) | NM | (59) |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $495 | $(5,375) | $(514) | NM | NM |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | (54) | (2) | 270 | NM | NM |
| Net\tincome\t(loss)\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $441 | $(5,377) | $(244) | NM | NM |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | 18 | 43 | 87 | (58)% | (51) |
| Net\tincome\t(loss) | $423 | $(5,420) | $(331) | NM | NM |

Net	income	was	$423	million,	compared	to	a	net	loss	of	$5.4	billion	in	2014, largely	reflecting	significantly	lower	expenses,	an	increased	tax	benefit	due	to	legal entity	restructurings	and	resolution	of	certain	state	and	local	audits	in	the	second quarter	of	2015,	as	well	as	higher	revenues.

Revenues	increased	$606	million	to	$907	million,	primarily	due	to	gains	on debt	buybacks	during	the	course	of	2015	and	real	estate	sales	in	the	second	quarter of	2015	as	well	as	higher	revenues	from	sales	of	AFS	securities,	partially	offset	by hedging	activities.

Expenses	decreased	$4.3	billion	to	$1.8	billion,	largely	driven	by	lower	legal and	related	expenses	($796	million	compared	to	$4.4	billion	in	2014),	a	benefit from	FX	translation	and	lower	repositioning	charges.

During	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015,	a	change	was	enacted	to	the	dividend	rate Citi	is	entitled	to	receive	on	the	shares	of	capital	stock	it	is	required	to	hold	in	the Federal	Reserve	System.	Pursuant	to	current	requirements,	Citibank,	N.A. (Citibank)	is	required	to	purchase	stock	equal	to	3%	of	its	capital	stock	and	surplus (with	an	additional	3%	subject	to	call	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board).	As	a	result	of the	recent	change,	effective	January	1,	2016,	the	statutory	dividend	Citi	is	to receive	on	these	shares	will	decrease	from	a	fixed	6%	to	the	lesser	of	(i)	the	high- yield	rate	paid	on	the	10-year	U.S.	Treasury	note	based	on	the	auction	immediately preceding	the	dividend	payment,	and	(ii)	6%.	While	the	actual	impact	to Corporate/Other	revenues	(where	Citi	records	this	dividend)	will	be	based	on	the number	of	shares	of	Federal	Reserve	System	capital	stock	it	holds	at	any	given time	as	well	as	the	quarter-to-quarter	operational	activities	impacting	the	result	of operations	of	Corporate/Other,	based	on	year-end	amounts,	Citi	estimates	this change	could	negatively	impact	revenues	in

Corporate/Other	by	approximately	$160	million	annually	going	forward.

The	net	loss	increased	$5.1	billion	to	$5.4	billion,	primarily	due	to	higher	legal	and related	expenses.

Revenues	decreased	7%,	primarily	driven	by	lower	revenues	from	sales	of AFS	securities	as	well	as	hedging	activities.

Expenses	increased	$5.0	billion	to	$6.0	billion,	largely	driven	by	the	higher legal	and	related	expenses	($4.4	billion	compared	to	$172	million	in	2013)	as	well as	increased	regulatory	and	compliance	costs	and	higher	repositioning	charges.

Citi	Holdings	contains	the	remaining	businesses	and	portfolios	of	assets	that	Citigroup	has	determined	are	not	central	to	its	core	Citicorp	businesses.	Consistent	with	this determination,	beginning	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016,	Citi's	consumer	businesses	in	Argentina,	Brazil	and	Colombia	will	be	reported	as	part	of	Citi	Holdings	(for	additional information,	see	"Citigroup	Segments"	and	"Citicorp"	above).

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	Holdings	assets	were	approximately	$74	billion,	a	decrease	of	43%	year-over-year	and	33%	from	September	30,	2015.	The	decline	in assets	of	$36	billion	from	September	30,	2015	primarily	consisted	of	divestitures	and	run-off,	including,	among	others,	completion	of	the	sales	of	Citi's	retail	banking	and credit	cards	businesses	in	Japan	and	OneMain	Financial.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	signed	agreements	to	reduce	Citi	Holdings	GAAP	assets	by	an	additional	$7 billion	in	2016,	subject	to	regulatory	approvals	and	other	closing	conditions.

Also	as	of	December	31,	2015,	consumer	assets	in	Citi	Holdings	were	approximately	$64	billion,	or	approximately	86%	of	Citi	Holdings	assets.	Of	the	consumer assets,	approximately	$38	billion,	or	59%,	consisted	of	North	America	mortgages	(residential	first	mortgages	and	home	equity	loans).	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi Holdings	represented	approximately	4%	of	Citi's	GAAP	assets	and	11%	of	its	risk-weighted	assets	under	Basel	III	(based	on	the	Advanced	Approaches	for	determining	risk- weighted	assets).

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	as	otherwise	noted | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | %	Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 | %	Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $3,704 | $4,591 | $4,348 | (19)% | 6\t% |
| Non-interest\trevenue | 4,133 | 3,258 | 2,427 | 27 | 34 |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $7,837 | $7,849 | $6,775 | —\t% | 16\t% |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims |  |  |  |  |  |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses | $1,066 | $1,837 | $3,264 | (42)% | (44)% |
| Credit\treserve\trelease | (503) | (907) | (2,048) | 45 | 56 |
| Provision\tfor\tloan\tlosses | $563 | $930 | $1,216 | (39)% | (24)% |
| Provision\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | 624 | 657 | 663 | (5) | (1) |
| Release\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | (26) | (10) | (10) | NM | — |
| Total\tprovisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | $1,161 | $1,577 | $1,869 | (26)% | (16)% |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $4,615 | $9,689 | $7,910 | (52)% | 22\t% |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\ttaxes | $2,061 | $(3,417) | $(3,004) | NM | (14)% |
| Income\ttaxes\t(benefits) | 1,003 | 57 | (1,133) | NM | NM |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $1,058 | $(3,474) | $(1,871) | NM | (86)% |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | $11 | $6 | $16 | 83\t% | (63)% |
| Net\tincome\t(loss) | $1,047 | $(3,480) | $(1,887) | NM | (84)% |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense\t(excluding\tCVA/DVA) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\trevenues—as\treported | $7,837 | $7,849 | $6,775 | —\t% | 16\t% |
| \t\t\t\t\tCVA/DVA(1) | (15) | (47) | 3 | 68 | NM |
| Total\trevenues-excluding\tCVA/DVA | $7,852 | $7,896 | $6,772 | (1)% | 17\t% |
| Balance\tsheet\tdata\t(in\tbillions\tof\tdollars) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Average\tassets | $112 | $144 | $173 | (22)% | (17)% |
| Return\ton\taverage\tassets | 0.93% | (2.42)% | (1.09)% |  |  |
| Efficiency\tratio | 59 | 123 | 117 |  |  |
| Total\tEOP\tassets | $74 | $129 | $154 | (43) | (16) |
| Total\tEOP\tloans | 45 | 79 | 100 | (43) | (21) |
| Total\tEOP\tdeposits | 7 | 17 | 69 | (59) | (75) |

(1) FVA	is	included	within	CVA	for	presentation	purposes.	For	additional	information,	see	Note	 25	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

The	discussion	of	the	results	of	operations	for	Citi	Holdings	below	excludes	the	impact	of	CVA/DVA	for	all	periods	presented.	Presentations	of	the	results	of	operations, excluding	the	impact	of	CVA/DVA,	are	non-GAAP	financial	measures.	Citi	believes	the	presentation	of	Citi	Holdings'	results	excluding	the	impact	of	CVA/DVA	is	a	more meaningful	depiction	of	the	underlying	fundamentals	of	the	business.	For	a	reconciliation	of	these	metrics	to	the	reported	results,	see	the	table	above.

Net	income	was	$1.1	billion,	an	improvement	from	a	net	loss	of	$3.5	billion	in 2014,	largely	due	to	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement	in	2014	(see	"Executive Summary"	above).	Excluding	the	mortgage	settlement,	net	income	increased	$782 million,	primarily	due	to	lower	expenses	and	lower	net	credit	losses,	partially offset	by	a	lower	net	loan	loss	reserve	release.	While	Citi	Holdings	expects	to	have positive	net	income	during	2016,	given	the	significant	asset	sales	and	declines	in overall	Citi	Holdings'	assets	during	2015,	it	does	not	expect	to	generate	the	same level	of	net	income	in	2016	as	in	2015.

Revenues	decreased	1%,	primarily	driven	by	the	overall	wind-down	of	the portfolio,	the	impact	of	redemptions	of	high	cost	debt	and	the	impact	of	recording OneMain	Financial	net	credit	losses	as	a	reduction	of	revenue	beginning	in	the second	quarter	of	2015,	mostly	offset	by	higher	gains	on	asset	sales,	including	in the	fourth	quarter	of	2015	due	to	the	sales	of	OneMain	Financial	and	the	retail banking	and	credit	cards	businesses	in	Japan.

Expenses	declined	52%.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement, expenses	declined	22%,	primarily	due	to	the	ongoing	decline	in	assets	and	lower legal	and	related	costs	($420	million	compared	to	$986	million	in	2014).

Provisions	decreased	26%.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement, provisions	decreased	24%,	driven	by	lower	net	credit	losses,	partially	offset	by	a lower	net	loss	reserve	release.	Net	credit	losses	declined	42%,	primarily	due	to	the impact	of	the	recording	of	OneMain	Financial	net	credit	losses	as	a	reduction	in revenue,	continued	improvements	in	North	America	mortgages	and	overall	lower asset	levels.	The	net	reserve	release	decreased	42%.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the mortgage	settlement,	the	net	reserve	release	decreased	46%	to	$529	million, primarily	due	to	lower	releases	related	to	the	North	America	mortgage	portfolio	as the	portfolio	has	been	reduced	and	credit	has	improved.

The	net	loss	increased	by	$1.6	billion	to	$3.5	billion,	largely	due	to	the	impact	of the	mortgage	settlement,	partially	offset	by	higher	revenues	and	lower	cost	of credit.	Excluding	the	mortgage	settlement,	net	income	increased	by	$2.2	billion	to $275	million,	primarily	due	to	lower	expenses,	lower	net	credit	losses	and	higher revenues,	partially	offset	by	a	lower	net	loan	loss	reserve	release.

Revenues	increased	17%,	primarily	driven	by	gains	on	asset	sales,	including the	sales	of	the	consumer	operations	in	Greece	and	Spain	in	the	third	quarter	of 2014,	lower	funding	costs	and	the	absence	of	residential	mortgage	repurchase reserve	builds	for	representation	and	warranty	claims	as	compared	to	2013, partially	offset	by	losses	on	the	redemption	of	debt	associated	with	funding	Citi Holdings	assets.

Expenses	increased	22%.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement, expenses	declined	25%,	primarily	driven

by	lower	legal	and	related	costs	($986	million	compared	to	$2.6	billion	in	2013)	as well	as	the	ongoing	decline	in	assets.

Provisions	decreased	16%.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the	mortgage	settlement, provisions	declined	19%,	driven	by	a	44%	decline	in	net	credit	losses	primarily	due to	continued	improvements	in	North	America	mortgages	and	overall	lower asset	levels.	The	net	reserve	release	decreased	55%.	Excluding	the	impact	of	the mortgage	settlement,	the	net	reserve	release	decreased	53%,	primarily	due	to	lower net	releases	related	to	the	North	America	mortgage	portfolio,	partially	offset	by lower	losses	on	asset	sales.

# Payment	Protection	Insurance	(PPI)

The	selling	of	PPI	by	financial	institutions	in	the	U.K.	has	been	the	subject	of intense	review	and	focus	by	U.K.	regulators	and,	more	recently,	the	U.K.	Supreme Court.	For	additional	information	on	PPI,	see	"Citi	Holdings"	in	Citi's	Annual Report	on	Form	10-K	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2013	filed	with	the	SEC	on March	3,	2014.

PPI	is	designed	to	cover	a	customer's	loan	repayments	if	certain	events	occur, such	as	long-term	illness	or	unemployment.	The	U.K.	Financial	Conduct	Authority (FCA)	found	certain	problems	across	the	industry	with	how	these	products	were sold,	including	customers	not	realizing	that	the	cost	of	PPI	premiums	was	being added	to	their	loan	or	PPI	being	unsuitable	for	the	customer.	Redress	generally involves	the	repayment	of	premiums	and	the	refund	of	all	applicable	contractual interest	together	with	compensatory	interest	of	8%.	In	addition,	during	the	fourth quarter	of	2014,	the	U.K.	Supreme	Court	issued	a	ruling	in	a	case	(Plevin) involving	PPI	pursuant	to	which	the	court	ruled,	independent	of	the	sale	of	the	PPI contract,	the	PPI	contract	at	issue	in	the	case	was	"unfair"	due	to	the	high	sales commissions	earned	and	the	lack	of	disclosure	to	the	customer	thereof.

During	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015,	the	FCA	issued	a	consultation	paper	that proposed	(1)	a	deadline	for	PPI	complaints	(both	non-Plevin	and	Plevin complaints)	of	two	years	after	the	effective	date	of	the	final	rules;	(2)	an	FCA-led customer	communications	campaign	in	advance	of	the	deadline,	with	bank	funding of	the	campaign;	and	(3)	a	failure	to	disclose	a	sales	commission	of	50%	or	more would	be	deemed	unfair	when	assessing	a	new	PPI	complaint	and	require	a customer	refund	of	the	difference	between	the	commission	paid	and	50%,	plus interest.	Final	rules	are	expected	from	the	FCA	in	spring	2016.

During	2015,	Citi	increased	its	PPI	reserves	by	approximately	$153	million ($65	million	of	which	was	recorded	in	Citi	Holdings	and	$88	million	of	which	was recorded	in	discontinued	operations),	including	a	$106	million	reserve	increase	in the	fourth	quarter	of	2015	($39	million	of	which	was	recorded	in	Citi	Holdings	and $67	million	of	which	was	recorded	in	discontinued	operations).	The	increase	for full	year	2015	compared	to	an	increase	of	$118	million	during	2014.	While	the overall	level	of	claims	generally	remained

unchanged	in	2015,	the	increase	in	the	reserves	during	2015,	including	in	the	fourth quarter	of	2015,	was	due	in	part	to	the	Plevin	case	and	the	guidelines	set	forth	in the	FCA's	consultation	paper,	including	the	proposed	customer	communications campaign.

Additional	reserving	actions,	if	any,	in	2016	will	largely	depend	on	the	timing	of and	response	to	the	FCA's	final	rules,	including	the	level	of	customer	response	to any	communications	campaign.

# OFF-BALANCE	SHEET	ARRANGEMENTS

Citigroup	enters	into	various	types	of	off-balance	sheet	arrangements	in	the ordinary	course	of	business.	Citi's	involvement	in	these	arrangements	can	take many	different	forms,	including	without	limitation:

•purchasing	or	retaining	residual	and	other	interests	in	unconsolidated	special purpose	entities,	such	as	credit	card	receivables	and	mortgage-backed	and other	asset-backed	securitization	entities;

•holding	senior	and	subordinated	debt,	interests	in	limited	and	general partnerships	and	equity	interests	in	other	unconsolidated	special	purpose entities;

•providing	guarantees,	indemnifications,	loan	commitments,	letters	of	credit and	representations	and	warranties;	and

•entering	into	operating	leases	for	property	and	equipment.

Citi	enters	into	these	arrangements	for	a	variety	of	business	purposes.	For example,	securitization	arrangements	offer	investors	access	to	specific	cash	flows and	risks	created	through	the	securitization	process.	Securitization	arrangements also	assist	Citi	and	Citi's	customers	in	monetizing	their	financial	assets	and securing	financing	at	more	favorable	rates	than	Citi	or	the	customers	could otherwise	obtain.

The	table	below	shows	where	a	discussion	of	Citi's	various	off-balance	sheet arrangements	may	be	found	in	this	Form	10-K.	In	addition,	see	Notes	1,	22	and	27 to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Types	of	Off-Balance	Sheet	Arrangements	Disclosures	in	this	Form	10-K

# CONTRACTUAL	OBLIGATIONS

The	following	table	includes	information	on	Citigroup's	contractual	obligations,	as	specified	and	aggregated	pursuant	to	SEC	requirements.

|  |  |  |  |  |  | Contractual	obligations	by	year | Contractual	obligations	by	year |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Thereafter | Total |
| Long-term\tdebt\tobligations—principal(1) | $43,537 | $34,345 | $31,416 | $19,153 | $9,377 | $63,447 | $201,275 |
| Long-term\tdebt\tobligations—interest\tpayments(2) | 5,960 | 4,667 | 3,575 | 2,736 | 2,262 | 29,332 | 48,532 |
| Operating\tand\tcapital\tlease\tobligations | 1,238 | 1,002 | 778 | 698 | 567 | 4,483 | 8,766 |
| Purchase\tobligations(3) | 612 | 547 | 258 | 246 | 240 | 500 | 2,403 |
| Other\tliabilities(4) | 29,015 | 732 | 772 | 192 | 276 | 3,462 | 34,449 |
| Total | $80,362 | $41,293 | $36,799 | $23,025 | $12,722 | $101,224 | $295,425 |

(1) For	additional	information	about	long-term	debt	obligations,	see	"Managing	Global	Risk—Liquidity	Risk"	below	and	Note	18	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(2) Contractual	obligations	related	to	interest	payments	on	long-term	debt	for	2016–2020	are	calculated	by	applying	the	December	31,	2015	weighted-average	interest	rate	( 3.32%)	on	average	outstanding long-term	debt	to	the	average	remaining	contractual	obligations	on	long-term	debt	for	each	of	those	years.	The	"Thereafter"	interest	payments	on	long-term	debt	for	the	remaining	years	to	maturity (2021–2098)	are	calculated	by	applying	current	interest	rates	on	the	remaining	contractual	obligations	on	long-term	debt	for	each	of	those	years.

(3) Purchase	obligations	consist	of	obligations	to	purchase	goods	or	services	that	are	enforceable	and	legally	binding	on	Citi.	For	presentation	purposes,	purchase	obligations	are	included	in	the	table above	through	the	termination	date	of	the	respective	agreements,	even	if	the	contract	is	renewable.	Many	of	the	purchase	agreements	for	goods	or	services	include	clauses	that	would	allow	Citi	to cancel	the	agreement	with	specified	notice;	however,	that	impact	is	not	included	in	the	table	above	(unless	Citi	has	already	notified	the	counterparty	of	its	intention	to	terminate	the	agreement).

(4) Other	liabilities	reflected	on	Citigroup's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	includes	accounts	payable,	accrued	expenses,	uncertain	tax	positions	and	other	liabilities	that	have	been	incurred	and	will ultimately	be	paid	in	cash;	legal	reserve	accruals	are	not	included	in	the	table	above.	Also	includes	discretionary	contributions	in	2016	for	Citi's	employee-defined	benefit	obligations	for	the	pension, postretirement	and	postemployment	plans	and	defined	contribution	plans.

# CAPITAL	RESOURCES

Capital	is	used	principally	to	support	assets	in	Citi's	businesses	and	to	absorb credit,	market,	and	operational	losses.	Citi	primarily	generates	capital	through earnings	from	its	operating	businesses.	Citi	may	augment	its	capital	through issuances	of	common	stock,	noncumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock	and	equity issued	through	awards	under	employee	benefit	plans,	among	other	issuances. During	2015,	Citi	continued	to	raise	capital	through	noncumulative	perpetual preferred	stock	issuances	amounting	to	approximately	$6.3	billion,	resulting	in	a total	of	approximately	$16.7	billion	outstanding	as	of	December	31,	2015.	In addition,	during	2015,	Citi	returned	a	total	of	approximately	$5.9	billion	of	capital to	common	shareholders	in	the	form	of	share	repurchases	(approximately	101 million	common	shares)	and	dividends.

Further,	Citi's	capital	levels	may	also	be	affected	by	changes	in	accounting and	regulatory	standards	as	well	as	the	impact	of	future	events	on	Citi's	business results,	such	as	corporate	and	asset	dispositions.

# Capital	Management

Citigroup's	capital	management	framework	is	designed	to	ensure	that	Citigroup and	its	principal	subsidiaries	maintain	sufficient	capital	consistent	with	each entity's	respective	risk	profile,	management	targets,	and	all	applicable	regulatory standards	and	guidelines.	Citi	assesses	its	capital	adequacy	against	a	series	of internal	quantitative	capital	goals,	designed	to	evaluate	the	Company's	capital levels	in	expected	and	stressed	economic	environments.	Underlying	these	internal quantitative	capital	goals	are	strategic	capital	considerations,	centered	on preserving	and	building	financial	strength.	The	Citigroup	Capital	Committee,	with oversight	from	the	Risk	Management	Committee	of	Citigroup's	Board	of Directors,	has	responsibility	for	Citi's	aggregate	capital	structure,	including	the capital	assessment	and	planning	process,	which	is	integrated	into	Citi's	capital plan.	Balance	sheet	management,	including	oversight	of	capital	adequacy,	for Citigroup's	subsidiaries	is	governed	by	each	entity's	Asset	and	Liability Committee.	For	additional	information	regarding	Citi's	capital	planning	and	stress testing	exercises,	see	"Capital	Planning	and	Stress	Testing"	below.

# Current	Regulatory	Capital	Standards

Citi	is	subject	to	regulatory	capital	standards	issued	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board which,	commencing	with	2014,	constitute	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.	These	rules establish	an	integrated	capital	adequacy	framework,	encompassing	both	risk-based capital	ratios	and	leverage	ratios.

# Risk-Based	Capital	Ratios

The	U.S.	Basel	III	rules	set	forth	the	composition	of	regulatory	capital	(including the	application	of	regulatory	capital	adjustments	and	deductions),	as	well	as	two comprehensive	methodologies	(a	Standardized	Approach	and	Advanced Approaches)	for	measuring	total	risk-weighted	assets.	Total	risk-weighted	assets under	the	Advanced	Approaches,	which	are	primarily	models	based,	include credit,	market,	and	operational	risk-weighted	assets.	Conversely,	the	Standardized Approach	excludes	operational	risk-weighted	assets	and	generally	applies prescribed	supervisory	risk	weights	to	broad	categories	of	credit	risk	exposures.	As a	result,	credit	risk-weighted	assets	calculated	under	the	Advanced	Approaches	are more	risk	sensitive	than	those	calculated	under	the	Standardized	Approach.	Market risk-weighted	assets	are	derived	on	a	generally	consistent	basis	under	both approaches.

The	U.S.	Basel	III	rules	establish	stated	minimum	Common	Equity	Tier	1 Capital,	Tier	1	Capital	and	Total	Capital	ratios	for	substantially	all	U.S.	banking organizations,	including	Citi	and	Citibank,	N.A.	(Citibank).	Moreover,	these	rules provide	for	both	a	fixed	Capital	Conservation	Buffer	and	a	discretionary Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer,	which	would	be	available	to	absorb	losses	in advance	of	any	potential	impairment	of	regulatory	capital	below	the	stated minimum	risk-based	capital	ratio	requirements.	In	December	2015,	the	Federal Reserve	Board	voted	to	affirm	the	Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	amount	at	the current	level	of	0%,	and	issued	a	proposed	framework	for	implementing	the Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	in	the	future.	For	additional	information	regarding the	Federal	Reserve	Board's	proposed	policy	statement	on	the	Countercyclical Capital	Buffer,	see	"Regulatory	Capital	Standards	Developments"	below. Further,	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules	implement	the	"capital	floor	provision"	of	the so-called	"Collins	Amendment"	of	the	Dodd-Frank	Act,	which	requires	Advanced Approaches

banking	organizations,	such	as	Citi	and	Citibank,	to	calculate	each	of	the	three	risk- based	capital	ratios	(Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1	Capital,	and	Total Capital)	under	both	the	Standardized	Approach	starting	on	January	1,	2015	(or,	for 2014,	prior	to	the	effective	date	of	the	Standardized	Approach,	the	Basel	I	credit risk	and	Basel	II.5	market	risk	capital	rules)	and	the	Advanced	Approaches	and publicly	report	(as	well	as	measure	compliance	against)	the	lower	of	each	of	the resulting	risk-based	capital	ratios.

# GSIB	Surcharge

In	August	2015,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	issued	a	final	rule	which	imposes	a risk-based	capital	surcharge	upon	U.S.	bank	holding	companies	that	are	identified as	global	systemically	important	bank	holding	companies	(GSIBs),	including	Citi. The	GSIB	surcharge	augments	the	Capital	Conservation	Buffer	and,	if	invoked, any	Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer,	and	would	result	in	restrictions	on	earnings distributions	(e.g.,	dividends,	equity	repurchases,	and	discretionary	executive bonuses)	should	the	expanded	buffer	be	breached	to	absorb	losses	during	periods of	financial	or	economic	stress,	with	the	degree	of	such	restrictions	based	upon	the extent	to	which	the	expanded	buffer	is	breached.

Under	the	Federal	Reserve	Board's	final	rule,	identification	of	a	GSIB	would be	based	primarily	on	quantitative	measurement	indicators	underlying	five	equally weighted	broad	categories	of	systemic	importance:	(i)	size,	(ii)	interconnectedness, (iii)	cross-jurisdictional	activity,	(iv)	substitutability,	and	(v)	complexity.	With	the exception	of	size,	each	of	the	other	categories	are	comprised	of	multiple	indicators also	of	equal	weight,	and	amounting	to	12	indicators	in	total.

A	U.S.	bank	holding	company	that	is	designated	a	GSIB	under	the	established methodology	will	be	required,	on	an	annual	basis,	to	calculate	a	surcharge	using two	methods	and	will	be	subject	to	the	higher	of	the	resulting	two	surcharges.	The first	method	("method	1")	is	based	on	the	same	five	broad	categories	of	systemic importance	used	to	identify	a	GSIB.	Under	the	second	method	("method	2"),	the substitutability	category	is	replaced	with	a	quantitative	measure	intended	to	assess the	extent	of	a	GSIB's	reliance	on	short-term	wholesale	funding.	Moreover, method	1	incorporates	relative	measures	of	systemic	importance	across	certain global	banking	organizations	and	a	year-end	spot	foreign	exchange	rate,	whereas method	2	uses	fixed	measures	of	systemic	importance	and	application	of	an average	foreign	exchange	rate	over	a	three-year	period.	Generally,	the	surcharge derived	under	method	2	will	result	in	a	higher	surcharge	than	derived	under	method 1. Should	a	GSIB's	systemic	importance	change	year-over-year	such	that	it becomes	subject	to	a	higher	surcharge,	the	higher	surcharge	would	not	become effective	for	a	full	year	(e.g.,	a	higher	surcharge	calculated	by	December	31,	2016 would	not	become	effective	until	January	1,	2018).	However,	if	a	GSIB's	systemic importance	changes	such	that	the	GSIB	would	be	subject	to	a	lower	surcharge,	the GSIB	would	be	subject	to	the	lower	surcharge	beginning	with	the	next	calendar year	(e.g.,	a	lower	surcharge	calculated	by	December	31,	2016	would	become effective	January	1,	2017).

GSIB	surcharges	under	the	final	rule,	which	are	required	to	be	composed entirely	of	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	initially	range	from	1.0%	to	4.5%	of total	risk-weighted	assets.	Citi's	initial	GSIB	surcharge	effective	January	1,	2016, which	is	based	primarily	on	2014	quantitative	measures	of	systemic	importance (other	than	the	short-term	wholesale	funding	measure	under	method	2,	based	on 2015	data),	is	3.5%.	However,	Citi's	ongoing	efforts	during	2015	in	managing balance	sheet	efficiency	has	resulted	in	lower	scores	for	substantially	all	of	the quantitative	measures	of	systemic	importance,	and	consequently	has	reduced	Citi's estimated	GSIB	surcharge	to	3%,	also	derived	under	method	2,	which	would become	effective	January	1,	2017.

# Transition	Provisions

The	U.S.	Basel	III	rules	contain	several	differing,	largely	multi-year	transition provisions	(i.e.,	"phase-ins"	and	"phase-outs")	with	respect	to	the	stated	minimum Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	and	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	requirements,	substantially all	regulatory	capital	adjustments	and	deductions,	and	non-qualifying	Tier	1	and Tier	2	Capital	instruments	(such	as	non-grandfathered	trust	preferred	securities	and certain	subordinated	debt	issuances).	Moreover,	the	GSIB	surcharge	will	be introduced	in	parallel	with	the	Capital	Conservation	Buffer	and,	if	applicable,	any Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer,	commencing	phase-in	on	January	1,	2016	and becoming	fully	effective	on	January	1,	2019.	With	the	exception	of	the	non- grandfathered	trust	preferred	securities	which	do	not	fully	phase-out	until	January 1,	2022	and	the	capital	buffers	and	GSIB	surcharge	which	do	not	fully	phase-in until	January	1,	2019,	all	other	transition	provisions	will	be	entirely	reflected	in Citi's	regulatory	capital	ratios	by	January	1,	2018.	Citi	considers	all	of	these transition	provisions	as	being	fully	implemented	on	January	1,	2019	(full implementation),	with	the	inclusion	of	the	capital	buffers	and	GSIB	surcharge. The	following	chart	sets	forth	the	transitional	progression	to	full implementation	by	January	1,	2019	of	the	regulatory	capital	components	(i.e., inclusive	of	the	mandatory	2.5%	Capital	Conservation	Buffer	and	the Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	at	its	current	level	of	0%,	as	well	as	an	estimated 3%	GSIB	surcharge)	comprising	the	effective	minimum	risk-based	capital	ratios.

# Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements:	Minimum	Risk-Based	Capital	Ratios

The	following	chart	presents	the	transition	arrangements	(phase-in	and	phase-out)	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules	for	significant	regulatory	capital	adjustments	and deductions	relative	to	Citi.

# Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements:	Significant	Regulatory	Capital	Adjustments	and	Deductions

| Phase-in	of	Significant	Regulatory	Capital	Adjustments	and	Deductions | 2014 | 2015 | January	1<br>2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital(1) | 20% | 40% | 60% | 80% | 100% |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital(2) | 20% | 40% | 60% | 80% | 100% |
| Additional\tTier\t1\tCapital(2)(3) | 80% | 60% | 40% | 20% | 0% |
|  | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Phase-out\tof\tSignificant\tAOCI\tRegulatory\tCapital\tAdjustments |  |  |  |  |  |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital(4) | 80% | 60% | 40% | 20% | 0% |

(1) Includes	the	phase-in	of	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	deductions	for	all	intangible	assets	other	than	goodwill	and	mortgage	servicing	rights	(MSRs);	and	excess	over	10%/15%	limitations	for deferred	tax	assets	(DTAs)	arising	from	temporary	differences,	significant	common	stock	investments	in	unconsolidated	financial	institutions	and	MSRs.	Goodwill	(including	goodwill	"embedded"	in the	valuation	of	significant	common	stock	investments	in	unconsolidated	financial	institutions)	is	fully	deducted	in	arriving	at	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	commencing	January	1,	2014.	The amount	of	other	intangible	assets,	aside	from	MSRs,	not	deducted	in	arriving	at	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	are	risk-weighted	at	100%,	as	are	the	excess	over	the	10%/15%	limitations	for	DTAs arising	from	temporary	differences,	significant	common	stock	investments	in	unconsolidated	financial	institutions	and	MSRs	prior	to	full	implementation	of	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.	Upon	full implementation,	the	amount	of	temporary	difference	DTAs,	significant	common	stock	investments	in	unconsolidated	financial	institutions	and	MSRs	not	deducted	in	arriving	at	Common	Equity	Tier	1 Capital	are	risk-weighted	at	250%.

(2) Includes	the	phase-in	of	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	deductions	related	to	DTAs	arising	from	net	operating	loss,	foreign	tax	credit	and	general	business	credit	carry-forwards	and	defined	benefit pension	plan	net	assets;	and	the	phase-in	of	the	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	adjustment	for	cumulative	unrealized	net	gains	(losses)	related	to	changes	in	fair	value	of	financial	liabilities	attributable to	Citi's	own	creditworthiness.

(3) To	the	extent	Additional	Tier	1	Capital	is	not	sufficient	to	absorb	regulatory	capital	adjustments	and	deductions,	such	excess	is	to	be	applied	against	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital.

(4) Includes	the	phase-out	from	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	of	adjustments	related	to	unrealized	gains	(losses)	on	available-for-sale	(AFS)	debt	securities;	unrealized	gains	on	AFS	equity	securities; unrealized	gains	(losses)	on	held-to-maturity	(HTM)	securities	included	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	(AOCI);	and	defined	benefit	plans	liability	adjustment.

# Tier	1	Leverage	Ratio

Under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	Citi,	as	with	principally	all	U.S.	banking organizations,	is	also	required	to	maintain	a	minimum	Tier	1	Leverage	ratio	of	4%. The	Tier	1	Leverage	ratio,	a	non-risk-based	measure	of	capital	adequacy,	is defined	as	Tier	1	Capital	as	a	percentage	of	quarterly	adjusted	average	total	assets less	amounts	deducted	from	Tier	1	Capital.

# Supplementary	Leverage	Ratio

Advanced	Approaches	banking	organizations	are	additionally	required	to	calculate a	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio,	which	significantly	differs	from	the	Tier	1 Leverage	ratio	by	also	including	certain	off-balance	sheet	exposures	within	the denominator	of	the	ratio	(Total	Leverage	Exposure).	The	Supplementary	Leverage ratio	represents	end	of	period	Tier	1	Capital	to	Total	Leverage	Exposure,	with	the latter	defined	as	the	sum	of	the	daily	average	of	on-balance	sheet	assets	for	the quarter	and	the	average	of	certain	off-balance	sheet	exposures	calculated	as	of	the last	day	of	each	month	in	the	quarter,	less	applicable	Tier	1	Capital	deductions. Advanced	Approaches	banking	organizations	will	be	required	to	maintain	a	stated minimum	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	of	3%	commencing	on	January	1,	2018, but	commenced	publicly	disclosing	this	ratio	on	January	1,	2015.

Further,	U.S.	GSIBs,	and	their	subsidiary	insured	depository	institutions, including	Citi	and	Citibank,	are	subject	to	enhanced	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio standards.	The	enhanced	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	standards	establish	a	2% leverage	buffer	for	U.S.	GSIBs	in	addition	to	the	stated	3%	minimum Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	requirement	in	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.	If	a	U.S. GSIB	fails	to	exceed	the	2%	leverage	buffer,	it	will	be	subject	to	increasingly onerous	restrictions	(depending	upon	the	extent	of	the	shortfall)	regarding	capital distributions	and	discretionary	executive	bonus	payments.	Accordingly,	U.S. GSIBs	are	effectively	subject	to	a	5%	minimum	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio requirement.	Additionally,	insured	depository	institution	subsidiaries	of	U.S. GSIBs,	such	as	Citibank,	are	required	to	maintain	a	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio of	6%	to	be	considered	"well	capitalized"	under	the	revised	Prompt	Corrective Action	(PCA)	framework	established	by	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.	Citi	and	Citibank are	required	to	be	compliant	with	these	higher	effective	minimum	ratio requirements	on	January	1,	2018.

# Prompt	Corrective	Action	Framework

The	U.S.	Basel	III	rules	revised	the	PCA	regulations	applicable	to	insured depository	institutions	in	certain	respects.

In	general,	the	PCA	regulations	direct	the	U.S.	banking	agencies	to	enforce increasingly	strict	limitations	on	the	activities	of	insured	depository	institutions that	fail	to	meet	certain	regulatory	capital	thresholds.	The	PCA	framework contains	five	categories	of	capital	adequacy	as	measured	by	risk-based	capital	and leverage	ratios:	(i)	"well	capitalized";	(ii)	"adequately	capitalized";	(iii) "undercapitalized";

(iv)	"significantly	undercapitalized";	and	(v)	"critically	undercapitalized." Accordingly,	beginning	January	1,	2015,	an	insured	depository	institution, such	as	Citibank,	must	maintain	minimum	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1 Capital,	Total	Capital,	and	Tier	1	Leverage	ratios	of	6.5%,	8%,	10%	and	5%, respectively,	to	be	considered	"well	capitalized."	Additionally,	Advanced Approaches	insured	depository	institutions,	such	as	Citibank,	must	maintain	a minimum	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	of	6%,	effective	January	1,	2018,	to	be considered	"well	capitalized."

# Capital	Planning	and	Stress	Testing

Citi	is	subject	to	an	annual	assessment	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	as	to	whether Citi	has	effective	capital	planning	processes	as	well	as	sufficient	regulatory	capital to	absorb	losses	during	stressful	economic	and	financial	conditions,	while	also meeting	obligations	to	creditors	and	counterparties	and	continuing	to	serve	as	a credit	intermediary.	This	annual	assessment	includes	two	related	programs:

•The	Comprehensive	Capital	Analysis	and	Review	(CCAR)	evaluates	Citi's capital	adequacy,	capital	adequacy	process,	and	its	planned	capital distributions,	such	as	dividend	payments	and	common	stock	repurchases.	As part	of	CCAR,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	assesses	whether	Citi	has	sufficient capital	to	continue	operations	throughout	times	of	economic	and	financial market	stress	and	whether	Citi	has	robust,	forward-looking	capital	planning processes	that	account	for	its	unique	risks.	The	Federal	Reserve	Board	may object	to	Citi's	annual	capital	plan	based	on	either	quantitative	or	qualitative grounds.	If	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	objects	to	Citi's	annual	capital	plan, Citi	may	not	undertake	any	capital	distribution	unless	the	Federal	Reserve Board	indicates	in	writing	that	it	does	not	object	to	the	distribution.

•Dodd-Frank	Act	Stress	Testing	(DFAST)	is	a	forward-looking	quantitative evaluation	of	the	impact	of	stressful	economic	and	financial	market	conditions on	Citi's	regulatory	capital.	This	program	serves	to	inform	the	Federal	Reserve Board,	the	financial	companies,	and	the	general	public,	how	Citi's	regulatory capital	ratios	might	change	using	a	hypothetical	set	of	adverse	economic conditions	as	designed	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board.	In	addition	to	the	annual supervisory	stress	test	conducted	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board,	Citi	is required	to	conduct	annual	company-run	stress	tests	under	the	same	three supervisory	scenarios	as	well	as	conduct	a	mid-cycle	stress	test	under company-developed	scenarios.

Both	CCAR	and	DFAST	include	an	estimate	of	projected	revenues,	losses, reserves,	certain	pro	forma	regulatory	capital	ratios	(i.e.,	Common	Equity	Tier	1 Capital,	Tier	1	Capital,	Total	Capital,	and	Tier	1	Leverage	ratios),	and	any	other additional	capital	measures	deemed

relevant	by	Citi.	Projections	are	required	over	a	nine-quarter	planning	horizon under	baseline	conditions	and	under	a	range	of	stressed	scenarios.	All	risk-based capital	ratios	reflect	application	of	the	Standardized	Approach	framework	only	and the	transition	arrangements	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.

In	November	2015,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	released	a	final	rule,	which	for purposes	of	CCAR,	adopted	targeted	amendments	to	its	capital	plan	and	stress	test rules.	Effective	January	1,	2016,	the	final	rule	removed	all	requirements	related	to the	Tier	1	Common	Capital	ratio	(originally	defined	in	conjunction	with	the	2009 Supervisory	Capital	Assessment	Program),	as	it	has	effectively	been	replaced	by the	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	requirement	subsequent	to	the implementation	of	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.	Moreover,	the	final	rule	delayed	the	use of	the	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	until	the	2017	capital	planning	cycle,	and deferred	the	use	of	the	Advanced	Approaches	framework	indefinitely.	For additional	information	regarding	CCAR,	see	"Risk Factors—Regulatory	Risks"	below.

# Citigroup's	Capital	Resources	Under	Current	Regulatory	Standards

During	2015	and	thereafter,	Citi	is	required	to	maintain	stated	minimum	Common Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1	Capital	and	Total	Capital	ratios	of	4.5%,	6%	and	8%, respectively.	The	stated	minimum	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	and	Tier	1 Capital	ratio	requirements	in	2014	were	4%	and	5.5%,	respectively,	while	the stated	minimum	Total	Capital	ratio	requirement	of	8%	remained	unchanged.

Furthermore,	to	be	"well	capitalized"	under	current	federal	bank	regulatory agency	definitions,	a	bank	holding

company	must	have	a	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	of	at	least	6%,	a	Total	Capital	ratio	of	at least	10%,	and	not	be	subject	to	a	Federal	Reserve	Board	directive	to	maintain higher	capital	levels.

The	following	tables	set	forth	the	capital	tiers,	total	risk-weighted	assets,	risk- based	capital	ratios,	quarterly	adjusted	average	total	assets,	Total	Leverage Exposure	and	leverage	ratios	under	current	regulatory	standards	(reflecting	Basel III	Transition	Arrangements)	for	Citi	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31, 2014.

# Citigroup	Capital	Components	and	Ratios	Under	Current	Regulatory	Standards	(Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements)

(1) Restated	to	reflect	the	retrospective	adoption	of	ASU	2014-01	for	Low	Income	Housing	Tax	Credit	(LIHTC)	investments,	consistent	with	current	period	presentation.

(2) Pro	forma	presentation	to	reflect	the	application	of	the	Basel	III	2015	Standardized	Approach,	consistent	with	current	period	presentation.

(3) Under	the	Advanced	Approaches	framework	eligible	credit	reserves	that	exceed	expected	credit	losses	are	eligible	for	inclusion	in	Tier	2	Capital	to	the	extent	the	excess	reserves	do	not	exceed	0.6%	of credit	risk-weighted	assets,	which	differs	from	the	Standardized	Approach	in	which	the	allowance	for	credit	losses	is	eligible	for	inclusion	in	Tier	2	Capital	up	to	1.25%	of	credit	risk-weighted assets,	with	any	excess	allowance	for	credit	losses	being	deducted	in	arriving	at	credit	risk-weighted	assets.

(4) As	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	Citi's	reportable	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1	Capital,	and	Total	Capital	ratios	were	the	lower	derived	under	the	Basel	III	Advanced Approaches	framework.

(5) Tier	1	Leverage	ratio	denominator.

(6) Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	denominator.

As	indicated	in	the	table	above,	Citigroup's	capital	ratios	at	December	31, 2015	were	in	excess	of	the	stated	minimum	requirements	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III rules.	In	addition,	Citi	was	also	"well	capitalized"	under	current

federal	bank	regulatory	agency	definitions	as	of	December	31,	2015.

# Components	of	Citigroup	Capital	Under	Current	Regulatory	Standards

# (Basel	III	Advanced	Approaches	with	Transition	Arrangements)

| In	millions	of	dollars | December	31,<br>2015 | December	31,	2014(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  |
| Citigroup\tcommon\tstockholders'\tequity(2) | $205,286 | $199,841 |
| Add:\tQualifying\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 369 | 539 |
| Regulatory\tCapital\tAdjustments\tand\tDeductions: |  |  |
| Less:\tNet\tunrealized\tgains\t(losses)\ton\tsecurities\tAFS,\tnet\tof\ttax(3)(4) | (544) | 46 |
| Less:\tDefined\tbenefit\tplans\tliability\tadjustment,\tnet\tof\ttax(4) | (3,070) | (4,127) |
| Less:\tAccumulated\tnet\tunrealized\tlosses\ton\tcash\tflow\thedges,\tnet\tof\ttax(5) | (617) | (909) |
| Less:\tCumulative\tunrealized\tnet\tgain\trelated\tto\tchanges\tin\tfair\tvalue\tof\tfinancial\tliabilities\n\t\t\tattributable\tto\town\tcreditworthiness,\tnet\tof\ttax(4)(6) | 176 | 56 |
| Less:\tIntangible\tassets: |  |  |
| \t\t\tGoodwill,\tnet\tof\trelated\tdeferred\ttax\tliabilities\t(DTLs)(7) | 21,980 | 22,805 |
| Identifiable\tintangible\tassets\tother\tthan\tmortgage\tservicing\trights\t(MSRs),\tnet\tof\trelated\n\t\t\tDTLs(4) | 1,434 | 875 |
| Less:\tDefined\tbenefit\tpension\tplan\tnet\tassets(4) | 318 | 187 |
| Less:\tDeferred\ttax\tassets\t(DTAs)\tarising\tfrom\tnet\toperating\tloss,\tforeign\ttax\tcredit\tand\tgeneral\n\t\t\tbusiness\tcredit\tcarry-forwards(4)(8) | 9,464 | 4,725 |
| Less:\tExcess\tover\t10%/15%\tlimitations\tfor\tother\tDTAs,\tcertain\tcommon\tstock\tinvestments,\n\t\tand\tMSRs(4)(8)(9) | 2,652 | 1,977 |
| Less:\tDeductions\tapplied\tto\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\tdue\tto\tinsufficient\tamount\tof\tAdditional\nTier\t1\tCapital\tto\tcover\tdeductions(4) | — | 8,082 |
| Total\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital | $173,862 | $166,663 |
| Additional\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  |
| Qualifying\tperpetual\tpreferred\tstock(2) | $16,571 | $10,344 |
| Qualifying\ttrust\tpreferred\tsecurities(10) | 1,707 | 1,719 |
| Qualifying\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 12 | 7 |
| Regulatory\tCapital\tAdjustment\tand\tDeductions: |  |  |
| Less:\tCumulative\tunrealized\tnet\tgain\trelated\tto\tchanges\tin\tfair\tvalue\tof\tfinancial\tliabilities\n\t\t\tattributable\tto\town\tcreditworthiness,\tnet\tof\ttax(4)(6) | 265 | 223 |
| Less:\tMinimum\tregulatory\tcapital\trequirements\tof\tinsurance\tunderwriting\tsubsidiaries(11) | 229 | 279 |
| Less:\tDefined\tbenefit\tpension\tplan\tnet\tassets(4) | 476 | 749 |
| Less:\tDTAs\tarising\tfrom\tnet\toperating\tloss,\tforeign\ttax\tcredit\tand\tgeneral\n\t\t\tbusiness\tcredit\tcarry-forwards(4)(8) | 14,195 | 18,901 |
| Less:\tPermitted\townership\tinterests\tin\tcovered\tfunds(12) | 567 | — |
| Less:\tDeductions\tapplied\tto\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\tdue\tto\tinsufficient\tamount\tof\tAdditional\n\t\t\tTier\t1\tCapital\tto\tcover\tdeductions(4) | — | (8,082) |
| Total\tAdditional\tTier\t1\tCapital | $2,558 | $— |
| Total\tTier\t1\tCapital\t(Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\t+\tAdditional\tTier\t1\tCapital) | $176,420 | $166,663 |
| Tier\t2\tCapital |  |  |
| Qualifying\tsubordinated\tdebt(13) | $21,370 | $17,386 |
| Qualifying\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 17 | 12 |
| Excess\tof\teligible\tcredit\treserves\tover\texpected\tcredit\tlosses(14) | 1,163 | 1,177 |
| Regulatory\tCapital\tAdjustment\tand\tDeduction: |  |  |
| Add:\tUnrealized\tgains\ton\tAFS\tequity\texposures\tincludable\tin\tTier\t2\tCapital | 5 | — |
| Less:\tMinimum\tregulatory\tcapital\trequirements\tof\tinsurance\tunderwriting\tsubsidiaries(11) | 229 | 279 |
| Total\tTier\t2\tCapital | $22,326 | $18,296 |
| Total\tCapital\t(Tier\t1\tCapital\t+\tTier\t2\tCapital) | $198,746 | $184,959 |

# Citigroup	Risk-Weighted	Assets	Under	Current	Regulatory	Standards

| In	millions	of	dollars | December	31,<br>2015 | December	31,	2014(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Credit\tRisk(15) | $791,036 | $861,691 |
| Market\tRisk | 74,817 | 100,481 |
| Operational\tRisk | 325,000 | 312,500 |
| Total\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets | $1,190,853 | $1,274,672 |

(1) Restated	to	reflect	the	retrospective	adoption	of	ASU	2014-01	for	LIHTC	investments,	consistent	with	current	period	presentation.

(2) Issuance	costs	of	$147	million	and	$124	million	related	to	preferred	stock	outstanding	at	 December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	respectively,	are	excluded	from	common	stockholders'	equity and	netted	against	preferred	stock	in	accordance	with	Federal	Reserve	Board	regulatory	reporting	requirements,	which	differ	from	those	under	U.S.	GAAP.

(3) In	addition,	includes	the	net	amount	of	unamortized	loss	on	HTM	securities.	This	amount	relates	to	securities	that	were	previously	transferred	from	AFS	to	HTM,	and	non-credit	related	factors	such	as changes	in	interest	rates	and	liquidity	spreads	for	HTM	securities	with	other-than-temporary	impairment.

(4) The	transition	arrangements	for	significant	regulatory	capital	adjustments	and	deductions	impacting	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	and/or	Additional	Tier	1	Capital	are	set	forth	above	in	the	chart entitled	"Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements:	Significant	Regulatory	Capital	Adjustments	and	Deductions."

(5) Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	is	adjusted	for	accumulated	net	unrealized	gains	(losses)	on	cash	flow	hedges	included	in	AOCI	that	relate	to	the	hedging	of	items	not	recognized	at	fair	value	on	the balance	sheet.

(6) The	cumulative	impact	of	changes	in	Citigroup's	own	creditworthiness	in	valuing	liabilities	for	which	the	fair	value	option	has	been	elected	and	own-credit	valuation	adjustments	on	derivatives	are excluded	from	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	in	accordance	with	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.

(7) Includes	goodwill	"embedded"	in	the	valuation	of	significant	common	stock	investments	in	unconsolidated	financial	institutions.

(8) Of	Citi's	approximately	$47.8	billion	of	net	DTAs	at	December	31,	2015,	approximately	$22.9	billion	of	such	assets	were	includable	in	regulatory	capital	pursuant	to	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	while approximately	$24.9	billion	of	such	assets	were	excluded	in	arriving	at	regulatory	capital.	Comprising	the	excluded	net	DTAs	was	an	aggregate	of	approximately	$26.3	billion	of	net	DTAs	arising from	net	operating	loss,	foreign	tax	credit	and	general	business	credit	carry-forwards	as	well	as	temporary	differences,	of	which	$12.1	billion	were	deducted	from	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	and $14.2	billion	were	deducted	from	Additional	Tier	1	Capital.	In	addition,	approximately	$1.4	billion	of	net	DTLs,	primarily	consisting	of	DTLs	associated	with	goodwill	and	certain	other	intangible assets,	partially	offset	by	DTAs	related	to	cash	flow	hedges,	are	permitted	to	be	excluded	prior	to	deriving	the	amount	of	net	DTAs	subject	to	deduction	under	these	rules.	Separately,	under	the	U.S. Basel	III	rules,	goodwill	and	these	other	intangible	assets	are	deducted	net	of	associated	DTLs	in	arriving	at	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	while	Citi's	current	cash	flow	hedges	and	the	related deferred	tax	effects	are	not	required	to	be	reflected	in	regulatory	capital.

(9) Assets	subject	to	10%/15%	limitations	include	MSRs,	DTAs	arising	from	temporary	differences	and	significant	common	stock	investments	in	unconsolidated	financial	institutions.	At	 December	31, 2015	and	December	31,	2014,	the	deduction	related	only	to	DTAs	arising	from	temporary	differences	that	exceeded	the	10%	limitation.

(10) Represents	Citigroup	Capital	XIII	trust	preferred	securities,	which	are	permanently	grandfathered	as	Tier	1	Capital	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	as	well	as	non-grandfathered	trust	preferred	securities which	are	eligible	for	inclusion	in	an	amount	up	to	25%	and	50%,	respectively,	during	2015	and	2014,	of	the	aggregate	outstanding	principal	amounts	of	such	issuances	as	of	January	1,	2014.	The remaining	75%	and	50%	of	non-grandfathered	trust	preferred	securities	are	eligible	for	inclusion	in	Tier	2	Capital	during	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	in	accordance	with	the	transition	arrangements for	non-qualifying	capital	instruments	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.	As	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	however,	the	entire	amount	of	non-grandfathered	trust	preferred	securities	was included	within	Tier	1	Capital,	as	the	amounts	outstanding	did	not	exceed	the	respective	threshold	for	exclusion	from	Tier	1	Capital.

(11) 50%	of	the	minimum	regulatory	capital	requirements	of	insurance	underwriting	subsidiaries	must	be	deducted	from	each	of	Tier	1	Capital	and	Tier	2	Capital.

(12) Effective	July	2015,	banking	entities	are	required	to	be	in	compliance	with	the	so-called	"Volcker	Rule"	of	the	Dodd-Frank	Act	that	prohibits	conducting	certain	proprietary	investment	activities	and limits	their	ownership	of,	and	relationships	with,	covered	funds.	Accordingly,	Citi	is	required	by	the	"Volcker	Rule"	to	deduct	from	Tier	1	Capital	all	permitted	ownership	interests	in	covered	funds that	were	acquired	after	December	31,	2013.

(13) Under	the	transition	arrangements	of	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	non-qualifying	subordinated	debt	issuances	which	consist	of	those	with	a	fixed-to-floating	rate	step-up	feature	where	the	call/step-up	date has	not	passed	are	eligible	for	inclusion	in	Tier	2	Capital	during	2015	and	2014	up	to	25%	and	50%,	respectively,	of	the	aggregate	outstanding	principal	amounts	of	such	issuances	as	of	January	1, 2014.

(14) Advanced	Approaches	banking	organizations	are	permitted	to	include	in	Tier	2	Capital	eligible	credit	reserves	that	exceed	expected	credit	losses	to	the	extent	that	the	excess	reserves	do	not	exceed 0.6%	of	credit	risk-weighted	assets.

(15) Under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	credit	risk-weighted	assets	during	the	transition	period	reflect	the	effects	of	transitional	arrangements	related	to	regulatory	capital	adjustments	and	deductions	and,	as	a result,	will	differ	from	credit	risk-weighted	assets	derived	under	full	implementation	of	the	rules.

# Citigroup	Capital	Rollforward	Under	Current	Regulatory	Standards

| In	millions	of	dollars | Three	Months	Ended<br>	December	31,	2015 | Twelve	Months	Ended<br>	December	31,	2015(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $173,345 | $166,663 |
| Net\tincome | 3,335 | 17,242 |
| Dividends\tdeclared | (415) | (1,253) |
| \tTreasury\tstock\tacquired | (1,650) | (5,452) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tadditional\tpaid-in\tcapital(2) | 331 | 1,036 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tforeign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tadjustment\tnet\tof\thedges,\tnet\tof\ttax | (796) | (5,499) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tunrealized\tlosses\ton\tsecurities\tAFS,\tnet\tof\ttax(3) | (453) | (374) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tdefined\tbenefit\tplans\tliability\tadjustment,\tnet\tof\ttax(3) | (34) | (1,014) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tcumulative\tunrealized\tnet\tgain\trelated\tto\tchanges\tin\tfair\tvalue\tof\n\t\t\t\tfinancial\tliabilities\tattributable\tto\town\tcreditworthiness,\tnet\tof\ttax | 111 | (120) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tgoodwill,\tnet\tof\trelated\tdeferred\ttax\tliabilities\t(DTLs) | (248) | 825 |
| Net\tchange\tin\tidentifiable\tintangible\tassets\tother\tthan\tmortgage\tservicing\trights\t(MSRs),\n\t\t\t\tnet\tof\trelated\tDTLs | 130 | (559) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tdefined\tbenefit\tpension\tplan\tnet\tassets | 44 | (131) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tdeferred\ttax\tassets\t(DTAs)\tarising\tfrom\tnet\toperating\tloss,\tforeign\n\t\t\t\ttax\tcredit\tand\tgeneral\tbusiness\tcredit\tcarry-forwards | (146) | (4,739) |
| Net\tchange\tin\texcess\tover\t10%/15%\tlimitations\tfor\tother\tDTAs,\tcertain\tcommon\tstock\n\t\t\t\tinvestments\tand\tMSRs | 312 | (675) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tregulatory\tcapital\tdeduction\tapplied\tto\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\n\t\t\t\tdue\tto\tinsufficient\tAdditional\tTier\t1\tCapital\tto\tcover\tdeductions | — | 8,082 |
| Other | (4) | (170) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital | $517 | $7,199 |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\tBalance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $173,862 | $173,862 |
| Additional\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $931 | $— |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tqualifying\tperpetual\tpreferred\tstock(4) | 1,495 | 6,227 |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tqualifying\ttrust\tpreferred\tsecurities | (9) | (12) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tcumulative\tunrealized\tnet\tgain\trelated\tto\tchanges\tin\tfair\tvalue\tof\n\t\t\t\tfinancial\tliabilities\tattributable\tto\town\tcreditworthiness,\tnet\tof\ttax | 165 | (42) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tdefined\tbenefit\tpension\tplan\tnet\tassets | 66 | 273 |
| Net\tchange\tin\tDTAs\tarising\tfrom\tnet\toperating\tloss,\tforeign\ttax\tcredit\tand\tgeneral\n\t\t\t\tbusiness\tcredit\tcarry-forwards | (218) | 4,706 |
| Net\tchange\tin\tpermitted\townership\tinterests\tin\tcovered\tfunds | 111 | (567) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tregulatory\tcapital\tdeduction\tapplied\tto\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\n\t\t\t\tdue\tto\tinsufficient\tAdditional\tTier\t1\tCapital\tto\tcover\tdeductions | — | (8,082) |
| Other | 17 | 55 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tAdditional\tTier\t1\tCapital | $1,627 | $2,558 |
| Tier\t1\tCapital\tBalance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $176,420 | $176,420 |
| Tier\t2\tCapital |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $21,353 | $18,296 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tqualifying\tsubordinated\tdebt | 349 | 3,984 |
| Net\tchange\tin\texcess\tof\teligible\tcredit\treserves\tover\texpected\tcredit\tlosses | 606 | (14) |
| Other | 18 | 60 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tTier\t2\tCapital | $973 | $4,030 |
| Tier\t2\tCapital\tBalance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $22,326 | $22,326 |
| Total\tCapital\t(Tier\t1\tCapital\t+\tTier\t2\tCapital) | $198,746 | $198,746 |

(1) The	beginning	balance	of	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	for	the twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	has	been	restated	to	reflect	the	retrospective	adoption	of	ASU	2014-01	for	LIHTC investments,	consistent	with	current	period	presentation.

(2) Primarily	represents	an	increase	in	additional	paid-in	capital	related	to	employee	benefit	plans.

(3) Presented	net	of	impact	of	transition	arrangements	related	to	unrealized	gains	(losses)	on	securities	AFS	and	defined	benefit	plans	liability	adjustment	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.

(4) Citi	issued	approximately	$1.5	billion	and	approximately	$6.3	billion	of	qualifying	perpetual	preferred	stock	during	the	three	and	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015,	respectively,	which	were partially	offset	by	the	netting	of	issuance	costs	of	$4	million	and	$23	million	during	those	respective	periods.

# Citigroup	Risk-Weighted	Assets	Rollforward	Under	Current	Regulatory	Standards

| In	millions	of	dollars | Three	Months	Ended<br>	December	31,	2015 | Twelve	Months	Ended<br>	December	31,	2015(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| \tTotal\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $1,229,667 | $1,274,672 |
| Changes\tin\tCredit\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets |  |  |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tretail\texposures(2) | (13,856) | (26,399) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\twholesale\texposures(3) | 1,668 | 1,682 |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\trepo-style\ttransactions | (935) | (2,015) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tsecuritization\texposures | (1,843) | (2,563) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tequity\texposures | 1,129 | 1,603 |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tover-the-counter\t(OTC)\tderivatives(4) | (3,119) | (7,002) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tderivatives\tCVA(5) | (789) | (4,418) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tother\texposures(6) | (9,464) | (27,793) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tsupervisory\t6%\tmultiplier(7) | (1,585) | (3,750) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tCredit\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets | $(28,794) | $(70,655) |
| Changes\tin\tMarket\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets |  |  |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\trisk\tlevels(8) | $(7,662) | $(21,041) |
| Net\tdecrease\tdue\tto\tmodel\tand\tmethodology\tupdates(9) | (2,358) | (4,623) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tMarket\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets | $(10,020) | $(25,664) |
| Increase\tin\tOperational\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets(10) | $— | $12,500 |
| Total\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets,\tend\tof\tperiod | $1,190,853 | $1,190,853 |

(1) The	beginning	balance	of	Total	Risk-Weighted	Assets	for	the twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	has	been	restated	to	reflect	the	retrospective	adoption	of	ASU	2014-01	for	LIHTC	investments, consistent	with	current	period	presentation.

(2) Retail	exposures	decreased	during	the	three	months	ended	December	31,	2015	primarily	due	to	reductions	in	loans,	divestitures	within	the	Citi	Holdings	portfolio,	and	the	impact	of	FX	translation. Retail	exposures	decreased	during	the	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	primarily	due	to	reductions	in	loans	and	commitments,	divestitures	within	the	Citi	Holdings	portfolio	and	the impact	of	FX	translation,	partially	offset	by	the	reclassification	from	other	exposures	of	certain	non-material	portfolios.

(3) Wholesale	exposures	increased	during	the	three	months	ended	December	31,	2015	primarily	due	to	an	increase	in	commitments,	partially	offset	by	the	impact	of	FX	translation.	Wholesale	exposures increased	during	the	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	primarily	due	to	an	increase	in	investments	and	commitments	and	the	reclassification	from	other	exposures	of	certain	non-material portfolios,	largely	offset	by	the	impact	of	FX	translation.

(4) OTC	derivatives	decreased	during	the	three	months	and	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	primarily	driven	by	exposure	reduction	and	model	updates.	Further,	parameter	updates	also contributed	to	the	decrease	in	OTC	derivatives	during	the	three	months	ended	December	31,	2015.

(5) Derivatives	CVA	decreased	during	the	three	months	ended	December	31,	2015	primarily	driven	by	exposure	reduction	and	parameter	and	model	updates.	Derivatives	CVA	decreased	during	the twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	driven	by	exposure	reduction,	credit	spread	changes	and	model	updates.

(6) Other	exposures	include	cleared	transactions,	unsettled	transactions,	assets	other	than	those	reportable	in	specific	exposure	categories	and	non-material	portfolios.	Other	exposures	decreased	during	the three	months	ended	December	31,	2015	primarily	due	to	decreased	cleared	transaction	exposures,	reduction	of	retail	non-material	exposures	and	decreases	in	other	assets.	Other	exposures decreased	during	the	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	as	a	result	of	the	reclassification	to	retail	exposures	and	wholesale	exposures	of	certain	non-material	portfolios,	reduction	in	retail non-material	exposures,	and	decreases	in	other	assets.

(7) Supervisory	6%	multiplier	does	not	apply	to	derivatives	CVA.

(8) Risk	levels	decreased	during	the	three	and	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	primarily	due	to	a	reduction	in	positions	subject	to	securitization	charges,	the	ongoing	assessment	regarding	the applicability	of	the	market	risk	capital	rules	to	certain	securitization	positions,	and	a	decrease	in	assets	subject	to	standard	specific	risk	charges.	In	addition,	further	contributing	to	the	decline	in	risk levels	during	the	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	were	reductions	in	exposure	levels	subject	to	comprehensive	risk,	Value	at	Risk,	and	Stressed	Value	at	Risk.

(9) Risk-weighted	assets	declined	during	the	three	months	ended	December	31,	2015	due	to	model	volatility	inputs.	Risk-weighted	assets	declined	during	the	twelve	months	ended	 December	31,	2015	due to	the	implementation	of	the	"Volcker	Rule."

(10) Operational	risk-weighted	assets	increased	by	$12.5	billion	during	the	first	quarter	of	2015,	reflecting	an	evaluation	of	ongoing	events	in	the	banking	industry	as	well	as	continued	enhancements	to Citi's	operational	risk	model.

# Capital	Resources	of	Citigroup's	Subsidiary	U.S.	Depository	Institutions	Under Current	Regulatory	Standards

Citigroup's	subsidiary	U.S.	depository	institutions	are	also	subject	to	regulatory capital	standards	issued	by	their	respective	primary	federal	bank	regulatory agencies,	which	are	similar	to	the	standards	of	the	Federal	Reserve	Board.

The	following	tables	set	forth	the	capital	tiers,	total	risk-weighted	assets,	risk- based	capital	ratios,	quarterly	adjusted	average	total	assets,	Total	Leverage Exposure	and	leverage	ratios	under	current	regulatory	standards	(reflecting	Basel III	Transition	Arrangements)	for	Citibank,	Citi's	primary	subsidiary	U.S. depository	institution,	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014.

# Citibank	Capital	Components	and	Ratios	Under	Current	Regulatory	Standards	(Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements)

(4) As	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	Citibank's	reportable	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1	Capital,	and	Total	Capital	ratios	were	the	lower	derived	under	the	Basel	III Standardized	Approach	framework.

As	indicated	in	the	table	above,	Citibank's	capital	ratios	at	December	31,	2015 were	in	excess	of	the	stated	minimum	requirements	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules. In	addition,	Citibank	was	also	"well	capitalized"	as	of	December	31,	2015	under the	revised	PCA	regulations	which	became	effective	January	1,	2015.

Further,	Citibank	is	required	to	conduct	the	annual	Dodd-Frank	Act	Stress Test.	The	annual	stress	test	consists	of	a	forward	looking	quantitative	evaluation	of the	impact	of	stressful	economic	and	financial	market	conditions	under	several scenarios	on	Citibank's	regulatory	capital.	This

program	serves	to	inform	the	Office	of	the	Comptroller	of	the	Currency	(OCC) how	Citibank's	regulatory	capital	ratios	might	change	during	a	hypothetical	set	of adverse	economic	conditions	and	to	ultimately	evaluate	the	reliability	of	Citibank's capital	planning	process.

# Impact	of	Changes	on	Citigroup	and	Citibank	Capital	Ratios	Under	Current Regulatory	Capital	Standards

The	following	tables	present	the	estimated	sensitivity	of	Citigroup's	and	Citibank's capital	ratios	to	changes	of	$100	million	in	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1 Capital	and	Total	Capital	(numerator),	and	changes	of	$1	billion	in	Advanced Approaches	and	Standardized	Approach	risk-weighted	assets,	quarterly	adjusted average	total	assets,	as	well	as	Total	Leverage	Exposure	(denominator),	under current	regulatory	capital	standards	(reflecting	Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements), as	of	December	31,	2015.	This

information	is	provided	for	the	purpose	of	analyzing	the	impact	that	a	change	in Citigroup's	or	Citibank's	financial	position	or	results	of	operations	could	have	on these	ratios.	These	sensitivities	only	consider	a	single	change	to	either	a	component of	capital,	risk-weighted	assets,	quarterly	adjusted	average	total	assets,	or	Total Leverage	Exposure.	Accordingly,	an	event	that	affects	more	than	one	factor	may have	a	larger	basis	point	impact	than	is	reflected	in	these	tables.

# Impact	of	Changes	on	Citigroup	and	Citibank	Risk-Based	Capital	Ratios	(Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements)

# Impact	of	Changes	on	Citigroup	and	Citibank	Leverage	Ratios	(Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements)

|  | Tier	1	Leverage	ratio | Tier	1	Leverage	ratio | Supplementary	Leverage	ratio | Supplementary	Leverage	ratio |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | Impact\tof |  |  |
|  | Impact\tof | $1\tbillion | Impact\tof | Impact\tof |
|  | $100\tmillion | change\tin\tquarterly | $100\tmillion | $1\tbillion |
| In\tbasis\tpoints | change\tin\nTier\t1\tCapital | adjusted\taverage\ntotal\tassets | change\tin\nTier\t1\tCapital | change\tin\tTotal\nLeverage\tExposure |
| Citigroup | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Citibank | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.4 |

# Citigroup	Broker-Dealer	Subsidiaries

At	December	31,	2015,	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Inc.,	a	U.S.	broker-dealer registered	with	the	SEC	that	is	an	indirect	wholly	owned	subsidiary	of	Citigroup, had	net	capital,	computed	in	accordance	with	the	SEC's	net	capital	rule,	of approximately	$7.5	billion,	which	exceeded	the	minimum	requirement	by approximately	$6.1	billion.

Moreover,	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Limited,	a	broker-dealer	registered	with the	United	Kingdom's	Prudential	Regulation	Authority	(PRA)	that	is	also	an indirect	wholly	owned	subsidiary	of	Citigroup,	had	total	capital	of	$17.4	billion	at December	31,	2015,	which	exceeded	the	PRA's	minimum	regulatory	capital requirements.

In	addition,	certain	of	Citi's	other	broker-dealer subsidiaries	are	subject	to	regulation	in	the	countries	in	which	they	do	business, including	requirements	to	maintain

specified	levels	of	net	capital	or	its	equivalent.	Citigroup's	other	broker-dealer subsidiaries	were	in	compliance	with

their	capital	requirements	at	December	31,	2015.

# Basel	III	(Full	Implementation)

# Citigroup's	Capital	Resources	Under	Basel	III

# (Full	Implementation)

Citi	currently	estimates	that	its	effective	minimum	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,

Tier	1	Capital	and	Total	Capital	ratio	requirements	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules, on	a	fully	implemented	basis	and	assuming	a	3%	GSIB	surcharge,	may	be	10%, 11.5%	and	13.5%,	respectively.

Further,	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	Citi	must	also	comply	with	a	4% minimum	Tier	1	Leverage	ratio	requirement	and	an	effective	5%	minimum Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	requirement.

The	following	tables	set	forth	the	capital	tiers,	total	risk-weighted	assets,	risk- based	capital	ratios,	quarterly	adjusted	average	total	assets,	Total	Leverage Exposure	and	leverage	ratios,	assuming	full	implementation	under	the	U.S.	Basel III	rules,	for	Citi	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014.

# Citigroup	Capital	Components	and	Ratios	Under	Basel	III	(Full	Implementation)

(3) As	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	Citi's	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1	Capital,	and	Total	Capital	ratios	were	the	lower	derived	under	the	Basel	III	Advanced	Approaches framework.

(4) Citi's	Basel	III	capital	ratios	and	related	components,	on	a	fully	implemented	basis,	are	non-GAAP	financial	measures.	Citi	believes	these	ratios	and	the	related	components	provide	useful	information to	investors	and	others	by	measuring	Citi's	progress	against	future	regulatory	capital	standards.

# Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	Ratio

Citi's	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	was	12.07%	at	December	31,	2015, compared	to	11.67%	at	September	30,	2015	and	10.57%	at	December	31,	2014	(all based	on	application	of	the	Advanced	Approaches	for	determining	total	risk- weighted	assets).	The	quarter-over-quarter	increase	in	the	ratio	was	largely attributable	to	quarterly	net	income	of	$3.3	billion	and	a	reduction	in	risk-weighted assets,	partially	offset	by	movements	in	AOCI	as	well	as	a	$1.8	billion	return	of capital	to	common	shareholders	in	the	form	of	share	repurchases	and	dividends. The	increase	in	Citi's	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	from	year-end	2014 reflected	continued	growth	in	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	resulting	from	net income	of	$17.2	billion	and	the	favorable	effects	attributable	to	DTA	utilization	of approximately	$1.5	billion,	offset	in	part	by	the	return	of	$5.9	billion	of	capital	to common	shareholders	and	movements	in	AOCI.

# Components	of	Citigroup	Capital	Under	Basel	III	(Advanced	Approaches	with	Full	Implementation)

| In	millions	of	dollars | December	31,<br>2015 | December	31,	2014(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  |
| Citigroup\tcommon\tstockholders'\tequity(2) | $205,286 | $199,841 |
| Add:\tQualifying\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 145 | 165 |
| Regulatory\tCapital\tAdjustments\tand\tDeductions: |  |  |
| Less:\tAccumulated\tnet\tunrealized\tlosses\ton\tcash\tflow\thedges,\tnet\tof\ttax(3) | (617) | (909) |
| Less:\tCumulative\tunrealized\tnet\tgain\trelated\tto\tchanges\tin\tfair\tvalue\tof\tfinancial\tliabilities\n\t\t\tattributable\tto\town\tcreditworthiness,\tnet\tof\ttax(4) | 441 | 279 |
| Less:\tIntangible\tassets: |  |  |
| \t\tGoodwill,\tnet\tof\trelated\tdeferred\ttax\tliabilities\t(DTLs)(5) | 21,980 | 22,805 |
| \t\t\t\tIdentifiable\tintangible\tassets\tother\tthan\tmortgage\tservicing\trights\t(MSRs),\tnet\tof\trelated\tDTLs | 3,586 | 4,373 |
| Less:\tDefined\tbenefit\tpension\tplan\tnet\tassets | 794 | 936 |
| Less:\tDeferred\ttax\tassets\t(DTAs)\tarising\tfrom\tnet\toperating\tloss,\tforeign\ttax\tcredit\tand\tgeneral\n\t\t\tbusiness\tcredit\tcarry-forwards(6) | 23,659 | 23,626 |
| Less:\tExcess\tover\t10%/15%\tlimitations\tfor\tother\tDTAs,\tcertain\tcommon\tstock\tinvestments,\n\t\tand\tMSRs(6)(7) | 8,723 | 12,299 |
| Total\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital | $146,865 | $136,597 |
| Additional\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  |
| Qualifying\tperpetual\tpreferred\tstock(2) | $16,571 | $10,344 |
| Qualifying\ttrust\tpreferred\tsecurities(8) | 1,365 | 1,369 |
| Qualifying\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 31 | 35 |
| Regulatory\tCapital\tDeductions: |  |  |
| Less:\tMinimum\tregulatory\tcapital\trequirements\tof\tinsurance\tunderwriting\tsubsidiaries(9) | 229 | 279 |
| Less:\tPermitted\townership\tinterests\tin\tcovered\tfunds(10) | 567 | — |
| Total\tAdditional\tTier\t1\tCapital | $17,171 | $11,469 |
| Total\tTier\t1\tCapital\t(Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\t+\tAdditional\tTier\t1\tCapital) | $164,036 | $148,066 |
| Tier\t2\tCapital |  |  |
| Qualifying\tsubordinated\tdebt(11) | $20,744 | $16,094 |
| Qualifying\ttrust\tpreferred\tsecurities(12) | 342 | 350 |
| Qualifying\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 41 | 46 |
| Excess\tof\teligible\tcredit\treserves\tover\texpected\tcredit\tlosses(13) | 1,163 | 1,177 |
| Regulatory\tCapital\tDeduction: |  |  |
| Less:\tMinimum\tregulatory\tcapital\trequirements\tof\tinsurance\tunderwriting\tsubsidiaries(9) | 229 | 279 |
| Total\tTier\t2\tCapital | $22,061 | $17,388 |
| Total\tCapital\t(Tier\t1\tCapital\t+\tTier\t2\tCapital)(14) | $186,097 | $165,454 |

(6) Of	Citi's	approximately	$47.8	billion	of	net	DTAs	at	December	31,	2015,	approximately	$16.8	billion	of	such	assets	were	includable	in	regulatory	capital	pursuant	to	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	while approximately	$31.0	billion	of	such	assets	were	excluded	in	arriving	at	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital.	Comprising	the	excluded	net	DTAs	was	an	aggregate	of	approximately	$32.4	billion	of	net DTAs	arising	from	net	operating	loss,	foreign	tax	credit	and	general	business	credit	carry-forwards	as	well	as	temporary	differences	that	were	deducted	from	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital.	In addition,	approximately	$1.4	billion	of	net	DTLs,	primarily	consisting	of	DTLs	associated	with	goodwill	and	certain	other	intangible	assets,	partially	offset	by	DTAs	related	to	cash	flow	hedges, are	permitted	to	be	excluded	prior	to	deriving	the	amount	of	net	DTAs	subject	to	deduction	under	these	rules.	Separately,	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	goodwill	and	these	other	intangible	assets are	deducted	net	of	associated	DTLs	in	arriving	at	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	while	Citi's	current	cash	flow	hedges	and	the	related	deferred	tax	effects	are	not	required	to	be	reflected	in regulatory	capital.

(7) Assets	subject	to	10%/15%	limitations	include	MSRs,	DTAs	arising	from	temporary	differences	and	significant	common	stock	investments	in	unconsolidated	financial	institutions.	At	 December	31, 2015,	the	deduction	related	only	to	DTAs	arising	from	temporary	differences	that	exceeded	the	10%	limitation,	while	at	 December	31,	2014,	the	deduction	related	to	all	three	assets	which exceeded	both	the	10%	and	15%	limitations.

(8) Represents	Citigroup	Capital	XIII	trust	preferred	securities,	which	are	permanently	grandfathered	as	Tier	1	Capital	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules.

(10) Effective	July	2015,	banking	entities	are	required	to	be	in	compliance	with	the	"Volcker	Rule"	of	the	Dodd-Frank	Act	that	prohibits	conducting	certain	proprietary	investment	activities	and	limits	their ownership	of,	and	relationships	with,	covered	funds.	Accordingly,	Citi	is	required	by	the	"Volcker	Rule"	to	deduct	from	Tier	1	Capital	all	permitted	ownership	interests	in	covered	funds	that	were acquired	after	December	31,	2013.

(11) Non-qualifying	subordinated	debt	issuances	which	consist	of	those	with	a	fixed-to-floating	rate	step-up	feature	where	the	call/step-up	date	has	not	passed	are	excluded	from	Tier	2	Capital.

(12) Represents	the	amount	of	non-grandfathered	trust	preferred	securities	eligible	for	inclusion	in	Tier	2	Capital	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	which	will	be	fully	phased-out	of	Tier	2	Capital	by	January 1,	2022.

(14) Total	Capital	as	calculated	under	Advanced	Approaches,	which	differs	from	the	Standardized	Approach	in	the	treatment	of	the	amount	of	eligible	credit	reserves	includable	in	Tier	2	Capital.

# Citigroup	Capital	Rollforward	Under	Basel	III	(Advanced	Approaches	with	Full	Implementation)

| In	millions	of	dollars | Three	Months	Ended<br>	December	31,	2015 | Twelve	Months	Ended<br>	December	31,	2015(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $146,451 | $136,597 |
| Net\tincome | 3,335 | 17,242 |
| Dividends\tdeclared | (415) | (1,253) |
| \tTreasury\tstock\tacquired | (1,650) | (5,452) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tadditional\tpaid-in\tcapital(2) | 331 | 1,036 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tforeign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tadjustment\tnet\tof\thedges,\tnet\tof\ttax | (796) | (5,499) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tunrealized\tlosses\ton\tsecurities\tAFS,\tnet\tof\ttax | (1,131) | (964) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tdefined\tbenefit\tplans\tliability\tadjustment,\tnet\tof\ttax | (85) | 43 |
| Net\tchange\tin\tcumulative\tunrealized\tnet\tgain\trelated\tto\tchanges\tin\tfair\tvalue\tof\n\t\t\tfinancial\tliabilities\tattributable\tto\town\tcreditworthiness,\tnet\tof\ttax | 276 | (162) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tgoodwill,\tnet\tof\trelated\tdeferred\ttax\tliabilities\t(DTLs) | (248) | 825 |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tidentifiable\tintangible\tassets\tother\tthan\tmortgage\tservicing\trights\t(MSRs),\tnet\tof\trelated\tDTLs | 325 | 787 |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tdefined\tbenefit\tpension\tplan\tnet\tassets | 110 | 142 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tdeferred\ttax\tassets\t(DTAs)\tarising\tfrom\tnet\toperating\tloss,\tforeign\n\t\t\t\ttax\tcredit\tand\tgeneral\tbusiness\tcredit\tcarry-forwards | (364) | (33) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\texcess\tover\t10%/15%\tlimitations\tfor\tother\tDTAs,\tcertain\tcommon\tstock\n\t\t\tinvestments\tand\tMSRs | 728 | 3,576 |
| Other | (2) | (20) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital | $414 | $10,268 |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\tBalance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $146,865 | $146,865 |
| Additional\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $15,548 | $11,469 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tqualifying\tperpetual\tpreferred\tstock(3) | 1,495 | 6,227 |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tqualifying\ttrust\tpreferred\tsecurities | — | (4) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tpermitted\townership\tinterests\tin\tcovered\tfunds | 111 | (567) |
| Other | 17 | 46 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tAdditional\tTier\t1\tCapital | $1,623 | $5,702 |
| Tier\t1\tCapital\tBalance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $164,036 | $164,036 |
| Tier\t2\tCapital |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $21,097 | $17,388 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tqualifying\tsubordinated\tdebt | 349 | 4,650 |
| Net\tchange\tin\texcess\tof\teligible\tcredit\treserves\tover\texpected\tcredit\tlosses | 606 | (14) |
| Other | 9 | 37 |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tTier\t2\tCapital | $964 | $4,673 |
| Tier\t2\tCapital\tBalance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $22,061 | $22,061 |
| Total\tCapital\t(Tier\t1\tCapital\t+\tTier\t2\tCapital) | $186,097 | $186,097 |

# Citigroup	Risk-Weighted	Assets	Under	Basel	III	(Full	Implementation)	at	December	31,	2015

|  |  | Advanced	Approaches |  |  | Standardized	Approach |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citicorp | Citi\tHoldings | Total | Citicorp | Citi\tHoldings | Total |
| Credit\tRisk | $736,641 | $79,819 | $816,460 | $1,015,070 | $72,629 | $1,087,699 |
| Market\tRisk | 70,715 | 4,102 | 74,817 | 71,029 | 4,156 | 75,185 |
| Operational\tRisk | 275,921 | 49,079 | 325,000 | — | — | — |
| Total\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets | $1,083,277 | $133,000 | $1,216,277 | $1,086,099 | $76,785 | $1,162,884 |

|  |  | Advanced	Approaches |  |  | Standardized	Approach |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citicorp | Citi\tHoldings | Total | Citicorp | Citi\tHoldings | Total |
| Credit\tRisk | $752,247 | $127,377 | $879,624 | $1,023,961 | $104,046 | $1,128,007 |
| Market\tRisk | 95,824 | 4,657 | 100,481 | 95,824 | 4,657 | 100,481 |
| Operational\tRisk | 255,155 | 57,345 | 312,500 | — | — | — |
| Total\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets | $1,103,226 | $189,379 | $1,292,605 | $1,119,785 | $108,703 | $1,228,488 |

Total	risk-weighted	assets	under	both	the	Basel	III	Advanced	Approaches	and the	Standardized	Approach	declined	from	year-end	2014	primarily	due	to	a decrease	in	credit	risk-weighted	assets	resulting	from	the	impact	of	FX	translation and	the	ongoing	decline	in	Citi	Holdings	assets,	as	well	as	a	decline	in	market	risk- weighted	assets.	In	addition,	partially	offsetting	the	decrease	in	total	risk-weighted assets	under	the	Advanced	Approaches	was	an	increase	in	operational	risk- weighted	assets	reflecting	an	evaluation	of	ongoing	events	in	the	banking	industry, as	well	as	continued	enhancements	to	Citi's	operational	risk	model.

# Citigroup	Risk-Weighted	Assets	Rollforward	(Basel	III	Advanced	Approaches	with	Full	Implementation)

| In	millions	of	dollars | Three	Months	Ended<br>	December	31,	2015 | Twelve	Months	Ended<br>	December	31,	2015(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| \tTotal\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $1,254,473 | $1,292,605 |
| Changes\tin\tCredit\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets |  |  |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tretail\texposures(2) | (13,856) | (26,399) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\twholesale\texposures(3) | 1,668 | 1,682 |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\trepo-style\ttransactions | (935) | (2,015) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tsecuritization\texposures | (1,843) | (2,563) |
| Net\tincrease\tin\tequity\texposures | 1,123 | 1,722 |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tover-the-counter\t(OTC)\tderivatives(4) | (3,119) | (7,002) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tderivatives\tCVA(5) | (789) | (4,418) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tother\texposures(6) | (8,875) | (20,845) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tsupervisory\t6%\tmultiplier(7) | (1,550) | (3,326) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tCredit\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets | $(28,176) | $(63,164) |
| Changes\tin\tMarket\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets |  |  |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\trisk\tlevels(8) | $(7,662) | $(21,041) |
| Net\tdecrease\tdue\tto\tmodel\tand\tmethodology\tupdates(9) | (2,358) | (4,623) |
| Net\tdecrease\tin\tMarket\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets | $(10,020) | $(25,664) |
| Increase\tin\tOperational\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets(10) | $— | $12,500 |
| Total\tRisk-Weighted\tAssets,\tend\tof\tperiod | $1,216,277 | $1,216,277 |

Citigroup's	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	was	7.08%	for	the	fourth	quarter	of 2015,	compared	to	6.85%	for	the	third	quarter	of	2015	and	5.94%	for	the	fourth quarter	of	2014.	The	growth	in	the	ratio	quarter-over-quarter	was	principally	driven by	an	increase	in	Tier	1	Capital	attributable	largely	to	net	income	of	$3.3	billion and	a	$1.5	billion	noncumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock	issuance,	as	well	as	an overall	reduction	in	Total	Leverage	Exposure	resulting	from	reduced	on-balance sheet	assets	and	derivative	exposures,	partially	offset	by	a	$1.8	billion	return	of capital	to	common	shareholders	in	the	form	of	share	repurchases	and	dividends. The	growth	in	the	ratio	from	the	fourth	quarter	of	2014	was	also	principally	driven by	an

increase	in	Tier	1	Capital	attributable	largely	to	net	income	of	$17.2	billion	and approximately	$6.2	billion	(net	of	issuance	costs)	of	noncumulative	perpetual preferred	stock	issuances,	offset	in	part	by	the	return	of	capital	to	common shareholders.	Further,	a	decrease	in	Total	Leverage	Exposure	also	contributed	to the	growth	in	the	ratio	from	the	fourth	quarter	of	2014.

The	following	table	sets	forth	Citi's	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	and	related components,	assuming	full	implementation	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	for	the three	months	ended	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014.

# Citigroup	Basel	III	Supplementary	Leverage	Ratio	and	Related	Components	(Full	Implementation)

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	ratios | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Tier\t1\tCapital | $164,036 | $148,066 |
| Total\tLeverage\tExposure\t(TLE) |  |  |
| On-balance\tsheet\tassets(2) | $1,784,248 | $1,899,955 |
| Certain\toff-balance\tsheet\texposures:(3) |  |  |
| \t\t\tPotential\tfuture\texposure\t(PFE)\ton\tderivative\tcontracts | 206,128 | 240,712 |
| \t\t\tEffective\tnotional\tof\tsold\tcredit\tderivatives,\tnet(4) | 76,923 | 96,869 |
| \t\t\tCounterparty\tcredit\trisk\tfor\trepo-style\ttransactions(5) | 25,939 | 28,073 |
| \t\t\tUnconditionally\tcancellable\tcommitments | 58,699 | 61,673 |
| \t\t\tOther\toff-balance\tsheet\texposures | 225,450 | 229,672 |
| Total\tof\tcertain\toff-balance\tsheet\texposures | $593,139 | $656,999 |
| Less:\tTier\t1\tCapital\tdeductions | 59,538 | 64,318 |
| Total\tLeverage\tExposure | $2,317,849 | $2,492,636 |
| Supplementary\tLeverage\tratio | 7.08% | 5.94% |

(2) Represents	the	daily	average	of	on-balance	sheet	assets	for	the	quarter.

(3) Represents	the	average	of	certain	off-balance	sheet	exposures	calculated	as	of	the	last	day	of	each	month	in	the	quarter.

(4) Under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	banking	organizations	are	required	to	include	in	TLE	the	effective	notional	amount	of	sold	credit	derivatives,	with	netting	of	exposures	permitted	if	certain	conditions	are met.

(5) Repo-style	transactions	include	repurchase	or	reverse	repurchase	transactions	and	securities	borrowing	or	securities	lending	transactions.

Citibank's	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio,	assuming	full	implementation	under the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	was	6.65%	for	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015,	compared	to 6.67%	for	the	third	quarter	of	2015	and	6.20%	for	the	fourth	quarter	of	2014.	The ratio	remained	substantially	unchanged	from	the	third	quarter	of	2015	as	the growth	in	Tier	1	Capital	resulting	primarily	from	quarterly	net	income	and	a	$2.1 billion	noncumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock	issuance	was	offset	by	cash dividends	paid	by	Citibank	to	its	parent,	Citicorp,	and	which	were	subsequently remitted	to	Citigroup.	The	increase	in	the	ratio	from	the	fourth	quarter	of	2014	was principally	driven	by	net	income	and	DTA	utilization,	as	well	as	an	overall reduction	in	Total	Leverage	Exposure,	partially	offset	by	cash	dividends	paid	by Citibank	to	its	parent,	Citicorp,	and	which	were	subsequently	remitted	to	Citigroup.

# Regulatory	Capital	Standards	Developments

# Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer

In	December	2015,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	released	a	proposed	policy statement	on	the	framework	that	would	be	followed	in	setting	the	amount	of	the U.S.	Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	for	Advanced	Approaches	banking organizations.	In	accordance	with	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules,	the	amount	of	the applicable	Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	is	equal	to	the	weighted	average	of Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	amounts	established	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board for	the	national	jurisdictions	where	the	Advanced	Approaches	banking	organization has	private	sector	credit	exposures.	As	a	result,	the	Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer may	differ	for	each	Advanced	Approaches	banking	organization.

The	Federal	Reserve	Board's	proposed	framework	for	setting	the	U.S. Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	encompasses	a	number	of	financial-system vulnerabilities,	as	well	as	a	wide	range	of	financial	and	macroeconomic quantitative	indicators.	However,	given	that	no	single	indicator	or	fixed	set	of indicators	can	adequately	capture	all	the	key	vulnerabilities	in	the	U.S.	economy and	financial	system,	the	types	of	indicators	and	models	considered	in	assessments of	the	appropriate	level	of	the	Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	are	likely	to	change over	time.

The	Federal	Reserve	Board	expects	to	consider	the	applicable	level	of	the	U.S. Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	at	least	once	per	year.	An	increase	in	the	amount	of the	Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	for	U.S.-based	credit	exposures	would generally	have	an	effective	date	12	months	after	such	determination,	while	a decrease	in	the	amount	of	the	Countercyclical	Capital	Buffer	would	generally become	effective	the	day	after	such	determination.

# Revisions	to	the	Standardized	Approach	for	Credit	Risk

In	December	2015,	the	Basel	Committee	on	Banking	Supervision	(Basel Committee)	issued	a	second	consultative	document	which	proposes	various revisions	to	the	Standardized	Approach	in	deriving	credit	risk-weighted	assets.	As proposed,	the	revised	Standardized	Approach	seeks	to	balance	risk	sensitivity	and complexity,	and	to	promote	comparability	of	credit	risk-weighted	assets	across banking	organizations	and	jurisdictions.

The	proposal	would,	in	part,	revise	the	Standardized	Approach	in	measuring credit	risk-weighted	assets	with	respect	to	certain	on-balance	sheet	assets,	such	as in	relation	to	the	risk-weighting	methodologies	employed	with	respect	to	bank, corporate,	and	real	estate	(both	residential	and	commercial)	exposures;	the treatment	of	off-balance	sheet	commitments;	and	aspects	of	the	credit	risk mitigation	framework.	Moreover,	the	proposal	would	permit	the	use	of	external credit	ratings	combined	with	due	diligence	requirements	in	the	calculation	of	credit risk-weighted	assets	for	exposures	to	banks	and	corporates,	while	also	providing alternative	approaches	for	jurisdictions	that	do	not	allow	the	use	of	external	credit ratings	for	risk-based	capital	purposes,	such	as	the	U.S.	Prior	to	finalizing	the

proposal,	the	Basel	Committee	will	be	conducting	a	comprehensive	quantitative impact	study	so	as	to	assist	with	assessing	the	risk-weighting	calibration	for	each	of the	affected	exposure	classes,	as	well	as	will	evaluate	the	appropriate implementation	and	transitional	arrangements.	The	U.S.	banking	agencies	have indicated	that	any	changes	to	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules	as	a	result	of	the	Basel Committee's	proposed	revisions	to	the	Standardized	Approach	would	apply primarily	to	large,	internationally	active	banking	organizations.

# Revised	Minimum	Capital	Requirements	for	Market	Risk

In	January	2016,	the	Basel	Committee	issued	a	final	rule	which	sets	forth	a	revised market	risk	capital	framework,	resulting	from	the	so-called	"fundamental	review of	the	trading	book"	and	four	quantitative	impact	studies	over	several	years.

The	final	rule	establishes	a	revised	boundary	between	the	trading	book	and banking	book	which,	in	part,	provides	more	prescriptive	guidance	as	to	qualifying trading	book	positions	as	well	as	imposes	heightened	restrictions	and,	in	certain instances,	additional	capital	charges,	on	the	transfer	of	positions	between	the trading	book	and	banking	book.	Moreover,	the	final	rule	also	revises	both	the internal	models	approach	and	the	standardized	approach	in	certain	respects.	With regard	to	the	internal	models	approach,	the	final	rule	introduces	a	more comprehensive	model	to	measure	market	risk,	provides	for	a	more	granular	model approval	process,	and	reduces	the	regulatory	capital	benefits	of	hedging	activities and	portfolio	diversification.	The	final	rule	revises	the	standardized	approach,	in part,	by	calibrating	it	more	closely	to	the	internal	models	approach	by	increasing reliance	on	risk	sensitivity	inputs	in	the	calculation	of	market	risk	capital requirements.	The	deadline	for	national	jurisdictions	to	implement	the	revised market	risk	capital	framework	is	January	1,	2019,	with	the	effective	date	for banking	organizations	to	begin	reporting	under	the	revised	framework,	subject	to any	required	supervisory	approvals,	being	December	31,	2019.

If	the	U.S.	banking	agencies	were	to	adopt	the	Basel	Committee's	final	rule unchanged,	Citi	believes	its	market	risk-weighted	assets	could	increase significantly.	However,	as	set	forth	in	the	tables	above,	as	of	December	31,	2015, Citi's	market	risk-weighted	assets	constituted	approximately	6%	of	its	total	risk- weighted	assets.	Accordingly,	Citi	currently	believes	that	the	overall	impact	to	its total	risk-weighted	assets	and	thus	its	risk-based	capital	ratios	would	not	be material.	Nevertheless,	the	ultimate	impact	to	Citi's	market	risk-weighted	assets and	potentially	its	risk-based	capital	ratios	is	uncertain	and	is	subject	to	several factors	including,	but	not	limited	to,	the	U.S.	banking	agencies'	implementation	of a	final	rule,	potential	changes	in	the	scale	and	scope	of	future	market	risk	model approvals	as	well	as	potential	risk	mitigation	actions.

# Tangible	Common	Equity,	Tangible	Book	Value	Per	Share	and	Book	Value Per	Share

Tangible	common	equity	(TCE),	as	currently	defined	by	Citi,	represents	common equity	less	goodwill	and	other	intangible	assets	(other	than	MSRs).	Other companies	may	calculate	TCE	in	a	different	manner.	TCE	and	tangible	book	value per	share	are	non-GAAP	financial	measures.	Citi	believes	these	capital	metrics provide	useful	information,	as	they	are	used	by	investors	and	industry	analysts.

| In	millions	of	dollars	or	shares,	except	per	share	amounts | December	31,<br>2015 | December	31,	2014(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Total\tCitigroup\tstockholders'\tequity | $221,857 | $210,185 |
| Less:\tPreferred\tstock | 16,718 | 10,468 |
| Common\tequity | $205,139 | $199,717 |
| Less: |  |  |
| \t\t\t\tGoodwill | 22,349 | 23,592 |
| \t\t\t\tIntangible\tassets\t(other\tthan\tMSRs) | 3,721 | 4,566 |
| \t\t\t\tGoodwill\tand\tintangible\tassets\t(other\tthan\tMSRs)\trelated\tto\tassets\theld-for-sale | 68 | 71 |
| Tangible\tcommon\tequity\t(TCE) | $179,001 | $171,488 |
| Common\tshares\toutstanding\t(CSO) | 2,953.3 | 3,023.9 |
| Tangible\tbook\tvalue\tper\tshare\t(TCE/CSO) | $60.61 | $56.71 |
| Book\tvalue\tper\tshare\t(common\tequity/CSO) | $69.46 | $66.05 |

# RISK	FACTORS

The	following	discussion	sets	forth	what	management	currently	believes	could	be the	most	significant	risks	and	uncertainties	that	could	impact	Citi's	businesses, results	of	operations	and	financial	condition.	Other	risks	and	uncertainties, including	those	not	currently	known	to	Citi	or	its	management,	could	also negatively	impact	Citi's	businesses,	results	of	operations	and	financial	condition. Thus,	the	following	should	not	be	considered	a	complete	discussion	of	all	of	the risks	and	uncertainties	Citi	may	face.

# REGULATORY	RISKS

# Citi's	Inability	to	Enhance	Its	2015	Resolution	Plan	Submission	Could	Subject

# It	to	More	Stringent	Capital,	Leverage	or	Liquidity	Requirements,	or	Restrictions

# on	Its	Growth,	Activities	or	Operations,	and	Could	Eventually	Require	Citi	to Divest	Assets	or	Operations.

Title	I	of	the	Dodd-Frank	Act	requires	Citi	to	annually	prepare	and	submit	a	plan	to the	Federal	Reserve	Board	and	the	FDIC	for	the	orderly	resolution	of	Citigroup (the	bank	holding	company),	and	its	significant	legal	entities,	under	the	U.S. Bankruptcy	Code	or	other	applicable	insolvency	law	in	the	event	of	future	material financial	distress	or	failure	(Title	I	Resolution	Plan).	The	Title	I	Resolution	Plan requires	significant	effort,	time	and	cost	across	all	of	Citi's	businesses	and geographies,	and	is	subject	to	review	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	and	the	FDIC. Under	Title	I,	if	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	and	the	FDIC	jointly	determine that	Citi's	2015	Title	I	Resolution	Plan	is	not	"credible"	(which,	although	not defined,	is	generally	believed	to	mean	the	regulators	do	not	believe	the	plan	is feasible	or	would	otherwise	allow	the	regulators	to	resolve	Citi	in	a	way	that protects	systemically	important	functions	without	severe	systemic	disruption),	or would	not	facilitate	an	orderly	resolution	of	Citi	under	the	U.S.	Bankruptcy	Code, and	Citi	fails	to	resubmit	a	resolution	plan	that	remedies	any	identified deficiencies,	Citi	could	be	subjected	to	more	stringent	capital,	leverage	or	liquidity requirements,	or	restrictions	on	its	growth,	activities	or	operations.	If	within	two years	from	the	imposition	of	any	requirements	or	restrictions	Citi	has	still	not remediated	any	identified	deficiencies,	then	Citi	could	eventually	be	required	to divest	certain	assets	or	operations.	Any	such	restrictions	or	actions	would negatively	impact	Citi's	reputation,	market	and	investor	perception,	operations	and strategy.

In	August	2014,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	and	the	FDIC	announced	the completion	of	reviews	of	the	2013	Title	I	Resolution	Plans	submitted	by	Citi	and 10	other	financial	institutions.	The	agencies	identified	shortcomings	with	the	firms' 2013	Title	I	Resolution	Plans,	including	Citi's.	These	shortcomings	generally included	(i)	assumptions	that	the	agencies	regarded	as	unrealistic	or	inadequately supported,	such	as	assumptions	about	the	likely	behavior	of	customers, counterparties,	investors,	central	clearing	facilities	and	regulators;	and	(ii)	the failure	to	make,	or	identify,	the	kinds	of	changes	in	firm	structure	and	practices	that would	be	necessary	to	enhance	the	prospects	for	orderly	resolution.

Significantly,	the	FDIC	determined	that	the	2013	Title	I	Resolution	Plans submitted	by	the	11	institutions,	including	Citi,	were	"not	credible"	and	did	not facilitate	an	orderly	resolution	under	the	U.S.	Bankruptcy	Code.	The	Federal Reserve	Board	determined	that	the	plans	of	the	11	institutions	were	required	to take	immediate	action	to	improve	their	resolvability	and	reflect	those improvements	in	their	2015	plans.	At	the	same	time,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board and	FDIC	indicated	that	if	the	identified	shortcomings	were	not	addressed	in	the 2015	Title	I	Resolution	Plan	submissions,	the	agencies	expected	to	use	their authority	under	Title	I,	as	discussed	above.	Like	other	similarly-situated institutions,	Citi	submitted	its	2015	Title	I	Resolution	Plan	on	July	1,	2015	and	the industry	has	not	yet	received	a	formal	response	from	the	regulators.

# Citi's	Ability	to	Return	Capital	to	Shareholders	Substantially	Depends	on	the CCAR	Process	and	the	Results	of	Regulatory	Stress	Tests.

In	addition	to	Board	of	Directors'	approval,	any	decision	by	Citi	to	return	capital	to shareholders,	whether	through	an	increase	in	its	common	stock	dividend	or through	a	share	repurchase	program,	substantially	depends	on	regulatory	approval, including	through	the	CCAR	process	required	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	and the	supervisory	stress	tests	required	under	the	Dodd-Frank	Act.	In	March	2014,	the Federal	Reserve	Board	announced	that	it	objected	to	the	capital	plan	submitted	by Citi	as	part	of	the	2014	CCAR	process,	meaning	Citi	was	not	able	to	increase	its return	of	capital	to	shareholders	as	it	had	requested.	Restrictions	on	Citi's	ability	to return	capital	to	shareholders	as	a	result	of	the	2014	CCAR	process	negatively impacted	market	and	investor	perceptions	of	Citi,	and	continued	restrictions	could do	so	in	the	future.

Citi's	ability	to	accurately	predict	or	explain	to	stakeholders	the	outcome	of the	CCAR	process,	and	thus	address	any	such	market	or	investor	perceptions,	is difficult	as	the	Federal	Reserve	Board's	assessment	of	Citi	is	conducted	not	only by	using	the	Board's	proprietary	stress	test	models,	but	also	a	number	of	qualitative factors,	including	a	detailed	assessment	of	Citi's	"capital	adequacy	process,"	as defined	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board.	These	qualitative	factors	were	cited	by	the Federal	Reserve	Board	in	its	objection	to	Citi's	2014	capital	plan,	and	the	Board has	stated	that	it	expects	leading	capital	adequacy	practices	will	continue	to	evolve and	will	likely	be	determined	by	the	Board	each	year	as	a	result	of	its	cross-firm review	of	capital	plan	submissions.

Similarly,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	has	indicated	that,	as	part	of	its	stated goal	to	continually	evolve	its	annual	stress	testing	requirements,	several	parameters of	the	annual	stress	testing	process	may	be	altered	from	time	to	time,	including	the severity	of	the	stress	test	scenario,	Federal	Reserve	Board	modeling	of	Citi's balance	sheet	and	the	addition	of	components	deemed	important	by	the	Federal Reserve	Board	(e.g.,	a	counterparty	failure).	In	addition,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board indicated	that	it	may	consider	that	some	or	all	of	Citi's	GSIB	surcharge	be integrated	into	its	post-stress	test	minimum	capital	requirements.	These	parameter and	other	alterations	could	further	increase	the	level	of	capital	Citi	must	meet	as

part	of	the	stress	tests,	thus	potentially	impacting	the	level	of	capital	returns	to shareholders.

Further,	because	it	is	not	clear	how	the	Federal	Reserve	Board's	proprietary stress	test	models	may	differ	from	the	modeling	techniques	employed	by	Citi,	it	is possible	that	Citi's	stress	test	results	(using	its	own	models,	estimation methodologies	and	processes)	may	not	be	consistent	with	those	disclosed	by	the Federal	Reserve	Board,	thus	potentially	leading	to	additional	confusion	and impacts	to	Citi's	perception	in	the	market.

# Citi,	Its	Management	and	Businesses	Must	Continually	Review,	Analyze	and Successfully	Adapt	to	Ongoing	Regulatory	Changes	and	Uncertainties	in	the	U.S. and	Globally.

Despite	the	adoption	of	final	regulations	in	numerous	areas	impacting	Citi	and	its businesses	over	the	past	several	years,	including	final	U.S.	Basel	III	capital	rules, certain	derivatives	reforms	and	restrictions	on	proprietary	trading	under	the Volcker	Rule,	Citi,	its	management	and	businesses	continually	face	ongoing regulatory	changes	and	uncertainties,	both	in	the	U.S.	and	globally.

While	the	areas	of	ongoing	regulatory	changes	and	uncertainties	facing	Citi are	too	numerous	to	list	completely,	various	examples	include,	but	are	not	limited to:	(i)	limits	on	the	level	of	credit	risk	Citi	may	have	against	certain	counterparties; (ii)	potential	changes	to	various	aspects	of	the	regulatory	capital	framework applicable	to	Citi	(see	"Capital	Resources—Regulatory	Capital	Standards Developments"	above);	(iii)	financial	transaction	taxes	and/or	other	types	of increased	fees	on	financial	institutions;	(iv)	international	versions	of	the	Volcker Rule	and	bank	structural	reforms;	(v)	whether	and	to	what	extent	the	European Union	and	CFTC	will	render	any	"equivalency"	determinations	or	regulatory acknowledgment	of	the	equivalency	of	derivatives	regimes;	(vi)	U.S.	and international	requirements	relating	to	sanctions	against	Russia,	Iran	and	other countries;	and	(vii)	the	U.S.	banking	agencies'	rules	relating	to	the	net	stable funding	ratio,	or	NSFR	(see	"Managing	Global	Risk—Liquidity	Risk"	below). There	may	also	be	regulatory	changes	not	yet	contemplated,	or	changes	that	have been	proposed	which	could	take	a	dramatically	different	form	upon	finalization. Moreover,	certain	recent	regulatory	changes,	while	final,	remain	in	the implementation	period,	and	it	remains	uncertain	what	ultimate	impact	such changes	will	have	on	Citi's	businesses,	results	of	operations	or	financial	condition. For	example,	in	October	and	December	2015,	the	U.S.	banking	regulators	and CFTC,	respectively,	adopted	final	rules	relating	to	margin	requirements	for uncleared	swaps.	The	final	rules,	which	have	a	three-year	phase-in	period beginning	on	September	1,	2016,	will	require	Citi	to	both	collect	and	post	margin to	counterparties,	as	well	as	collect	and	post	margin	to	certain	of	its	affiliates,	in connection	with	any	uncleared	swap,	with	the	initial	margin	required	to	be	held	by unaffiliated	third-party	custodians.	While	Citi	continues	to	work	through	the implications	of	the	final	rules,	it	is	likely	these	requirements	will	significantly increase	the	cost	to	Citi	and	its	counterparties	of	conducting	uncleared	swaps	and impact	its	current	inter-affiliate	swap	practices	(e.g.,	require	clearing	of

more	inter-affiliate	swaps	and/or	enter	into	risk	management	swaps	with	third parties).

Ongoing	regulatory	changes	and	uncertainties	make	Citi's	and	its management's	long-term	business,	balance	sheet	and	budget	planning	difficult	or subject	to	change,	and	can	negatively	impact	Citi's	results	of	operations,	financial condition	and,	potentially,	its	strategy	or	organizational	structure.	In	addition,	in many	cases,	business	planning	is	required	to	be	based	on	possible	or	proposed rules,	requirements	or	outcomes	and	is	further	complicated	by	management's continual	need	to	review	and	evaluate	the	impact	on	Citi's	businesses	of	ongoing rule	proposals,	final	rules	and	implementation	guidance	from	numerous	regulatory bodies	worldwide,	which	such	guidance	can	change.	Moreover,	in	many	instances U.S.	and	international	regulatory	initiatives	have	not	been	undertaken	or implemented	on	a	coordinated	basis,	and	areas	of	divergence	have	developed	with respect	to	the	scope,	interpretation,	timing,	structure	or	approach,	leading	to inconsistent	or	even	conflicting	regulations,	including	within	a	single	jurisdiction. Regulatory	changes	have	also	significantly	increased	Citi's	compliance	risks	and costs	(see	"Compliance,	Conduct	and	Legal	Risks"	below).

# CREDIT	AND	MARKET	RISKS

# Citi's	Results	of	Operations	Could	Be	Negatively	Impacted	as	Its	Revolving Home	Equity	Lines	of	Credit	Continue	to	"Reset."

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	home	equity	loan	portfolio	included approximately	$12.3	billion	of	home	equity	lines	of	credit	that	were	still	within their	revolving	period	and	had	not	commenced	amortization,	or	"reset"	(Revolving HELOCs).	Of	these	Revolving	HELOCs,	approximately	66%	will	commence amortization	during	2016	and	2017	(for	additional	information,	see	"Managing Global	Risk—Credit	Risk—Consumer	Credit"	below).

Before	commencing	amortization,	Revolving	HELOC	borrowers	are	required to	pay	only	interest	on	their	loans.	Upon	amortization,	these	borrowers	are	required to	pay	both	interest,	usually	at	a	variable	rate,	and	principal	that	typically	amortizes over	20	years,	rather	than	the	typical	30-year	amortization.	As	a	result,	Citi's customers	with	Revolving	HELOCs	that	reset	could	experience	"payment	shock" due	to	the	higher	required	payments	on	the	loans.	Increases	in	interest	rates	could further	increase	these	payments,	given	the	variable	nature	of	the	interest	rates	on these	loans	post-reset.

Citi	has	experienced	a	higher	30+	days	past	due	delinquency	rate	on	its amortizing	home	equity	loans	as	compared	to	its	total	outstanding	home	equity loan	portfolio	(amortizing	and	non-amortizing).	Moreover,	resets	to	date	have generally	occurred	during	a	period	of	historically	low	interest	rates,	which	Citi believes	has	likely	reduced	the	overall	payment	shock	to	borrowers.	While	Citi continues	to	monitor	this	reset	risk	closely	and	will	continue	to	consider	any potential	impact	in	determining	its	allowance	for	loan	loss	reserves,	as	well	as review	and	take	additional	actions	to	offset	potential	reset	risk,	increasing	interest rates,	stricter	lending	criteria	and	high	borrower	loan-to-value	positions	could	limit

Citi's	ability	to	reduce	or	mitigate	this	reset	risk	going	forward.	Accordingly,	as these	loans	further	reset	during	2016	and	2017,	Citi	could	continue	to	experience higher	delinquency	rates	as	well	as	increased	loan	loss	reserves	and	net	credit losses	in	future	periods,	which	could	negatively	impact	its	results	of	operations.

# Macroeconomic	and	Geopolitical	Challenges	Globally	Could	Have	a	Negative Impact	on	Citi's	Businesses	and	Results	of	Operations.

Citi	has	experienced,	and	could	experience	in	the	future,	negative	impacts	to	its businesses	and	results	of	operations	as	a	result	of	macroeconomic	and	geopolitical challenges,	uncertainties	and	volatility.

Energy	and	other	commodity	prices	significantly	deteriorated	during	the second	half	of	2015	and	into	2016,	which	has	impacted	various	financial	markets, countries	and	industries.	Global	economic	growth	remains	uneven	and	uncertain. Various	regions	or	countries,	including	certain	emerging	markets,	have experienced	slower	or	no	growth	and	volatility,	whether	due	to	macroeconomic conditions	or	geopolitical	tensions,	governmental	or	regulatory	policies	or economic	conditions	within	the	particular	region	or	country.	For	example,	the economic	and	fiscal	situations	of	several	European	countries	remain	fragile,	and geopolitical	tensions	throughout	the	region,	including	in	Russia	and	the	Middle East,	have	added	to	the	uncertainties.	While	concerns	relating	to	sovereign	defaults or	a	partial	or	complete	break-up	of	the	European	Monetary	Union	(EMU), including	potential	accompanying	redenomination	risks	and	uncertainties,	seemed to	have	abated	somewhat	in	recent	years,	concerns	and	uncertainties	have	surfaced in	Europe	over	the	potential	exit	of	the	United	Kingdom	from	the	European	Union in	2016.	In	addition,	governmental	fiscal	and	monetary	actions,	or	expected actions,	have	impacted	the	volatilities	of	global	financial	markets	and	foreign exchange	rates.

These	and	other	global	macroeconomic	and	geopolitical	challenges, uncertainties	and	volatilities	have	impacted,	and	could	continue	to	negatively impact,	Citi's	businesses,	results	of	operations	and	financial	condition,	including its	credit	costs,	revenues	in	its	Markets	and	securities	services	and	other businesses,	and	AOCI	(which	can	in	turn	negatively	impact	Citi's	book	and tangible	book	value).	Further,	if	the	economic	situation	in	a	non-U.S.	jurisdiction where	Citi	operates	were	to	deteriorate	below	a	certain	level,	U.S.	regulators	can and	have	imposed	mandatory	loan	loss	and	other	reserve	requirements	on	Citi, which	could	negatively	impact	its	cost	of	credit	and	earnings,	perhaps significantly.

# Citi's	Significant	Presence	in	the	Emerging	Markets	Subjects	It	to	Various	Risks as	well	as	Increased	Compliance	and	Regulatory	Risks	and	Costs.

During	2015,	emerging	markets	revenues	accounted	for	approximately	41%	of Citi's	total	revenues	(for	additional	information	on	how	Citi	defines	the	emerging markets	as	well	as	its	exposures	in	certain	of	these	markets,	see	"Managing	Global Risk—Country	Risk"	below).

Citi's	significant	presence	in	the	emerging	markets	subjects	it	to	a	number	of risks,	including	sovereign	volatility,

political	events,	foreign	exchange	controls,	limitations	on	foreign	investment, sociopolitical	instability	(including	from	hyper-inflation),	fraud,	nationalization	or loss	of	licenses,	business	restrictions,	sanctions	or	asset	freezes,	potential	criminal charges,	closure	of	branches	or	subsidiaries	and	confiscation	of	assets.	For example,	Citi	operates	in	several	countries	that	have,	or	have	had	in	the	recent	past, strict	foreign	exchange	controls,	such	as	Argentina	and	Venezuela,	that	limit	its ability	to	convert	local	currency	into	U.S.	dollars	and/or	transfer	funds	outside	the country.	Citi	has	also	previously	discovered	fraud	in	certain	emerging	markets	in which	it	operates	in	prior	years.	Political	turmoil	and	other	instability	have occurred	in	certain	countries,	such	as	in	Russia,	Ukraine	and	the	Middle	East, which	have	required	management	time	and	attention	(e.g.,	monitoring	the	impact of	sanctions	on	the	Russian	economy	as	well	as	Citi's	businesses	and	results	of operations).

Citi's	emerging	markets	presence	also	increases	its	compliance	and	regulatory risks	and	costs.	For	example,	Citi's	operations	in	emerging	markets,	including facilitating	cross-border	transactions	on	behalf	of	its	clients,	subject	it	to	higher compliance	risks	under	U.S.	regulations	primarily	focused	on	various	aspects	of global	corporate	activities,	such	as	anti-money-laundering	regulations	and	the Foreign	Corrupt	Practices	Act.	These	risks	can	be	more	acute	in	less	developed markets	and	thus	require	substantial	investment	in	compliance	infrastructure	or could	result	in	a	reduction	in	certain	of	Citi's	business	activities.	Any	failure	by	Citi to	comply	with	applicable	U.S.	regulations,	as	well	as	the	regulations	in	the countries	and	markets	in	which	it	operates	as	a	result	of	its	global	footprint,	could result	in	fines,	penalties,	injunctions	or	other	similar	restrictions,	any	of	which could	negatively	impact	Citi's	results	of	operations	and	its	reputation.

# Concentrations	of	Risk	Can	Increase	the	Potential	for	Citi	to	Incur	Significant Losses.

Concentrations	of	risk,	particularly	credit	and	market	risk,	can	increase	Citi's	risk of	significant	losses.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	most	significant concentration	of	credit	risk	was	with	the	U.S.	government	and	its	agencies,	which primarily	results	from	trading	assets	and	investments	issued	by	the	U.S. government	and	its	agencies	(for	additional	information,	see	Note	24	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements).	Citi	also	routinely	executes	a	high	volume	of securities,	trading,	derivative	and	foreign	exchange	transactions	with	counterparties in	the	financial	services	industry,	including	banks,	insurance	companies, investment	banks,	government	and	central	banks	and	other	financial	institutions. To	the	extent	regulatory	or	market	developments	lead	to	increased	centralization	of trading	activity	through	particular	clearing	houses,	central	agents	or	exchanges, this	could	also	increase	Citi's	concentration	of	risk	in	this	industry.	Concentrations of	risk	can	limit,	and	have	limited,	the	effectiveness	of	Citi's	hedging	strategies	and have	caused	Citi	to	incur	significant	losses,	and	they	may	do	so	again	in	the	future.

# LIQUIDITY	RISKS

# The	Federal	Reserve	Board's	Total	Loss-Absorbing	Capacity	Proposal	Includes Uncertainties	and	Potential	Operational	Difficulties	That	Could	Have	a	Negative Impact	on	Citi's	Funding	and	Liquidity,	Costs	of	Funds	and	Results	of Operations.

Title	II	of	the	Dodd-Frank	Act	grants	the	FDIC	the	authority,	under	certain circumstances,	to	resolve	systemically	important	financial	institutions,	including Citi.	The	FDIC	has	released	a	notice	describing	its	preferred	"single	point	of	entry strategy"	for	such	resolution,	pursuant	to	which,	generally,	a	bank	holding company	would	be	placed	in	receivership,	the	unsecured	long-term	debt	of	the holding	company	would	bear	losses	and	the	operating	subsidiaries	would	be recapitalized.

Consistent	with	this	strategy,	in	November	2015,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board issued	a	notice	of	proposed	rulemaking	to	require	GSIBs,	including	Citi,	to	(i)	issue and	maintain	minimum	levels	of	external	"total	loss-absorbing	capacity"	(TLAC) and	long-term	debt	(LTD),	and	(ii)	adhere	to	various	"clean	holding	company" requirements	at	the	bank	holding	company	level,	including	a	prohibition	on	third- party	short-term	borrowings,	derivatives	and	other	qualified	financial	contracts	and certain	guarantees,	as	well	as	a	limit	on	other	non-TLAC	eligible	liabilities,	such	as structured	notes	and	other	operating	liabilities.	While	not	included	in	its	proposed requirements,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	also	indicated	it	was	considering additional	domestic	internal	TLAC	requirements	for	U.S.	GSIBs	which	could require,	among	other	things,	the	"pre-positioning"	of	specified	amounts	of	TLAC to	certain	material	subsidiaries	of	the	bank	holding	company	(for	a	summary	of	the TLAC	proposal,	see	"Managing	Global	Risk—Liquidity	Risk"	below). There	are	significant	uncertainties	and	interpretive	issues	arising	from	the Federal	Reserve	Board's	proposal.	With	respect	to	the	minimum	external	LTD	and TLAC	requirements,	the	proposal	would	disqualify	from	eligible	LTD	securities that	permit	acceleration	for	reasons	other	than	insolvency	or	non-payment	of principal	or	interest	as	well	as	securities	not	governed	by	U.S.	law.	Consistent	with industry	standards,	the	vast	majority	of	Citi's	otherwise	eligible	outstanding	LTD provides	for	acceleration	in	circumstances	other	than	those	permitted	by	the proposal.	Additionally,	Citi	has	outstanding	a	significant	amount	of	LTD	not governed	by	U.S.	law	but	which	would	otherwise	be	eligible	to	count	towards	the minimum	external	LTD	requirement.	Accordingly,	if	the	requirements	are	adopted as	proposed,	and	no	"grandfathering"	of	existing	outstanding	LTD	is	provided,	Citi could	be	required	to	refinance	or	issue	significant	amounts	of	additional	debt, simultaneously	with	other	GSIBs	impacted	by	the	requirements.	Further,	such ineligible	debt	securities	would	count	against	the	limit	imposed	on	non-TLAC liabilities	imposed	under	the	clean	holding	company	requirements	of	the	proposal, likely	resulting	in	the	need	to	repurchase	significant	amounts	of	Citi's	outstanding debt	in	order	not	to	be	in	breach	of	such	limitations.	Any	of	these	actions	could negatively	and	significantly	impact	Citi's	funding	and	liquidity	management	and planning,	operations	and	costs	of	funds.

The	clean	holding	company	requirements	pose	additional	operational challenges	and	uncertainties.	Citi,	like	many	bank	holding	companies,	often guarantees	the	obligations	of	its	subsidiaries,	which	guarantees	include	a	default right	linked	to	the	insolvency	of	Citi	(i.e.,	downstream	guarantees	with	cross- default	provisions).	With	no	grandfathering	of	such	guarantees	contemplated	by	the proposal,	restructuring,	revising	or	replacing	the	extensive	number	of	guarantees outstanding	in	order	to	meet	the	clean	holding	company	requirements	could	be costly	and	expose	Citi	to	legal	risk.	Further,	the	potential	consequences	of breaching	the	proposed	clean	holding	company	requirements,	as	well	as	the consequences	of	not	meeting	many	of	the	other	requirements	in	the	Federal Reserve	Board's	proposal,	are	not	clear,	including	what	would	be	required	to	cure and	the	timeframe	to	do	so.

In	addition,	any	requirement	to	pre-position	TLAC-eligible	instruments	with material	subsidiaries	could	result	in	additional	funding	inefficiencies,	increase Citi's	overall	minimum	TLAC	requirements	by	reducing	the	fungibility	of	its funding	sources	and	require	certain	of	Citi's	subsidiaries	to	replace	lower	cost funding	with	other	higher	cost	funding,	which	would	further	impede	Citi's	funding and	liquidity	management	and	planning,	costs	of	funds	and	results	of	operations.

# The	Maintenance	of	Adequate	Liquidity	and	Funding	Depends	on	Numerous Factors,	Including	Those	Outside	of	Citi's	Control,	Such	as	Market	Disruptions and	Increases	in	Citi's	Credit	Spreads.

As	a	global	financial	institution,	adequate	liquidity	and	sources	of	funding	are essential	to	Citi's	businesses.	Citi's	liquidity	and	sources	of	funding	can	be significantly	and	negatively	impacted	by	factors	it	cannot	control,	such	as	general disruptions	in	the	financial	markets,	governmental	fiscal	and	monetary	policies, regulatory	changes	or	negative	investor	perceptions	of	Citi's	creditworthiness. In	addition,	Citi's	cost	and	ability	to	obtain	deposits,	secured	funding	and long-term	unsecured	funding	are	directly	related	to	its	credit	spreads.	Changes	in credit	spreads	constantly	occur	and	are	market	driven,	including	both	external market	factors	and	factors	specific	to	Citi,	and	can	be	highly	volatile.	Citi's	credit spreads	may	also	be	influenced	by	movements	in	the	costs	to	purchasers	of	credit default	swaps	referenced	to	Citi's	long-term	debt,	which	are	also	impacted	by	these external	and	Citi-specific	factors.	Moreover,	Citi's	ability	to	obtain	funding	may	be impaired	if	other	market	participants	are	seeking	to	access	the	markets	at	the	same time,	or	if	market	appetite	is	reduced,	as	is	likely	to	occur	in	a	liquidity	or	other market	crisis.	In	addition,	clearing	organizations,	regulators,	clients	and	financial institutions	with	which	Citi	interacts	may	exercise	the	right	to	require	additional collateral	based	on	these	market	perceptions	or	market	conditions,	which	could further	impair	Citi's	access	to	and	cost	of	funding.

As	a	holding	company,	Citi	relies	on	dividends,	distributions	and	other payments	from	its	subsidiaries	to	fund	dividends	as	well	as	to	satisfy	its	debt	and other	obligations.	Several	of	Citi's	U.S.	and	non-U.S.	subsidiaries	are	or	may	be

subject	to	capital	adequacy	or	other	regulatory	or	contractual	restrictions	on	their ability	to	provide	such	payments,	including	any	local	regulatory	stress	test requirements	or	potential	domestic	internal	TLAC	requirements	(as	discussed above).	Limitations	on	the	payments	that	Citi	receives	from	its	subsidiaries	could also	impact	its	liquidity.

# The	Credit	Rating	Agencies	Continuously	Review	the	Credit	Ratings	of	Citi	and Certain	of	Its	Subsidiaries,	and	Ratings	Downgrades	Could	Have	a	Negative Impact	on	Citi's	Funding	and	Liquidity	Due	to	Reduced	Funding	Capacity	and Increased	Funding	Costs,	Including	Derivatives	Triggers	That	Could	Require Cash	Obligations	or	Collateral	Requirements.

The	credit	rating	agencies,	such	as	Fitch,	Moody's	and	S&P,	continuously	evaluate Citi	and	certain	of	its	subsidiaries,	and	their	ratings	of	Citi	and	its	more	significant subsidiaries'	long-term/senior	debt	and	short-term/commercial	paper,	as applicable,	are	based	on	a	number	of	factors,	including	standalone	financial strength,	as	well	as	factors	not	entirely	within	the	control	of	Citi	and	its subsidiaries,	such	as	the	agencies'	proprietary	rating	agency	methodologies	and assumptions	and	conditions	affecting	the	financial	services	industry	and	markets generally.

Citi	and	its	subsidiaries	may	not	be	able	to	maintain	their	current	respective ratings.	Ratings	downgrades	could	negatively	impact	Citi's	ability	to	access	the capital	markets	and	other	sources	of	funds	as	well	as	the	costs	of	those	funds,	and its	ability	to	maintain	certain	deposits.	A	ratings	downgrade	could	also	have	a negative	impact	on	Citi's	funding	and	liquidity	due	to	reduced	funding	capacity, including	derivative	triggers,	which	could	take	the	form	of	cash	obligations	and collateral	requirements.	In	addition,	a	ratings	downgrade	could	also	have	a	negative impact	on	other	funding	sources,	such	as	secured	financing	and	other	margined transactions	for	which	there	are	no	explicit	triggers,	as	well	as	on	contractual provisions,	which	contain	minimum	ratings	thresholds	in	order	for	Citi	to	hold third-party	funds.

Moreover,	credit	ratings	downgrades	can	have	impacts,	which	may	not	be currently	known	to	Citi	or	which	are	not	possible	to	quantify.	For	example,	some entities	may	have	ratings	limitations	as	to	their	permissible	counterparties,	of which	Citi	may	or	may	not	be	aware.	In	addition,	certain	of	Citi's	corporate customers	and	trading	counterparties,	among	other	clients,	could	re-evaluate	their business	relationships	with	Citi	and	limit	the	trading	of	certain	contracts	or	market instruments	with	Citi	in	response	to	ratings	downgrades.	Changes	in	customer	and counterparty	behavior	could	impact	not	only	Citi's	funding	and	liquidity	but	also the	results	of	operations	of	certain	Citi	businesses.	For	additional	information	on the	potential	impact	of	a	reduction	in	Citi's	or	Citibank,	N.A.'s	credit	ratings,	see "Managing	Global	Risk—Liquidity	Risk"	below.

# OPERATIONAL	RISKS

# Citi	Has	Co-Branding	and	Private	Label	Credit	Card	Relationships	with	Various Retailers	and	Merchants	and	the	Failure	to	Maintain	These	Relationships	or	the Renewal	of	These	Relationships	on	Less	Favorable	Terms	Could	Have	a Negative	Impact	on	Citi's	Results	of	Operations	or	Financial	Condition.

Through	its	Citi-branded	cards	and	Citi	retail	services	credit	card	businesses,	Citi has	co-branding	and	private	label	relationships	with	various	retailers	and merchants	globally	in	the	ordinary	course	of	business	whereby	Citi	issues	credit cards	to	customers	of	the	retailers	or	merchants.	Citi's	co-branding	and	private label	agreements	provide	for	shared	economics	between	the	parties	and	generally have	a	fixed	term.	The	five	largest	relationships	constituted	an	aggregate	of approximately	10%	of	Citi's	revenues	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015. Competition	among	card	issuers,	including	Citi,	for	these	relationships	is significant.	As	a	result,	Citi	may	not	be	able	to	renew	these	relationships,	or	the relationships	may	be	renewed	on	terms	substantially	less	favorable	to	Citi's	credit card	businesses.	These	relationships	could	also	be	negatively	impacted	due	to, among	other	things,	operational	difficulties	of	the	retailer	or	merchant,	termination due	to	a	breach	by	Citi,	the	retailer	or	merchant	of	its	responsibilities,	or	external factors,	including	bankruptcies,	liquidations,	restructurings,	consolidations	and other	similar	events.	While	various	mitigating	factors	could	be	available	to	Citi	if any	of	these	events	were	to	occur	-	such	as	by	replacing	the	retailer	or	merchant	or offering	new	card	products	-	such	events	could	negatively	impact	Citi's	results	of operations	or	financial	condition.

# Citi's	Operational	Systems	and	Networks	Have	Been,	and	Will	Continue	to	Be, Subject	to	an	Increasing	Risk	of	Continually	Evolving	Cybersecurity	or	Other Technological	Risks	Which	Could	Result	in	the	Theft,	Loss,	Misuse	or Disclosure	of	Confidential	Client	or	Customer	Information,	Damage	to	Citi's Reputation,	Additional	Costs	to	Citi,	Regulatory	Penalties,	Legal	Exposure	and Financial	Losses.

A	significant	portion	of	Citi's	operations	relies	heavily	on	the	secure	processing, storage	and	transmission	of	confidential	and	other	information	as	well	as	the monitoring	of	a	large	number	of	complex	transactions	on	a	minute-by-minute	basis. For	example,	through	its	Global	Consumer	Banking,	credit	card	and	securities services	businesses,	Citi	obtains	and	stores	an	extensive	amount	of	personal	and client-specific	information	for	its	retail,	corporate	and	governmental	customers	and clients	and	must	accurately	record	and	reflect	their	extensive	account	transactions. With	the	evolving	proliferation	of	new	technologies	and	the	increasing	use	of	the Internet	and	mobile	devices	to	conduct	financial	transactions,	large,	global financial	institutions	such	as	Citi	have	been,	and	will	continue	to	be,	subject	to	an increasing	risk	of	cyber	incidents	from	these	activities.

Citi's	computer	systems,	software	and	networks	are	subject	to	ongoing	cyber incidents	such	as	unauthorized	access;	loss	or	destruction	of	data	(including confidential

client	information);	account	takeovers;	unavailability	of	service;	computer	viruses or	other	malicious	code;	cyber	attacks;	and	other	events.	These	threats	arise	from numerous	sources,	not	all	of	which	are	in	Citi's	control,	including	among	others human	error,	fraud	or	malice	on	the	part	of	employees	or	third	parties,	accidental technological	failure,	electrical	or	telecommunication	outages,	failures	of	computer servers	or	other	damage	to	Citi's	property	or	assets,	natural	disasters	or	severe weather	conditions,	health	emergencies	or	pandemics,	or	outbreaks	of	hostilities	or terrorist	acts.

Additional	challenges	are	posed	by	external	parties,	including	extremist parties	and	certain	foreign	state	actors	that	engage	in	cyber	activities	as	a	means	to promote	political	ends.	As	further	evidence	of	the	increasing	and	potentially significant	impact	of	cyber	incidents,	during	2015,	the	U.S.	government	as	well	as several	multinational	companies	reported	cyber	incidents	affecting	their	computer systems	that	resulted	in	the	data	of	millions	of	customers	and	employees	being compromised.	In	addition,	in	recent	years	several	U.S.	retailers	and	financial institutions	and	other	multinational	companies	reported	cyber	incidents	that compromised	customer	data.

While	Citi	has	not	been	materially	impacted	by	these	reported	or	other	cyber incidents,	Citi	has	been	subject	to	other	intentional	cyber	incidents	from	external sources	over	the	last	several	years,	including	(i)	denial	of	service	attacks,	which attempted	to	interrupt	service	to	clients	and	customers;	(ii)	data	breaches,	which obtained	unauthorized	access	to	customer	account	data;	and	(iii)	malicious software	attacks	on	client	systems,	which	attempted	to	allow	unauthorized	entrance to	Citi's	systems	under	the	guise	of	a	client	and	the	extraction	of	client	data.	While Citi's	monitoring	and	protection	services	were	able	to	detect	and	respond	to	the incidents	targeting	its	systems	before	they	became	significant,	they	still	resulted	in limited	losses	in	some	instances	as	well	as	increases	in	expenditures	to	monitor against	the	threat	of	similar	future	cyber	incidents.	There	can	be	no	assurance	that such	cyber	incidents	will	not	occur	again,	and	they	could	occur	more	frequently and	on	a	more	significant	scale.

Although	Citi	devotes	significant	resources	to	implement,	maintain,	monitor and	regularly	upgrade	its	systems	and	networks	with	measures	such	as	intrusion detection	and	prevention	and	firewalls	to	safeguard	critical	business	applications, there	is	no	guarantee	that	these	measures	or	any	other	measures	can	provide absolute	security.	In	addition,	because	the	methods	used	to	cause	cyber	attacks change	frequently	or,	in	some	cases,	are	not	recognized	until	launched,	Citi	may	be unable	to	implement	effective	preventive	measures	or	proactively	address	these methods	until	they	are	discovered.

If	Citi	were	to	be	subject	to	a	cyber	incident,	it	could	result	in	the	disclosure	of personal,	confidential	or	proprietary	client	information,	damage	to	Citi's	reputation with	its	clients	and	the	market,	customer	dissatisfaction,	additional	costs	to	Citi (such	as	repairing	systems,	replacing	customer	payment	cards	or	adding	new personnel	or	protection	technologies),	regulatory	penalties,	exposure	to	litigation and	other	financial	losses	to	both	Citi	and	its	clients	and	customers.	Such	events could	also	cause	interruptions	or	malfunctions	in	the

operations	of	Citi	(such	as	the	lack	of	availability	of	Citi's	online	banking	system or	mobile	banking	platform),	as	well	as	the	operations	of	its	clients,	customers	or other	third	parties.	Given	Citi's	global	footprint	and	the	high	volume	of transactions	processed	by	Citi,	certain	errors	or	actions	may	be	repeated	or compounded	before	they	are	discovered	and	rectified,	which	would	further increase	these	costs	and	consequences.

Third	parties	with	which	Citi	does	business,	as	well	as	retailers	and	other	third parties	with	which	Citi's	customers	do	business,	may	also	be	sources	of cybersecurity	or	other	operational	and	technological	risks,	particularly	where activities	of	customers	are	beyond	Citi's	security	and	control	systems.	Citi outsources	certain	functions,	such	as	processing	customer	credit	card	transactions, uploading	content	on	customer-facing	websites,	and	developing	software	for	new products	and	services.	These	relationships	allow	for	the	storage	and	processing	of customer	information	by	third-party	hosting	of	or	access	to	Citi	websites,	which could	result	in	service	disruptions	or	website	defacements,	a	risk	the confidentiality,	privacy	and	security	of	data	held	by	third	parties	may	be compromised	and	the	potential	to	introduce	vulnerable	code,	resulting	in	security breaches	impacting	Citi	customers.	While	Citi	engages	in	certain	actions	to	reduce the	exposure	resulting	from	outsourcing,	such	as	performing	onsite	security	control assessments	and	limiting	third-party	access	to	the	least	privileged	level	necessary to	perform	job	functions,	ongoing	threats	may	result	in	unauthorized	access,	loss	or destruction	of	data	or	other	cyber	incidents	with	increased	costs	and	consequences to	Citi	such	as	those	discussed	above.	Furthermore,	because	financial	institutions are	becoming	increasingly	interconnected	with	central	agents,	exchanges	and clearing	houses,	including	as	a	result	of	the	derivatives	reforms	over	the	last	few years,	Citi	has	increased	exposure	to	operational	failure	or	cyber	attacks	through third	parties.

While	Citi	maintains	insurance	coverage	that	may,	subject	to	policy	terms and	conditions	including	significant	self-insured	deductibles,	cover	certain	aspects of	cyber	risks,	such	insurance	coverage	may	be	insufficient	to	cover	all	losses.

# Citi's	Ability	to	Utilize	Its	DTAs,	and	Thus	Reduce	the	Negative	Impact	of	the DTAs	on	Citi's	Regulatory	Capital,	Will	Be	Driven	by	Its	Ability	to	Generate	U.S. Taxable	Income.

At	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	net	DTAs	were	approximately	$47.8	billion,	of which	approximately	$31.0	billion	was	excluded	from	Citi's	Common	Equity	Tier 1	Capital,	on	a	fully	implemented	basis,	under	the	U.S.	Basel	III	rules	(for additional	information,	see	"Capital	Resources—Components	of	Citigroup	Capital Under	Basel	III	(Advanced	Approaches	with	Full	Implementation)"	above).	In addition,	of	the	net	DTAs	as	of	year-end	2015,	approximately	$15.9	billion	related to	foreign	tax	credit	carry-forwards	(FTCs).	The	carry-forward	utilization	period for	FTCs	is	10	years	and	represents	the	most	time-sensitive	component	of	Citi's DTAs.	Of	the	FTCs	at	year-end	2015,	approximately	$4.8	billion	expire	in	2018 and	the	remaining	$11.1	billion	expire	over	the	period	of

2019-2025.	Citi	must	utilize	any	FTCs	generated	in	the	then-current	year	tax	return prior	to	utilizing	any	carry-forward	FTCs.

The	accounting	treatment	for	realization	of	DTAs,	including	FTCs,	is	complex and	requires	significant	judgment	and	estimates	regarding	future	taxable	earnings in	the	jurisdictions	in	which	the	DTAs	arise	and	available	tax	planning	strategies. Citi's	ability	to	utilize	its	DTAs,	including	the	FTC	components,	and	thus	use	the capital	supporting	the	DTAs	for	more	productive	purposes,	will	be	dependent	upon Citi's	ability	to	generate	U.S.	taxable	income	in	the	relevant	tax	carry-forward periods.	Failure	to	realize	any	portion	of	the	DTAs	would	also	have	a corresponding	negative	impact	on	Citi's	net	income.

In	addition,	with	regard	to	FTCs,	utilization	will	be	influenced	by	actions	to optimize	U.S.	taxable	earnings	for	the	purpose	of	consuming	the	FTC	carry- forward	component	of	the	DTAs	prior	to	expiration.		These	FTC	actions,	however, may	serve	to	increase	the	DTAs	for	other	less	time	sensitive	components. Moreover,	tax	return	limitations	on	FTCs	and	general	business	credits	that	cause Citi	to	incur	current	tax	expense,	notwithstanding	its	tax	carry-forward	position, could	impact	the	rate	of	overall	DTA	utilization.	DTA	utilization	will	also	continue to	be	driven	by	movements	in	Citi's	AOCI,	which	can	be	impacted	by	changes	in interest	rates	and	foreign	exchange	rates.

For	additional	information	on	Citi's	DTAs,	including	the	FTCs,	see "Significant	Accounting	Policies	and	Significant	Estimates—Income	Taxes"	below and	Note	9	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Citi's	Interpretation	or	Application	of	the	Extensive	Tax	Laws	to	Which	It	Is Subject	Could	Differ	from	Those	of	the	Relevant	Governmental	Authorities, Which	Could	Result	in	the	Payment	of	Additional	Taxes,	Penalties	or	Interest.

Citi	is	subject	to	the	various	tax	laws	of	the	U.S.	and	its	states	and	municipalities, as	well	as	the	numerous	foreign	jurisdictions	in	which	it	operates.	These	tax	laws are	inherently	complex	and	Citi	must	make	judgments	and	interpretations	about	the application	of	these	laws	to	its	entities,	operations	and	businesses.	Citi's interpretations	and	application	of	the	tax	laws,	including	with	respect	to withholding	tax	obligations	and	stamp	and	other	transactional	taxes,	could	differ from	that	of	the	relevant	governmental	taxing	authority,	which	could	result	in	the potential	for	the	payment	of	additional	taxes,	penalties	or	interest,	which	could	be material.

# The	Value	of	Citi's	DTAs	Could	Be	Significantly	Reduced	if	Corporate	Tax

# Rates	in	the	U.S.	or	Certain	State,	Local	or	Foreign	Jurisdictions	Decline	or	as a	Result	of	Other	Changes	in	the	U.S.	Corporate	Tax	System.

There	have	been	discussions	regarding	decreasing	the	U.S.	federal	corporate	tax rate.	Similar	discussions	have	taken	place	in	certain	local,	state	and	foreign jurisdictions.	While	Citi	may	benefit	in	some	respects	from	any	decrease	in corporate	tax	rates,	a	reduction	in	the	U.S.	federal,	or	state,	local	or	foreign corporate	tax	rates	could	result	in	a	decrease,	perhaps	significant,	in	the	value	of Citi's	DTAs,	which	would	result	in

a	reduction	to	Citi's	net	income	during	the	period	in	which	the	change	is	enacted. There	have	also	been	recent	discussions	of	more	sweeping	changes	to	the	U.S.	tax system.	It	is	uncertain	whether	or	when	any	such	tax	reform	proposals	will	be enacted	into	law,	and	whether	or	how	they	will	affect	Citi's	DTAs.

# If	Citi's	Risk	Models	Are	Ineffective	or	Require	Modification	or	Enhancement, Citi	Could	Incur	Significant	Losses	or	Its	Regulatory	Capital	and	Capital	Ratios Could	Be	Negatively	Impacted.

Citi	utilizes	models	extensively	as	part	of	its	risk	management	and	mitigation strategies,	including	in	analyzing	and	monitoring	the	various	risks	Citi	assumes	in conducting	its	activities.	For	example,	Citi	uses	models	as	part	of	its	various	stress testing	initiatives	across	the	firm.	Management	of	these	risks	is	made	even	more challenging	within	a	global	financial	institution	such	as	Citi,	particularly	given	the complex,	diverse	and	rapidly	changing	financial	markets	and	conditions	in	which Citi	operates.

These	models	and	strategies	are	inherently	limited	because	they	involve techniques,	including	the	use	of	historical	data	in	many	circumstances,	and judgments	that	cannot	anticipate	every	economic	and	financial	outcome	in	the markets	in	which	Citi	operates,	nor	can	they	anticipate	the	specifics	and	timing	of such	outcomes.	Citi	could	incur	significant	losses	if	its	risk	management	models	or strategies	are	ineffective	in	properly	anticipating	or	managing	these	risks.

Moreover,	Citi's	Basel	III	regulatory	capital	models,	including	its	credit, market	and	operational	risk	models,	continue	to	be	subject	to	ongoing	regulatory review	and	approval,	which	may	result	in	refinements,	modifications	or enhancements	(required	or	otherwise)	to	these	models.	Modifications	or requirements	resulting	from	these	ongoing	reviews,	as	well	as	any	future	changes or	guidance	provided	by	the	U.S.	banking	agencies	regarding	the	regulatory	capital framework	applicable	to	Citi,	have	resulted	in,	and	could	continue	to	result	in, significant	changes	to	Citi's	risk-weighted	assets,	total	leverage	exposure	or	other components	of	Citi's	capital	ratios.	These	changes	can	negatively	impact	Citi's capital	ratios	and	its	ability	to	achieve	its	regulatory	capital	requirements	as	it projects	or	as	required.

# Citi	Must	Continually	Pursue	Expense	Management	and	Its	Investments	in	Its Businesses	May	Not	Be	as	Successful	as	Citi	Projects	or	Expects.

Citi	continues	to	pursue	its	disciplined	expense	management	strategy,	including ongoing	repositioning	and	efficiency	targets.	However,	there	is	no	guarantee	that Citi	will	be	able	to	maintain	or	reduce	its	level	of	expenses	as	a	result	of	its repositioning	actions,	efficiency	initiatives	or	otherwise.	Moreover,	Citi's	ability	to maintain	or	reduce	its	expenses	in	part	depends	on	factors	which	it	cannot	control, such	as	ongoing	regulatory	changes,	continued	higher	regulatory	and	compliance costs,	legal	and	regulatory	proceedings	and	inquiries	and	macroeconomic conditions,	among	others.	In	addition,	investments	Citi	has	made,	or	may	make,	in its	businesses	or	operations,	such	as	those	in	technology	systems

or	in	its	U.S.	credit	card	businesses,	may	not	be	as	productive	or	effective	as	Citi expects	or	at	all.

# Citi's	Ability	to	Continue	to	Wind-Down	Citi	Holdings	Largely	Depends	on Factors	Outside	Its	Control.

While	Citi	made	significant	progress	in	continuing	to	wind-down	Citi	Holdings	in 2015,	and	Citi	expects	to	maintain	Citi	Holdings	at	or	above	"break	even"	in	2016, as	of	December	31,	2015,	the	remaining	assets	in	Citi	Holdings	largely	consisted of	North	America	legacy	consumer	mortgages,	of	which	approximately	50% consisted	of	home	equity	loans	for	which	a	market	for	sales	has	not	yet	developed. Accordingly,	sales	of	the	remaining	mortgage	assets	will	largely	continue	to	be subject	to	ongoing	run-off,	market	appetite	and/or	opportunistic	sales.	As	a	result, the	remaining	assets	in	Citi	Holdings	will	not	likely	decrease	as	significantly	as	in prior	years	and	could	continue	to	have	a	negative	impact	on	Citi's	risk-weighted assets.

# Citi's	Performance	and	the	Performance	of	Its	Individual	Businesses	Could	Be Negatively	Impacted	if	Citi	Is	Not	Able	to	Hire	and	Retain	Highly	Qualified Employees	for	Any	Reason.

Citi's	performance	and	the	performance	of	its	individual	businesses	is	largely dependent	on	the	talents	and	efforts	of	highly	skilled	employees.	Specifically,	Citi's continued	ability	to	compete	in	its	businesses,	to	manage	its	businesses	effectively and	to	continue	to	execute	its	overall	global	strategy	depends	on	its	ability	to	attract new	employees	and	to	retain	and	motivate	its	existing	employees.	If	Citi	is	unable to	continue	to	attract	and	retain	the	most	highly	qualified	employees	for	any	reason, Citi's	performance,	including	its	competitive	position,	the	successful	execution	of its	overall	strategy	and	its	results	of	operations	could	be	negatively	impacted. Citi's	ability	to	attract	and	retain	employees	depends	on	numerous	factors, some	of	which	are	outside	of	its	control.	For	example,	given	the	heightened regulatory	and	political	environment	in	which	Citi	operates	relative	to	competitors for	talent	both	within	and	outside	of	the	financial	services	area,	it	may	be	more difficult	for	Citi	to	hire	or	retain	highly	qualified	employees	in	the	future.	Other factors	that	impact	Citi's	ability	to	attract	and	retain	employees	include	its	culture, compensation,	the	management	and	leadership	of	the	company	as	well	as	its individual	businesses,	Citi's	presence	in	the	particular	market	or	region	at	issue	and the	professional	opportunities	it	offers.	Generally,	the	banking	industry	is	subject	to more	stringent	regulation	of	executive	and	employee	compensation	than	other industries,	including	deferral	and	clawback	requirements	for	incentive compensation	and	other	limitations.	Citi	often	competes	in	the	market	for	talent with	entities	that	are	not	subject	to	such	significant	regulatory	restrictions	on	the structure	of	incentive	compensation.

# Incorrect	Assumptions	or	Estimates	in	Citi's	Financial	Statements	Could	Cause Significant	Unexpected	Losses	in	the	Future,	and	Changes	to	Financial

# Accounting	and	Reporting	Standards	or	Interpretations	Could	Have	a	Material

# Impact	on	How	Citi	Records	and	Reports	Its	Financial	Condition	and	Results	of Operations.

Citi	is	required	to	use	certain	assumptions	and	estimates	in	preparing	its	financial statements	under	U.S.	GAAP,	including	determining	credit	loss	reserves,	reserves related	to	litigation	and	regulatory	exposures,	valuation	of	DTAs	and	the	fair	values of	certain	assets	and	liabilities,	among	other	items.	If	Citi's	assumptions	or estimates	underlying	its	financial	statements	are	incorrect	or	differ	from	actual future	events,	Citi	could	experience	unexpected	losses,	some	of	which	could	be significant.

Moreover,	the	Financial	Accounting	Standards	Board	(FASB)	is	currently reviewing,	or	has	proposed	or	issued,	changes	to	several	financial	accounting	and reporting	standards	that	govern	key	aspects	of	Citi's	financial	statements	or interpretations	thereof,	including	those	areas	where	Citi	is	required	to	make assumptions	or	estimates.	For	example,	the	FASB	has	proposed	a	new	accounting model	intended	to	require	earlier	recognition	of	credit	losses	on	financial instruments.	The	proposed	accounting	model	would	require	that	lifetime	"expected credit	losses"	on	financial	assets	not	recorded	at	fair	value	through	net	income, such	as	loans	and	held-to-maturity	securities,	be	recorded	at	inception	of	the financial	asset,	replacing	the	multiple	existing	impairment	models	under	U.S. GAAP	which	generally	require	that	a	loss	be	"incurred"	before	it	is	recognized	(for additional	information	on	this	and	other	proposed	changes,	see	Note	1	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements).

Changes	to	financial	accounting	or	reporting	standards	or	interpretations, whether	promulgated	or	required	by	the	FASB	or	other	regulators,	could	present operational	challenges	and	could	require	Citi	to	change	certain	of	the	assumptions or	estimates	it	previously	used	in	preparing	its	financial	statements,	which	could negatively	impact	how	it	records	and	reports	its	financial	condition	and	results	of operations	generally	and/or	with	respect	to	particular	businesses.	For	additional information	on	the	key	areas	for	which	assumptions	and	estimates	are	used	in preparing	Citi's	financial	statements,	see	"Significant	Accounting	Policies	and Significant	Estimates"	below	and	Note	28	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements.

# COMPLIANCE,	CONDUCT	AND	LEGAL	RISKS

# Ongoing	Implementation	and	Interpretation	of	Regulatory	Changes	and Requirements	in	the	U.S.	and	Globally	Have	Increased	Citi's	Compliance	Risks and	Costs.

As	referenced	above,	over	the	past	several	years,	Citi	has	been	required	to implement	a	significant	number	of	regulatory	changes	across	all	of	its	businesses and	functions,	and	these	changes	continue.	In	some	cases,	Citi's	implementation	of a	regulatory	requirement	is	occurring	simultaneously	with	changing	or	conflicting regulatory	guidance,	legal	challenges	or	legislative	action	to	modify	or	repeal	final rules.	Moreover,	in	many	cases,	these	are	entirely	new	regulatory	requirements	or regimes,	resulting	in	much	uncertainty	regarding	regulatory	expectations	as	to	what is	definitely	required	in	order	to	be	in	compliance	with	the	requirements. Accompanying	this	compliance	uncertainty	is	heightened	regulatory	scrutiny	and expectations	in	the	U.S.	and	globally	for	the	financial	services	industry	with	respect to	governance	and	risk	management	practices,	including	its	compliance	and regulatory	risks	(for	a	discussion	of	heightened	regulatory	expectations	on "conduct	risk"	at,	and	the	overall	"culture"	of,	financial	institutions	such	as	Citi, see	"Legal	Risks"	below).	All	of	these	factors	have	resulted	in	increased compliance	risks	and	costs	for	Citi.

Examples	of	regulatory	changes	that	have	resulted	in	increased	compliance risks	and	costs	include:

•The	Volcker	Rule	required	Citi	to	develop	an	extensive	global	compliance regime,	including	developing	and	maintaining	detailed	trading	and	permitted activity	mandates	for	businesses,	submitting	extensive	trading	information	to regulatory	agencies,	conducting	independent	testing	and	audit,	training, recordkeeping	and	similar	requirements	and	governance,	including	an	annual CEO	attestation,	beginning	on	March	31,	2016,	with	respect	to	the	global processes	Citi	has	in	place	to	achieve	compliance	with	the	rules. •Numerous	aspects	of	the	U.S.	derivatives	reform	regime	require	extensive compliance	systems	and	processes	to	be	maintained	by	Citi	on	a	global	basis, including	electronic	recordkeeping,	real-time	public	transaction	reporting	and external	business	conduct	requirements	(e.g.,	required	swap	counterparty disclosures).

•A	proliferation	of	data	protection	and	"onshoring"	requirements	adopted	by various	non-U.S.	jurisdictions,	such	as	in	Russia,	South	Korea,	Vietnam	and Indonesia,	require	Citi	to	take	measures	to	ensure	client	data	is	stored	or processed	within	national	borders.	These	requirements	could	conflict	with	anti- money	laundering	and	other	requirements	in	other	jurisdictions.

Extensive	compliance	requirements	can	result	in	increased	reputational	and legal	risks,	as	failure	to	comply	with	regulations	and	requirements,	or	failure	to comply	as	expected,	can	result	in	enforcement	and/or	regulatory	proceedings	(for additional	discussion,	see	"Legal	Risks"	below).	In	addition,	increased	and ongoing	compliance	requirements	and	uncertainties	have	resulted	in	higher	costs for	Citi.	For	example,	Citi	employed	approximately	30,000	regulatory	and compliance	staff	as	of	year-end	2015,	out	of	a

total	employee	population	of	231,000,	compared	to	approximately	14,000	as	of year-end	2008	with	a	total	employee	population	of	323,000.	These	higher regulatory	and	compliance	costs	also	offset	Citi's	ongoing	cost	reduction initiatives.	For	example,	data	protection	and	"onshoring"	requirements	often require	redundant	investments	in	local	data	storage	and	security	and	thus	impede	or potentially	reverse	Citi's	centralization	or	standardization	efforts,	which	provide expense	efficiencies.	Higher	compliance	costs	may	also	require	management	to reallocate	resources,	including	potentially	away	from	ongoing	business	investment initiatives.

# Citi	Is	Subject	to	Extensive	Legal	and	Regulatory	Proceedings,	Investigations and	Inquiries	That	Could	Result	in	Significant	Penalties	and	Other	Negative Impacts	on	Citi,	Its	Businesses	and	Results	of	Operations.

At	any	given	time,	Citi	is	defending	a	significant	number	of	legal	and	regulatory proceedings	and	is	subject	to	numerous	governmental	and	regulatory examinations,	investigations	and	other	inquiries.	The	frequency	with	which	such proceedings,	investigations	and	inquiries	are	initiated	have	increased	substantially over	the	last	few	years,	and	the	global	judicial,	regulatory	and	political environment	generally	remains	hostile	to	large	financial	institutions.	For	example, under	recent	guidance	by	the	U.S.	Department	of	Justice	(DOJ),	a	corporation (such	as	Citi)	is	required	to	identify	all	individuals	involved	in	or	responsible	for perceived	misconduct	at	issue	and	provide	all	related	facts	and	circumstances	in order	to	qualify	for	any	cooperation	credit	in	civil	and	criminal	investigations	of corporate	wrongdoing.	The	complexity	of	the	federal	and	state	regulatory	and enforcement	regimes	in	the	U.S.,	coupled	with	the	global	scope	of	Citi's operations,	also	means	that	a	single	event	or	issue	may	give	rise	to	a	large	number of	overlapping	investigations	and	regulatory	proceedings,	either	by	multiple	federal and	state	agencies	in	the	U.S.	or	by	multiple	regulators	and	other	governmental entities	in	different	jurisdictions.

Moreover,	U.S.	and	non-U.S.	regulators	have	been	increasingly	focused	on "conduct	risk,"	a	term	that	is	used	to	describe	the	risks	associated	with	behavior	by employees	and	agents,	including	third-party	vendors	utilized	by	Citi,	that	could harm	consumers,	investors	or	the	markets,	such	as	failures	to	safeguard	consumers' and	investors'	personal	information,	failures	to	identify	and	manage	conflicts	of interest	and	improperly	creating,	selling	and	marketing	products	and	services.	In addition	to	increasing	Citi's	compliance	risks,	this	focus	on	conduct	risk	could	lead to	more	regulatory	or	other	enforcement	proceedings	and	litigation,	including	for practices	which	historically	were	acceptable	but	are	now	receiving	greater	scrutiny. Further,	while	Citi	takes	numerous	steps	to	prevent	and	detect	conduct	by employees	and	agents	that	could	potentially	harm	customers,	investors	or	the markets,	such	behavior	may	not	always	be	deterred	or	prevented.	Banking regulators	have	also	focused	on	the	overall	culture	of	financial	services	firms, including	Citi.	In	addition	to	regulatory	restrictions	or	structural	changes	that	could result	from	perceived	deficiencies	in	Citi's	culture,	such	focus	could	also	lead	to additional	regulatory	proceedings.

Further,	the	severity	of	the	remedies	sought	in	legal	and	regulatory proceedings	to	which	Citi	is	subject	has	increased	substantially	in	recent	years. U.S.	and	certain	international	governmental	entities	have	increasingly	brought criminal	actions	against,	or	have	sought	criminal	convictions	from,	financial institutions,	and	criminal	prosecutors	in	the	U.S.	have	increasingly	sought	and obtained	criminal	guilty	pleas	or	deferred	prosecution	agreements	against corporate	entities	and	other	criminal	sanctions	from	those	institutions.	As previously	disclosed,	in	May	2015	an	affiliate	of	Citi	entered	into	a	settlement	with the	DOJ	whereby	the	affiliate	pleaded	guilty	to	an	antitrust	violation	and	paid	a substantial	fine	to	resolve	the	DOJ's	investigations	into	Citi's	foreign	exchange business	practices.	These	types	of	actions	by	U.S.	and	international	governmental entities	may,	in	the	future,	have	significant	collateral	consequences	for	a	financial institution,	including	loss	of	customers	and	business,	and	the	inability	to	offer certain	products	or	services	and/or	operate	certain	businesses.	Citi	may	be	required to	accept	or	be	subject	to	similar	types	of	criminal	remedies,	consent	orders, substantial	fines	and	penalties	or	other	requirements	in	the	future,	including	for matters	or	practices	not	yet	known	to	Citi,	any	of	which	could	materially	and negatively	affect	Citi's	businesses,	business	practices,	financial	condition	or	results of	operations,	require	material	changes	in	Citi's	operations	or	cause	Citi reputational	harm.

Further,	many	large	claims	asserted	against	Citi	are	highly	complex,	slow	to develop	and	may	involve	novel	or	untested	legal	theories.	The	outcome	of	such proceedings	is	difficult	to	predict	or	estimate	until	late	in	the	proceedings. Although	Citi	establishes	accruals	for	its	legal	and	regulatory	matters	according	to accounting	requirements,	Citi's	estimates	of,	and	changes	to,	these	accruals, involve	significant	judgment	and	may	be	subject	to	significant	uncertainty	and	the amount	of	loss	ultimately	incurred	in	relation	to	those	matters	may	be	substantially higher	than	the	amounts	accrued.	In	addition,	certain	settlements	are	subject	to court	approval	and	may	not	be	approved.

For	additional	information	relating	to	Citi's	legal	and	regulatory	proceedings and	matters,	including	Citi's	policies	on	establishing	legal	accruals,	see	Note	28	to the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Managing	Global	Risk	Table	of	Contents

| MANAGING	GLOBAL	RISK | 65 |
| :--- | :--- |
| \t\t\t\tOverview | 65 |
| CREDIT\tRISK(1) | 69 |
| \t\t\tOverview | 69 |
| \t\t\tConsumer\tCredit | 69 |
| \t\t\tCorporate\tCredit | 77 |
| \t\t\tAdditional\tConsumer\tand\tCorporate\tCredit\tDetails | 80 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\tLoans\tOutstanding | 80 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\tDetails\tof\tCredit\tLoss\tExperience | 81 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\tAllowance\tfor\tLoan\tLosses | 83 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\tNon-Accrual\tLoans\tand\tAssets\tand\tRenegotiated\tLoans | 84 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\tForegone\tInterest\tRevenue\ton\tLoans | 87 |
| LIQUIDITY\tRISK | 88 |
| \t\t\t\t\tOverview | 88 |
| \t\t\t\t\tHigh-Quality\tLiquid\tAssets\t(HQLA) | 88 |
| \t\t\t\t\tLoans | 89 |
| \t\t\t\t\tDeposits | 89 |
| \t\t\t\t\tLong-Term\tDebt | 90 |
| \t\t\t\t\tSecured\tFunding\tTransactions\tand\tShort-Term\tBorrowings | 92 |
| \t\t\t\t\tLiquidity\tMonitoring\tand\tMeasurement | 94 |
| \t\t\t\t\tCredit\tRatings | 95 |
| MARKET\tRISK(1) | 97 |
| \t\tOverview | 97 |
| \t\t\tMarket\tRisk\tof\tNon-Trading\tPortfolios | 97 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNet\tInterest\tRevenue\tat\tRisk | 97 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tInterest\tRate\tRisk\tof\tInvestment\tPortfolios—Impact\ton\tAOCI | 97 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tChanges\tin\tForeign\tExchange\tRates—Impacts\ton\tAOCI\tand\tCapital | 99 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tInterest\tRevenue/Expense\tand\tNet\tInterest\tMargin | 100 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAdditional\tInterest\tRate\tDetails | 101 |
| \t\t\tMarket\tRisk\tof\tTrading\tPortfolios | 105 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFactor\tSensitivities | 106 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tValue\tat\tRisk | 106 |
| \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tStress\tTesting | 109 |
| OPERATIONAL\tRISK | 110 |
| COUNTRY\tRISK | 111 |
| COMPLIANCE,\tCONDUCT\tAND\tLEGAL\tRISK | 118 |
| REPUTATIONAL\tRISK | 119 |

(1) For	additional	information	regarding	certain	credit	risk,	market	risk	and	other	quantitative	and	qualitative	information,	refer	to	Citi's	Pillar	3	Basel	III	Advanced	Approaches	Disclosures,	as	required by	the	rules	of	the	Federal	Reserve	Board,	on	Citi's	Investor	Relations	website.

# MANAGING	GLOBAL	RISK

For	Citi,	effective	risk	management	is	of	primary	importance	to	its	overall operations.	Accordingly,	Citi's	risk	management	process	has	been	designed	to monitor,	evaluate	and	manage	the	principal	risks	it	assumes	in	conducting	its activities.	Specifically,	the	activities	that	Citi	engages	in,	and	the	risks	those activities	generate,	must	be	consistent	with	Citi's	mission	and	value	proposition, the	key	principles	that	guide	it,	and	Citi's	risk	appetite.

Risk	management	must	be	built	on	a	foundation	of	ethical	culture.	Under Citi's	mission	and	value	proposition,	which	was	developed	by	Citi's	senior leadership	and	distributed	throughout	the	firm,	Citi	strives	to	serve	as	a	trusted partner	to	its	clients	by	responsibly	providing	financial	services	that	enable	growth and	economic	progress	while	earning	and	maintaining	the	public's	trust	by constantly	adhering	to	the	highest	ethical	standards.	As	such,	Citi	asks	all employees	to	ensure	that	their	decisions	pass	three	tests:	they	are	in	clients' interests,	create	economic	value	and	are	always	systemically	responsible. Additionally,	Citi	evaluates	employees'	performance	against	behavioral expectations	set	out	in	Citi's	leadership	standards,	which	were	designed	in	part	to effectuate	Citi's	mission	and	value	proposition.	Other	culture-related	efforts	in connection	with	conduct	risk,	ethics	and	leadership,	escalation,	and	treating customers	fairly	help	Citi	to	execute	its	mission	and	value	proposition. Four	key	principles—common	purpose,	responsible	finance,	ingenuity,	and leadership—guide	Citi	as	it	performs	its	mission.	Citi's	risk	appetite,	which	is approved	by	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors,	specifies	the	aggregate	levels	and types	of	risk	the	Board	and	management	are	willing	to	assume	to	achieve	Citi's strategic	objectives	and	business	plan,	consistent	with	applicable	capital,	liquidity, and	other	regulatory	requirements.

Citi	selectively	takes	risks	in	support	of	its	underlying	business	strategy,	while striving	to	ensure	it	operates	within	its	mission	and	value	proposition	and	risk appetite.

Citi's	risks	are	generally	categorized	and	summarized	as	follows:

•Credit	risk	is	the	risk	arising	from	an	obligor's	failure	to	meet	the	terms	of	any contract	or	otherwise	perform	as	agreed.	Credit	risk	is	found	in	all	activities	in which	settlement	or	repayment	depends	on	counterparty,	issuer,	or	borrower performance.

•Liquidity	risk	is	the	risk	arising	from	an	inability	to	meet	obligations	when they	come	due.	Liquidity	risk	includes	the	inability	to	access	funding	sources or	manage	fluctuations	in	funding	levels.	Liquidity	risk	also	results	from	a failure	to	recognize	or	address	changes	in	market	conditions	that	affect	Citi's ability	to	liquidate	assets	quickly	and	with	minimal	loss	in	value. •Market	risk	is	the	risk	of	potential	losses	arising	from	changes	in	the	value	of Citi's	assets	and	liabilities	resulting	from	changes	in	market	variables,	such	as interest	rates.

•Operational	risk	is	the	risk	of	loss	resulting	from	inadequate	or	failed	internal processes,	systems,	or	human	factors,	or	from	external	events. •Country	risk	is	the	risk	that	an	event	in	a	country	(precipitated	by developments	within	or	external	to	a	country)	will	impair	the	value	of	Citi's franchise	or	will	adversely	affect	the	ability	of	obligors	within	that	country	to honor	their	obligations.	Country	risk	events	may	include	sovereign	defaults, banking	crises,	currency	crises,	currency	convertibility	and/or	transferability restrictions,	or	political	events.

•Compliance	risk	is	the	risk	arising	from	violations	of,	or	non-conformance with,	local,	national,	or	cross-border	laws,	rules,	or	regulations,	our	own internal	policies	and	procedures,	or	relevant	standards	of	conduct.

•Conduct	risk	is	the	risk	that	Citi's	employees	or	agents	may,	intentionally	or through	negligence,	harm	customers,	clients,	or	the	integrity	of	the	markets, and	thereby	the	integrity	of	Citi.

•Legal	risk	includes	the	risk	of	loss,	whether	financial	or	reputational,	due	to legal	or	regulatory	actions,	proceedings,	or	investigations,	or	uncertainty	in	the applicability	or	interpretation	of	contracts,	laws,	or	regulations. •Reputational	risk	is	the	risk	to	current	or	anticipated	earnings,	capital,	or franchise	or	enterprise	value	arising	from	negative	public	opinion.

Citi	manages	its	risks	through	each	of	its	three	lines	of	defense:	(i)	business management,	(ii)	independent	control	functions	and	(iii)	Internal	Audit.	The	three lines	of	defense	collaborate	with	each	other	in	structured	forums	and	processes	to bring	various	perspectives	together	and	to	steer	the	organization	toward	outcomes that	are	in	clients'	interests,	create	economic	value	and	are	systemically responsible.

# First	Line	of	Defense:	Business	Management

Each	of	Citi's	businesses	owns	its	risks	and	is	responsible	for	assessing	and managing	its	risks.	Each	business	is	also	responsible	for	having	controls	in	place	to mitigate	key	risks,	assessing	internal	controls	and	promoting	a	culture	of compliance	and	control.	In	doing	so,	a	business	is	required	to	maintain	appropriate staffing	and	implement	appropriate	procedures	to	fulfill	its	risk	governance responsibilities.

The	CEOs	of	each	region	and	business	report	to	the	Citigroup	CEO.	The	Head of	Operations	and	Technology	and	the	Head	of	Productivity,	who	are	considered part	of	the	first	line	of	defense,	also	report	to	the	Citigroup	CEO.

Businesses	at	Citi	organize	and	chair	many	committees	and	councils	that cover	risk	considerations	with	participation	from	independent	control	functions, including	committees	or	councils	that	are	designed	to	consider	matters	related	to capital,	assets	and	liabilities,	business	practices,	business	risks	and	controls, mergers	and	acquisitions,	the	Community	Reinvestment	Act	and	fair	lending	and incentives.

# Second	Line	of	Defense:	Independent	Control	Functions

Citi's	independent	control	functions,	including	Risk,	Compliance,	Human Resources,	Legal	and	Finance,	set

standards	by	which	Citi	and	its	businesses	are	expected	to	manage	and	oversee risks,	including	compliance	with	applicable	laws,	regulatory	requirements,	policies and	relevant	standards	of	conduct.	Additionally,	among	other	responsibilities,	the independent	control	functions	provide	advice	and	training	to	Citi's	businesses	and establish	tools,	methodologies,	processes	and	oversight	for	controls	used	by	the businesses	to	foster	a	culture	of	compliance	and	control.

The	Risk	organization	is	designed	to	act	as	an	independent	partner	of	the	business to	manage	market,	credit	and	operational	risk	in	a	manner	consistent	with	Citi's risk	appetite.	Risk	establishes	policies	and	guidelines	for	risk	assessments	and	risk management	and	contributes	to	controls	and	tools	to	manage,	measure	and	mitigate risks	taken	by	the	firm.

The	Chief	Risk	Officer	reports	to	the	Citigroup	CEO	and	the	Risk Management	Committee	of	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors.	The	Chief	Risk Officer	has	regular	and	unrestricted	access	to	the	Risk	Management	Committee	of the	Board	and	also	to	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors	to	address	risks	and	issues identified	through	Risk's	activities.

# Compliance

The	Compliance	organization	is	designed	to	protect	Citi	not	only	by	managing adherence	to	applicable	laws,	regulations,	and	other	standards	of	conduct,	but	also by	promoting	business	behavior	that	is	consistent	with	Citi's	mission	and	value proposition,	the	principle	of	responsible	finance	and	Citi's	compliance	risk appetite.	For	further	information	on	Citi's	compliance	risk	appetite,	see "Compliance,	Conduct	and	Legal	Risk"	below.

The	Chief	Compliance	Officer	reports	to	the	Citigroup	CEO	and	has	regular and	unrestricted	access	to	the	Audit	Committee,	Ethics	and	Culture	Committee	and other	ad	hoc	committees	of	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors	to	report	on,	among other	items,	possible	breaches	of	Citi's	compliance	risk	appetite.

# Human	Resources

The	Human	Resources	organization	provides	personnel	support	and	governance	in connection	with,	among	other	things:	recognizing	and	rewarding	employees	who demonstrate	Citi's	values	and	excel	in	their	roles	and	responsibilities;	setting ethical-	and	performance-related	expectations	and	developing	and	promoting employees	who	meet	those	expectations;	and	searching	for,	assessing,	and	hiring staff	who	exemplify	Citi's	leadership	standards,	which	outline	Citi's	expectations of	its	employees'	behavior.

The	Head	of	Human	Resources	reports	to	the	Citigroup	CEO	and	interacts regularly	with	the	Personnel	and	Compensation	Committee	of	the	Citigroup	Board of	Directors.

# Legal

The	Legal	organization	is	involved	in	a	number	of	activities	designed	to	promote the	appropriate	management	of	Citi's	exposure	to	legal	risk.	Those	activities include,	among	others:	promoting	and	supporting	Citigroup's	governance processes;	advising	businesses	management,	other	independent	control	functions, the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors	and	committees	of	the	Board	regarding	analysis of	laws	and	regulations,	regulatory	matters,	disclosure	matters,	and	potential	risks and	exposures	on	key	litigation	and	transactional	matters,	among	other	things; advising	other	independent	control	functions	in	their	efforts	to	ensure	compliance with	applicable	laws	and	regulations	as	well	as	other	internal	standards	of	conduct; serving	on	key	management	committees;	reporting	and	escalating	key	legal	issues to	senior	management	or	other	independent	control	functions;	participating	in internal	investigations	and	overseeing	regulatory	investigations;	and	advising businesses	on	a	day-to-day	basis	on	legal,	regulatory	and	contractual	matters.

The	General	Counsel	reports	to	the	Citigroup	CEO	and	is	responsible	to	the full	Citigroup	Board.	In	addition	to	having	regular	and	unrestricted	access	to	the full	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors,	the	General	Counsel,	or	his	delegates,	regularly attends	meetings	of	the	Risk	Management	Committee,	Audit	Committee,	Personnel and	Compensation	Committee,	Ethics	and	Culture	Committee,	Operations	and Technology	Committee,	and	Nomination,	Governance	and	Public	Affairs Committee	as	well	as	other	ad	hoc	committees	of	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors.

# Finance

The	Finance	organization	is	primarily	comprised	of	the	following	disciplines: treasury,	controllers,	tax	and	financial	planning	and	analysis.	These	disciplines partner	with	the	businesses,	providing	key	data	and	consultation	to	facilitate	sound decisions	in	support	of	the	businesses'	objectives.	Through	these	activities,	Finance serves	as	an	independent	control	function	advising	business	management, escalating	identified	risks	and	establishing	policies	or	processes	to	manage	risk. Through	the	treasury	discipline,	Finance	has	overall	responsibility	for managing	Citi's	balance	sheet	and	accordingly	partners	with	the	businesses	to manage	Citi's	liquidity	and	interest	rate	risk	(price	risk	for	non-trading	portfolios). Treasury	works	with	the	businesses	to	establish	balance	sheet	targets	and	limits,	as well	as	sets	policies	on	funding	costs	charged	for	business	assets	based	on	their liquidity	and	duration.

Principally	through	the	controllers	discipline,	Finance	is	responsible	for establishing	a	strong	control	environment	over	Citi's	financial	reporting	processes consistent	with	the	2013	Committee	of	Sponsoring	Organizations	of	the	Treadway Commission,	or	COSO,	Internal	Control—Integrated	Framework.

Finance	is	led	by	Citi's	Chief	Financial	Officer	(CFO),	who	reports	directly	to the	Citigroup	CEO.	The	CFO	chairs	or	co-chairs	several	management	committees that	serve	as	key	governance	and	oversight	forums	for	business	activities.	In addition,	the	CFO	has	regular	and	unrestricted	access	to	the

full	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors	as	well	as	to	the	Audit	Committee	of	the	Board	of Directors.

# Third	Line	of	Defense:	Internal	Audit

Citi's	Internal	Audit	function	independently	reviews	activities	of	the	first	two	lines of	defense	based	on	a	risk-based	audit	plan	and	methodology	approved	by	the Audit	Committee	of	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors.	Internal	Audit	also	provides independent	assurance	to	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors,	the	Audit	Committee	of the	Board,	senior	management	and	regulators	regarding	the	effectiveness	of	Citi's governance	and	controls	designed	to	mitigate	Citi's	exposure	to	risks	and	to enhance	Citi's	culture	of	compliance	and	control.

The	Chief	Auditor	reports	functionally	to	the	Chairman	of	the	Citigroup	Audit Committee	and	administratively	to	the	CEO	of	Citigroup.	Internal	Audit's responsibilities	are	carried	out	independently	under	the	oversight	of	the	Audit Committee.	Internal	Audit's	employees	accordingly	report	to	the	Chief	Auditor	and do	not	have	reporting	lines	to	front-line	units	or	senior	management.	Internal Audit's	staff	members	are	not	permitted	to	provide	internal-audit	services	for	a business	line	or	function	in	which	they	had	business	line	or	function responsibilities	within	the	previous	12	months.

# Citigroup	Board	of	Directors	and	Committees	of	the	Board

Citigroup's	Board	of	Directors	oversees	Citi's	risk-taking	activities.	To	do	so, directors	review	risk	assessments	and	reports	prepared	by	Risk,	Compliance, Human	Resources,	Legal,	Finance	and	Internal	Audit	and	exercise	independent judgment	to	question,	challenge,	and	when	necessary,	oppose	recommendations and	decisions	made	by	senior	management	that	could	cause	Citi's	risk	profile	to exceed	its	risk	appetite	or	jeopardize	the	safety	and	soundness	of	the	firm.

The	standing	committees	of	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors	are	the	Executive Committee,	Risk	Management	Committee,	Audit	Committee,	Personnel	and Compensation	Committee,	Ethics	and	Culture	Committee,	Operations	and Technology	Committee	and	Nomination,	Governance	and	Public	Affairs Committee.	In	addition	to	the	standing	committees,	the	Board	creates	ad	hoc committees	from	time	to	time	in	response	to	regulatory,	legal,	or	other requirements.

# CREDIT	RISK

Credit	risk	is	the	potential	for	financial	loss	resulting	from	the	failure	of	a	borrower or	counterparty	to	honor	its	financial	or	contractual	obligations.	Credit	risk	arises in	many	of	Citigroup's	business	activities,	including:

•wholesale	and	retail	lending; •capital	markets	derivative	transactions; •structured	finance;	and •repurchase	and	reverse	repurchase transactions.

Credit	risk	also	arises	from	settlement	and	clearing	activities,	when	Citi transfers	an	asset	in	advance	of	receiving	its	counter-value	or	advances	funds	to settle	a	transaction	on	behalf	of	a	client.	Concentration	risk,	within	credit	risk,	is the	risk	associated	with	having	credit	exposure	concentrated	within	a	specific client,	industry,	region	or	other	category.

Credit	risk	is	one	of	the	most	significant	risks	Citi	faces	as	an	institution.	As	a result,	Citi	has	a	well-established	framework	in	place	for	managing	credit	risk across	all	businesses.	This	includes	a	defined	risk	appetite,	credit	limits	and	credit policies,	both	at	the	business	level	as	well	as	at	the	company-wide	level.	Citi's credit	risk	management	also	includes	processes	and	policies	with	respect	to problem	recognition,	including	"watch	lists,"	portfolio	review,	updated	risk	ratings and	classification	triggers.

With	respect	to	Citi's	settlement	and	clearing	activities,	intra-day	client	usage of	lines	is	closely	monitored	against	limits,	as	well	as	against	"normal"	usage patterns.	To	the	extent	a	problem	develops,	Citi	typically	moves	the	client	to	a secured	(collateralized)	operating	model.	Generally,	Citi's	intra-day	settlement	and clearing	lines	are	uncommitted	and	cancellable	at	any	time.

To	manage	concentration	of	risk	within	credit	risk,	Citi	has	in	place	a concentration	management	framework	consisting	of	industry	limits,	obligor	limits and	single-name	triggers.	In	addition,	the	independent	Risk	organization	reviews concentration	of	risk	across	Citi's	regions	and	businesses	to	assist	in	managing	this type	of	risk.

Credit	exposures	are	generally	reported	in	notional	terms	for	accrual	loans, reflecting	the	value	at	which	the	loans	as	well	as	loan	and	other	off-balance	sheet commitments	are	carried	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.	Credit	exposure arising	from	capital	markets	activities	is	generally	expressed	as	the	current	mark- to-market,	net	of	margin,	reflecting	the	net	value	owed	to	Citi	by	a	given counterparty.

The	credit	risk	associated	with	these	credit	exposures	is	a	function	of	the creditworthiness	of	the	obligor,	as	well	as	the	terms	and	conditions	of	the	specific obligation.	Citi	assesses	the	credit	risk	associated	with	its	credit	exposures	on	a regular	basis	through	its	loan	loss	reserve	process	(see	"Significant	Accounting Policies	and	Significant	Estimates"	below	and	Notes	1	and	16	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements),	as	well	as	through	regular	stress	testing	at	the	company, business,	geography	and	product	levels.	These	stress-testing	processes	typically estimate	potential	incremental	credit	costs	that	would

occur	as	a	result	of	either	downgrades	in	the	credit	quality	or	defaults	of	the obligors	or	counterparties.

For	additional	information	on	Citi's	credit	risk	management,	see	Note	15	to the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# CONSUMER	CREDIT

# North	America	Consumer	Mortgage	Lending

Citi's	North	America	consumer	mortgage	portfolio	consists	of	both	residential	first mortgages	and	home	equity	loans.	At	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	North	America consumer	mortgage	portfolio	was	$79.7	billion	(compared	to	$95.9	billion	at December	31,	2014),	of	which	the	residential	first	mortgage	portfolio	was	$56.9 billion	(compared	to	$67.8	billion	at	December	31,	2014),	and	the	home	equity loan	portfolio	was	$22.8	billion	(compared	to	$28.1	billion	at	December	31,	2014). The	decline	during	the	year	was	primarily	attributed	to	$14.7	billion	of	North America	consumer	mortgages	sold	or	transferred	to	held-for-sale,	including	$6.6 billion	of	CitiFinancial	consumer	mortgages	($5.4	billion	of	residential	first mortgages	and	$1.2	billion	of	home	equity	loans)	transferred	to	held-for-sale	and classified	as	Other	assets	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015.	At	December	31,	2015, $18.7	billion	of	residential	first	mortgages	were	recorded	in	Citi	Holdings,	with	the remaining	$38.2	billion	recorded	in	Citicorp.	At	December	31,	2015,	$19.1	billion of	home	equity	loans	was	recorded	in	Citi	Holdings,	with	the	remaining	$3.6 billion	recorded	in	Citicorp.

Citi's	residential	first	mortgage	portfolio	included	$3.4	billion	of	loans	with Federal	Housing	Administration	(FHA)	insurance	or	Department	of	Veterans Affairs	(VA)	guarantees	at	December	31,	2015,	compared	to	$5.2	billion	at December	31,	2014.	The	decline	during	the	year	was	primarily	due	to	mortgage loans	with	FHA	insurance	sold	or	transferred	to	held-for-sale.	Citi's	FHA/VA portfolio	consists	of	loans	to	low-to-moderate-income	borrowers	with	lower	FICO (Fair	Isaac	Corporation)	scores	and	generally	higher	loan-to-value	ratios	(LTVs). Credit	losses	on	FHA	loans	are	borne	by	the	sponsoring	governmental	agency, provided	that	the	insurance	terms	have	not	been	rescinded	as	a	result	of	an origination	defect.	With	respect	to	VA	loans,	the	VA	establishes	a	loan-level	loss cap,	beyond	which	Citi	is	liable	for	loss.	While	FHA	and	VA	loans	have	high delinquency	rates,	given	the	insurance	and	guarantees,	respectively,	Citi	has experienced	negligible	credit	losses	on	these	loans.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	North	America	residential	first	mortgage portfolio	contained	approximately	$2.4	billion	of	adjustable	rate	mortgages	that	are currently	required	to	make	a	payment	consisting	of	only	accrued	interest	for	the payment	period,	or	an	interest-only	payment,	compared	to	$3.8	billion	at December	31,	2014.	This	decline	resulted	primarily	from	repayments	and conversions	to	amortizing	loans.	Residential	first	mortgages	with	this	payment feature	are	primarily	to	high-credit-quality	borrowers	who	have	on

average	significantly	higher	origination	and	refreshed	FICO	scores	than	other	loans in	the	residential	first	mortgage	portfolio,	and	have	exhibited	significantly	lower 30+	delinquency	rates	as	compared	with	residential	first	mortgages	without	this payment	feature.	As	such,	Citi	does	not	believe	the	residential	mortgage	loans	with this	payment	feature	represent	substantially	higher	risk	in	the	portfolio. Citi	does	not	offer	option-adjustable	rate	mortgages/negative-amortizing mortgage	products	to	its	customers.	As	a	result,	option-adjustable	rate mortgages/negative-amortizing	mortgages	represent	an	insignificant	portion	of total	balances,	since	they	were	acquired	only	incidentally	as	part	of	prior	portfolio and	business	purchases.

For	additional	information	on	Citi's	North	America	consumer	mortgage portfolio,	see	Note	15	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# North	America	Consumer	Mortgage	Quarterly	Credit	Trends—Net	Credit	Losses and	Delinquencies—Residential	First	Mortgages

The	following	charts	detail	the	quarterly	credit	trends	for	Citi's	residential	first mortgage	portfolio	in	North	America.

# North	America	Residential	First	Mortgage	-	EOP	Loans

In	billions	of	dollars

# North	America	Residential	First	Mortgage	-	Net	Credit	Losses

In	millions	of	dollars

Note:	CMI	refers	to	loans	originated	by	CitiMortgage.	CFNA	refers	to	loans	originated	by CitiFinancial.	Totals	may	not	sum	due	to	rounding.

(1) Decrease	in	4Q'15	EOP	loans	primarily	reflects	the	transfer	of	CFNA	residential	first mortgages	to	held-for-sale	and	classification	as	Other	assets	at	year-end	2015.	This	transfer did	not	impact	net	credit	losses.

(2) Year-over-year	change	in	the	S&P/Case-Shiller	U.S.	National	Home	Price	Index.

# North	America	Residential	First	Mortgage	Delinquencies-Citi	Holdings

Note:	Days	past	due	excludes	(i)	U.S.	mortgage	loans	that	are	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government- sponsored	agencies	because	the	potential	loss	predominantly	resides	with	the	U.S.	agencies,	and (ii)	loans	recorded	at	fair	value.	Totals	may	not	sum	due	to	rounding.

(1) Decrease	in	4Q'15	primarily	reflects	the	transfer	of	CFNA	residential	first	mortgages	to	held- for-sale	and	classification	as	Other	assets	at	year-end	2015.

Net	credit	losses	in	the	North	America	residential	first	mortgage	portfolio continued	to	improve	during	2015	as	a	result	of	improvements	in	the	home	price index	(HPI)	and	sales	or	transfers	to	held-for-sale	of	residential	first	mortgages during	2015,	as	well	as	overall	loss	mitigation	activities	within	CitiFinancial.

Residential	first	mortgages	originated	by	CitiFinancial	have	a	higher	net	credit loss	rate	as	CitiFinancial	borrowers	tend	to	have	higher	LTVs	and	lower	FICO scores	than	CitiMortgage	borrowers.	CitiFinancial's	residential	first	mortgages	also have	a	significantly	different	geographic	distribution,	with	different	mortgage market	conditions	that	tend	to	lag	the	overall	improvements	in	HPI.

During	2015,	continued	management	actions,	primarily	the	sale	or	transfer	to held-for-sale	of	approximately	$1.5	billion	of	delinquent	residential	first mortgages,	including	$0.9	billion	in	the	fourth	quarter	largely	associated	with	the transfer	of	CitiFinancial	loans	to	held-for-sale	referenced	above,	were	the	primary driver	of	the	overall	improvement	in

delinquencies	within	Citi	Holdings'	residential	first	mortgage	portfolio.	Credit performance	from	quarter	to	quarter	could	continue	to	be	impacted	by	the	amount of	delinquent	loan	sales	or	transfers	to	held-for-sale,	as	well	as	overall	trends	in HPI	and	interest	rates.

# North	America	Residential	First	Mortgages—State	Delinquency	Trends

The	following	tables	set	forth	the	six	U.S.	states	and/or	regions	with	the	highest	concentration	of	Citi's	residential	first	mortgages.

| In	billions	of	dollars |  |  | December	31,	2015 |  |  |  |  | December	31,	2014 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  |  |  | % |  |  |  |  | % |  |
|  |  | ENR | 90+DPD | LTV\t&gt; | Refreshed |  | ENR | 90+DPD | LTV\t&gt; | Refreshed |
| State(1) | ENR(2) | Distribution | % | 100%(3) | FICO | ENR(2) | Distribution | % | 100%(3) | FICO |
| CA | $19.2 | 37% | 0.2% | 1% | 754 | $18.9 | 31% | 0.6% | 2% | 745 |
| NY/NJ/CT(4) | 12.7 | 25 | 0.8 | 1 | 751 | 12.2 | 20 | 1.9 | 2 | 740 |
| VA/MD | 2.2 | 4 | 1.2 | 2 | 719 | 3.0 | 5 | 3.0 | 8 | 695 |
| IL(4) | 2.2 | 4 | 1.0 | 3 | 735 | 2.5 | 4 | 2.5 | 9 | 713 |
| FL(4) | 2.2 | 4 | 1.1 | 4 | 723 | 2.8 | 5 | 3.0 | 14 | 700 |
| TX | 1.9 | 4 | 1.0 | — | 711 | 2.5 | 4 | 2.7 | — | 680 |
| Other | 11.0 | 21 | 1.3 | 2 | 710 | 18.2 | 30 | 3.3 | 7 | 677 |
| Total(5) | $51.5 | 100% | 0.7% | 1% | 738 | $60.1 | 100% | 2.1% | 4% | 715 |

Note:	Totals	may	not	sum	due	to	rounding.

(1) Certain	of	the	states	are	included	as	part	of	a	region	based	on	Citi's	view	of	similar	HPI	within	the	region.

(2) Ending	net	receivables.	Excludes	loans	in	Canada	and	Puerto	Rico,	loans	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government	agencies,	loans	recorded	at	fair	value	and	loans	subject	to	long	term	standby	commitments (LTSCs).	Excludes	balances	for	which	FICO	or	LTV	data	are	unavailable.

(3) LTV	ratios	(loan	balance	divided	by	appraised	value)	are	calculated	at	origination	and	updated	by	applying	market	price	data.

(4) New	York,	New	Jersey,	Connecticut,	Florida	and	Illinois	are	judicial	states.

(5) Improvement	in	state	trends	during	2015	was	primarily	due	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	held-for-sale	of	residential	first	mortgages,	including	the	transfer	of	CitiFinancial	residential	first	mortgages	to	held- for-sale	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015.

# Foreclosures

A	substantial	majority	of	Citi's	foreclosure	inventory	consists	of	residential	first mortgages.	At	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	foreclosure	inventory	included approximately	$0.1	billion,	or	0.2%,	of	the	total	residential	first	mortgage	portfolio, compared	to	$0.6	billion,	or	0.9%,	at	December	31,	2014,	based	on	the	dollar amount	of	ending	net	receivables	of	loans	in	foreclosure	inventory,	excluding loans	that	are	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government	agencies	and	loans	subject	to	LTSCs.

# North	America	Consumer	Mortgage	Quarterly	Credit	Trends—Net	Credit	Losses and	Delinquencies—Home	Equity	Loans

Citi's	home	equity	loan	portfolio	consists	of	both	fixed-rate	home	equity	loans	and loans	extended	under	home	equity	lines	of	credit.	Fixed-rate	home	equity	loans	are fully	amortizing.	Home	equity	lines	of	credit	allow	for	amounts	to	be	drawn	for	a period	of	time	with	the	payment	of	interest	only	and	then,	at	the	end	of	the	draw period,	the	then-outstanding	amount	is	converted	to	an	amortizing	loan	(the interest-only	payment	feature	during	the	revolving	period	is	standard	for	this product	across	the	industry).	After	conversion,	the	home	equity	loans	typically have	a	20-year	amortization	period.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	home	equity loan	portfolio	of	$22.8	billion	consisted	of	$6.3	billion	of	fixed-rate	home	equity loans	and	$16.5	billion	of	loans	extended	under	home	equity	lines	of	credit (Revolving	HELOCs).

# Revolving	HELOCs

As	noted	above,	as	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	$16.5	billion	of	Revolving HELOCs,	of	which	$4.2	billion	had	commenced	amortization	(compared	to	$1.9 billion	at	December	31,	2014)	and	$12.3	billion	were	still	within	their	revolving period	and	have	not	commenced	amortization,	or	"reset,"	(compared	to	$16.7 billion	at	December	31,	2014).	The	following	chart	indicates	the	FICO	and combined	loan-to-value	(CLTV)	characteristics	of	Citi's	Revolving	HELOCs portfolio	and	the	year	in	which	they	reset:

# North	America	Home	Equity	Lines	of	Credit	Amortization	–	Citigroup Total	ENR	by	Reset	Year

In	billions	of	dollars	as	of	December	31,	2015

Approximately	25%	of	Citi's	total	Revolving	HELOCs	portfolio	had commenced	amortization	as	of	December	31,	2015	(compared	to	10%	as	of December	31,	2014).	Of	the	remaining	Revolving	HELOCs	portfolio, approximately	66%	will	commence	amortization	during	the	period	of	2016–2017. Before	commencing	amortization,	Revolving	HELOC	borrowers	are	required	to pay	only	interest	on	their	loans.	Upon	amortization,	these	borrowers	will	be required	to	pay	both	interest,	usually	at	a	variable	rate,	and	principal	that	amortizes typically	over	20	years,	rather	than	the	typical	30-year	amortization.	As	a	result, Citi's	customers	with	Revolving	HELOCs	that	reset	could	experience	"payment shock"	due	to	the	higher	required	payments	on	the	loans.

While	it	is	not	certain	what	ultimate	impact	this	payment	shock	could	have	on Citi's	delinquency	rates	and	net	credit	losses,	Citi	currently	estimates	that	the monthly	loan	payment	for	its	Revolving	HELOCs	that	reset	during	the	period	of 2016–2017	could	increase	on	average	by	approximately	$370,	or	165%.	Increases in	interest	rates	could	further	increase	these	payments	given	the	variable	nature	of the	interest	rates	on	these	loans	post-reset.	Of	the	Revolving	HELOCs	that	will commence	amortization	during	the	period	of	2016–2017,	approximately	$0.6 billion,	or	8%,	of	the	loans	have	a	CLTV	greater	than	100%	as	of	December	31, 2015.	Borrowers'	high	loan-to-value	positions,	as	well	as	the	cost	and	availability of	refinancing	options,	could	limit	borrowers'	ability	to	refinance	their	Revolving HELOCs	as	these	loans	begin	to	reset.

Approximately	6.7%	of	the	Revolving	HELOCs	that	have	begun	amortization as	of	December	31,	2015	were	30+	days	past	due,	compared	to	3.2%	of	the	total outstanding	home	equity	loan	portfolio	(amortizing	and	non-amortizing).	This compared	to	6.4%	and	2.7%,	respectively,	as	of	December	31,

2014.	As	newly	amortizing	loans	continue	to	season,	the	delinquency	rate	of	the amortizing	Revolving	HELOC	portfolio	and	total	home	equity	loan	portfolio	is expected	to	continue	to	increase.	In	addition,	resets	to	date	have	generally	occurred during	a	period	of	historically	low	interest	rates,	which	Citi	believes	has	likely reduced	the	overall	"payment	shock"	to	the	borrower.

Citi	continues	to	monitor	this	reset	risk	closely	and	will	continue	to	consider any	potential	impact	in	determining	its	allowance	for	loan	loss	reserves.	In addition,	management	continues	to	review	and	take	additional	actions	to	offset potential	reset	risk,	such	as	a	borrower	outreach	program	to	provide	reset	risk education	and	proactively	working	with	high-risk	borrowers	through	a	specialized single	point	of	contact	unit.	For	further	information	on	reset	risk,	see	"Risk	Factors —Credit	and	Market	Risks"	above.

# Net	Credit	Losses	and	Delinquencies

The	following	charts	detail	the	quarterly	credit	trends	for	Citi's	home	equity	loan portfolio	in	North	America:

North	America	Home	Equity	-	EOP	Loans

North	America	Home	Equity	-	Net	Credit	Losses

# North	America	Home	Equity	Loan	Delinquencies	-	Citi	Holdings

As	evidenced	by	the	tables	above,	net	credit	losses	in	the	North	America	home equity	loan	portfolio	continued	to	improve	during	2015,	largely	driven	by	the continued	improvement	in	HPI.	Delinquencies	in	the	portfolio	also	improved during	2015,	primarily	due	to	liquidations	and	continued	management	actions, including	the	transfer	of	CitiFinancial	home	equity	loans	to	held-for-sale	in	the fourth	quarter	of	2015	and	continued	modifications,	partially	offset	by	increased delinquencies	associated	with	the	increase	in	Revolving	HELOCs	commencing amortization.

Given	the	limited	market	in	which	to	sell	delinquent	home	equity	loans	to	date, as	well	as	the	relatively	smaller	number	of	home	equity	loan	modifications	and modification	programs	(see	Note	15	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements), Citi's	ability	to	reduce	delinquencies	or	net	credit	losses	in	its	home	equity	loan portfolio	in	Citi	Holdings,	whether	pursuant	to	deterioration	of	the	underlying credit	performance	of	these	loans,	the	reset	of	the	Revolving	HELOCs	(as discussed	above)	or	otherwise,	is	more	limited	as	compared	to	residential	first mortgages.

# North	America	Home	Equity	Loans—State	Delinquency	Trends

The	following	tables	set	forth	the	six	U.S.	states	and/or	regions	with	the	highest	concentration	of	Citi's	home	equity	loans:

| In	billions	of	dollars |  |  | December	31,	2015 |  |  |  |  | December	30,	2014 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  |  |  | % |  |  |  |  | % |  |
|  |  | ENR | 90+DPD | CLTV\t&gt; | Refreshed |  | ENR | 90+DPD | CLTV\t&gt; | Refreshed |
| State(1) | ENR(2) | Distribution | % | 100%(3) | FICO | ENR(2) | Distribution | % | 100%(3) | FICO |
| CA | $6.2 | 29% | 1.7% | 6% | 731 | $7.4 | 28% | 1.5% | 10% | 729 |
| NY/NJ/CT(4) | 6.0 | 28 | 2.5 | 8 | 725 | 6.7 | 25 | 2.4 | 11 | 721 |
| FL(4) | 1.5 | 7 | 2.0 | 24 | 715 | 1.8 | 7 | 2.2 | 36 | 707 |
| VA/MD | 1.3 | 6 | 2.0 | 23 | 715 | 1.6 | 6 | 1.6 | 28 | 706 |
| IL(4) | 0.9 | 4 | 1.6 | 29 | 722 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.4 | 35 | 716 |
| IN/OH/MI(4) | 0.5 | 3 | 1.9 | 24 | 703 | 0.8 | 3 | 1.7 | 31 | 688 |
| Other | 5.1 | 24 | 1.7 | 12 | 712 | 7.1 | 27 | 1.7 | 19 | 702 |
| Total | $21.5 | 100% | 2.0% | 12% | 722 | $26.6 | 100% | 1.8% | 17% | 715 |

(2) Ending	net	receivables.	Excludes	loans	in	Canada	and	Puerto	Rico	and	loans	subject	to	LTSCs.	Excludes	balances	for	which	FICO	or	LTV	data	are	unavailable.

(3) Represents	combined	loan-to-value	(CLTV)	for	both	residential	first	mortgages	and	home	equity	loans.	CLTV	ratios	(loan	balance	divided	by	appraised	value)	are	calculated	at	origination	and	updated by	applying	market	price	data.

(4) New	York,	New	Jersey,	Connecticut,	Indiana,	Ohio,	Florida	and	Illinois	are	judicial	states.

# ADDITIONAL	CONSUMER	CREDIT	DETAILS

# Consumer	Loan	Delinquency	Amounts	and	Ratios

| loan	amounts	in	billions | 2015 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Citicorp(3)(4) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $285.3 | $2,213 | $2,566 | $2,872 | $2,512 | $2,688 | $3,054 |
| Ratio |  | 0.78% | 0.88% | 0.98% | 0.88% | 0.93% | 1.04% |
| Retail\tbanking |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $146.8 | $577 | $816 | $927 | $795 | $854 | $970 |
| Ratio |  | 0.40% | 0.55% | 0.63% | 0.55% | 0.58% | 0.66% |
| North\tAmerica | 51.8 | 165 | 225 | 257 | 221 | 212 | 205 |
| Ratio |  | 0.33% | 0.49% | 0.60% | 0.44% | 0.46% | 0.48% |
| Latin\tAmerica | 24.0 | 235 | 397 | 460 | 224 | 290 | 368 |
| Ratio |  | 0.98% | 1.52% | 1.60% | 0.93% | 1.11% | 1.28% |
| Asia(5) | 71.0 | 177 | 194 | 210 | 350 | 352 | 397 |
| Ratio |  | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.28% | 0.49% | 0.46% | 0.53% |
| Cards |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $138.5 | $1,636 | $1,750 | $1,945 | $1,717 | $1,834 | $2,084 |
| Ratio |  | 1.18% | 1.23% | 1.33% | 1.24% | 1.29% | 1.42% |
| North\tAmerica—Citi-branded | 67.2 | 538 | 593 | 681 | 523 | 568 | 661 |
| Ratio |  | 0.80% | 0.88% | 0.97% | 0.78% | 0.84% | 0.94% |
| North\tAmerica—Citi\tretail\nservices | 46.1 | 705 | 678 | 771 | 773 | 748 | 830 |
| Ratio |  | 1.53% | 1.46% | 1.67% | 1.68% | 1.61% | 1.79% |
| Latin\tAmerica | 7.5 | 213 | 284 | 290 | 196 | 262 | 298 |
| Ratio |  | 2.84% | 3.05% | 2.79% | 2.61% | 2.82% | 2.87% |
| Asia(5) | 17.7 | 180 | 195 | 203 | 225 | 256 | 295 |
| Ratio |  | 1.02% | 1.05% | 1.05% | 1.27% | 1.38% | 1.52% |
| Citi\tHoldings(6)(7) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $44.3 | $840 | $2,073 | $2,857 | $960 | $1,831 | $2,890 |
| Ratio |  | 2.00% | 2.77% | 3.12% | 2.28% | 2.45% | 3.15% |
| International | 3.8 | 70 | 110 | 263 | 103 | 168 | 366 |
| Ratio |  | 1.84% | 1.38% | 1.93% | 2.71% | 2.10% | 2.69% |
| North\tAmerica | 40.5 | 770 | 1,963 | 2,594 | 857 | 1,663 | 2,524 |
| Ratio |  | 2.01% | 2.94% | 3.33% | 2.24% | 2.49% | 3.24% |
| Other\t(8) | 0.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tCitigroup | $329.8 | $3,053 | $4,639 | $5,729 | $3,472 | $4,519 | $5,944 |
| Ratio |  | 0.94% | 1.27% | 1.49% | 1.06% | 1.24% | 1.54% |

(1) End-of-period	(EOP)	loans	include	interest	and	fees	on	credit	cards.

(2) The	ratios	of	90+	days	past	due	and	30–89	days	past	due	are	calculated	based	on	EOP	loans,	net	of	unearned	income.

(3) The	90+	days	past	due	balances	for	North	America—Citi-branded	and	North	America—Citi	retail	services	are	generally	still	accruing	interest.	Citigroup's	policy	is	generally	to	accrue	interest	on credit	card	loans	until	180	days	past	due,	unless	notification	of	bankruptcy	filing	has	been	received	earlier.

(4) The	90+	days	and	30–89	days	past	due	and	related	ratios	for 	Citicorp	North	America	exclude	U.S.	mortgage	loans	that	are	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government-sponsored	entities	since	the	potential	loss predominantly	resides	within	the	U.S.	government-sponsored	entities.	The	amounts	excluded	for	loans	90+	days	past	due	and	(EOP	loans)	were	$491	million	($1.1	billion),	$562	million	($1.1	billion) and	$690	million	($1.2	billion)	at	December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013,	respectively.	The	amounts	excluded	for	loans	30–89	days	past	due	(EOP	loans	have	the	same	adjustment	as	above)	were $87	million,	$122	million	and	$141	million	at	December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013,	respectively.

(6) The	90+	days	and	30–89	days	past	due	and	related	ratios	for	Citi	Holdings	 North	America	exclude	U.S.	mortgage	loans	that	are	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government-sponsored	entities	since	the	potential loss	predominantly	resides	within	the	U.S.	government-sponsored	entities.	The	amounts	excluded	for	loans	90+	days	past

(8) Represents	loans	classified	as	Consumer	loans	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	that	are	not	included	in	the	Citi	Holdings	consumer	credit	metrics.

# Consumer	Loan	Net	Credit	Losses	and	Ratios

|  | Average<br>loans(1) |  | Net	credit	losses(2)(3) |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars,\texcept\taverage\tloan\tamounts\tin\tbillions | 2015 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Citicorp |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $281.3 | $6,029 | $6,860 | $7,017 |
| Ratio |  | 2.14% | 2.36% | 2.52% |
| Retail\tbanking |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $148.1 | $1,241 | $1,366 | $1,274 |
| Ratio |  | 0.84% | 0.90% | 0.89% |
| North\tAmerica | 49.5 | 152 | 143 | 186 |
| Ratio |  | 0.31% | 0.31% | 0.44% |
| Latin\tAmerica | 25.0 | 764 | 907 | 816 |
| Ratio |  | 3.06% | 3.20% | 2.90% |
| Asia(4) | 73.6 | 325 | 316 | 272 |
| Ratio |  | 0.44% | 0.41% | 0.38% |
| Cards |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $133.2 | $4,788 | $5,494 | $5,743 |
| Ratio |  | 3.59% | 3.96% | 4.26% |
| North\tAmerica—Citi-branded | 64.0 | 1,892 | 2,197 | 2,555 |
| Ratio |  | 2.96% | 3.31% | 3.72% |
| North\tAmerica—Retail\tservices | 43.4 | 1,709 | 1,866 | 1,895 |
| Ratio |  | 3.94% | 4.32% | 4.92% |
| Latin\tAmerica | 8.2 | 785 | 954 | 794 |
| Ratio |  | 9.57% | 9.54% | 9.57% |
| Asia(4) | 17.6 | 402 | 477 | 499 |
| Ratio |  | 2.28% | 2.51% | 2.57% |
| Citi\tHoldings(3) |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $61.6 | $1,035 | $1,819 | $3,239 |
| Ratio |  | 1.68% | 2.01% | 2.98% |
| International | 5.0 | 173 | 261 | 411 |
| Ratio |  | 3.46% | 2.21% | 2.91% |
| North\tAmerica | 56.6 | 862 | 1,558 | 2,828 |
| Ratio |  | 1.52% | 1.97% | 2.99% |
| Other(5) | — | 4 | 6 | 6 |
| Total\tCitigroup | $342.9 | $7,068 | $8,685 | $10,262 |
| Ratio |  | 2.06% | 2.28% | 2.64% |

(1) Average	loans	include	interest	and	fees	on	credit	cards.

(2) The	ratios	of	net	credit	losses	are	calculated	based	on	average	loans,	net	of	unearned	income.

(3) As	a	result	of	the	entry	into	an	agreement	to	sell	OneMain	Financial	(OneMain),	OneMain	was	classified	as	held-for-sale	(HFS)	beginning	March	31,	2015.	As	a	result	of	HFS	accounting	treatment, approximately	$350	million	of	net	credit	losses	(NCLs)	were	recorded	as	a	reduction	in	revenue	(Other	revenue)	during	2015.	Accordingly,	these	NCLs	are	not	included	in	this	table.	Loans	HFS	are excluded	from	this	table	as	they	are	recorded	in	Other	assets.

(5) Represents	NCLs	on	loans	classified	as	Consumer	loans	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	that	are	not	included	in	the	Citi	Holdings	consumer	credit	metrics.

# Loan	Maturities	and	Fixed/Variable	Pricing

# U.S.	Consumer	Mortgages

|  |  | Greater |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | Due | than\t1\tyear | Greater |  |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tyear\tend\n2015 | within\n1\tyear | but\twithin\n5\tyears | than\t5\nyears | Total |
| U.S.\tconsumer\tmortgage\nloan\tportfolio |  |  |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $126 | $724 | $57,545 | $58,395 |
| Home\tequity\tloans | 7,638 | 8,658 | 5,590 | 21,886 |
| Total | $7,764 | $9,382 | $63,135 | $80,281 |
| Fixed/variable\tpricing\tof |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tconsumer\tmortgage |  |  |  |  |
| loans\twith\tmaturities\tdue |  |  |  |  |
| after\tone\tyear |  |  |  |  |
| Loans\tat\tfixed\tinterest\trates |  | $1,195 | $43,666 |  |
| Loans\tat\tfloating\tor\tadjustable\ninterest\trates |  | 8,187 | 19,468 |  |
| Total |  | $9,382 | $63,134 |  |

# CORPORATE	CREDIT

Consistent	with	its	overall	strategy,	Citi's	corporate	clients	are	typically	large, multi-national	corporations	which	value	Citi's	global	network.	Citi	aims	to establish	relationships	with	these	clients	that	encompass	multiple	products, consistent	with	client	needs,	including	cash	management	and	trade	services,	foreign exchange,	lending,	capital	markets	and	M&A	advisory.

# Corporate	Credit	Portfolio

The	following	table	sets	forth	Citi's	corporate	credit	portfolio	within	ICG (excluding	private	bank),	before	consideration	of	collateral	or	hedges,	by remaining	tenor	for	the	periods	indicated:

|  |  | At	December	31,	2015 | At	December	31,	2015 |  |  | At	September	30,	2015 | At	September	30,	2015 |  |  | At	December	31,	2014 | At	December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars\nDirect\toutstandings\n(on-balance\tsheet)(1) | Due\nwithin\n1\tyear\n$98 | Greater\nthan\t1\tyear\nbut\twithin\n5\tyears\n$97 | Greater\nthan\n5\tyears\n$25 | Total\nexposure\n$220 | Due\nwithin\n1\tyear\n$95 | Greater\nthan\t1\tyear\nbut\twithin\n5\tyears\n$99 | Greater\nthan\n5\tyears\n$30 | Total\nexposure\n$224 | Due\nwithin\n1\tyear\n$95 | Greater\nthan\t1\tyear\nbut\twithin\n5\tyears\n$85 | Greater\nthan\n5\tyears\n$33 | Total\nexposure\n$213 |
| Unfunded\tlending |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| commitments |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (off-balance\tsheet)(2) | 99 | 231 | 26 | 356 | 91 | 222 | 36 | 349 | 92 | 207 | 33 | 332 |
| Total\texposure | $197 | $328 | $51 | $576 | $186 | $321 | $66 | $573 | $187 | $292 | $66 | $545 |

(1) Includes	drawn	loans,	overdrafts,	bankers'	acceptances	and	leases.

(2) Includes	unused	commitments	to	lend,	letters	of	credit	and	financial	guarantees.

# Portfolio	Mix—Geography,	Counterparty	and	Industry

Citi's	corporate	credit	portfolio	is	diverse	across	geography	and	counterparty.	The following	table	shows	the	percentage	by	region	based	on	Citi's	internal management	geography:

|  | December	31,<br>2015 | September	30,<br>2015 | December	31,<br>2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| North\tAmerica | 56% | 56% | 55% |
| EMEA | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Asia | 12 | 12 | 13 |
| Latin\tAmerica | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% |

The	maintenance	of	accurate	and	consistent	risk	ratings	across	the	corporate credit	portfolio	facilitates	the	comparison	of	credit	exposure	across	all	lines	of business,	geographic	regions	and	products.	Counterparty	risk	ratings	reflect	an estimated	probability	of	default	for	a	counterparty	and	are	derived	primarily through	the	use	of	validated	statistical	models,	scorecard	models	and	external agency	ratings	(under	defined	circumstances),	in	combination	with	consideration	of factors	specific	to	the	obligor	or	market,	such	as	management	experience, competitive	position,	regulatory	environment	and	commodity	prices.	Facility	risk ratings	are	assigned	that	reflect	the	probability	of	default	of

the	obligor	and	factors	that	affect	the	loss-given-default	of	the	facility,	such	as support	or	collateral.	Internal	obligor	ratings	that	generally	correspond	to	BBB	and above	are

considered	investment	grade,	while	those	below	are	considered	non-investment grade.

Citigroup	also	has	incorporated	climate	risk	assessment	and	reporting	criteria for	certain	obligors,	as	necessary.	Factors	evaluated	include	consideration	of climate	risk	to	an

obligor's	business	and	physical	assets	and,	when	relevant,	consideration	of	cost- effective	options	to	reduce	greenhouse	gas	emissions.

The	following	table	presents	the	corporate	credit	portfolio	by	facility	risk rating	as	a	percentage	of	the	total	corporate	credit	portfolio:

|  | December	31,<br>2015 | September	30,<br>2015 | December	31,<br>2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| AAA/AA/A | 48% | 49% | 49% |
| BBB | 35 | 35 | 33 |
| BB/B | 15 | 15 | 16 |
| CCC\tor\tbelow | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Unrated | — | — | 1 |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% |

Note:	Total	exposure	includes	direct	outstandings	and	unfunded	lending	commitments.

Citi's	corporate	credit	portfolio	is	also	diversified	by	industry.	The	following table	shows	the	allocation	of	Citi's	total	corporate	credit	portfolio	by	industry:

|  | December	31,<br>2015 | September	30,<br>2015 | December	31,<br>2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Transportation\tand\n\t\tindustrial | 20% | 21% | 21% |
| Consumer\tretail\tand\n\t\thealth | 16 | 16 | 17 |
| Technology,\tmedia\n\t\tand\ttelecom | 12 | 10 | 9 |
| Power,\tchemicals, |  |  |  |
| \t\tcommodities\tand |  |  |  |
| \t\tmetals\tand\tmining | 11 | 10 | 10 |
| Energy(1) | 9 | 9 | 10 |
| Banks/broker- |  |  |  |
| dealers/finance |  |  |  |
| companies | 7 | 7 | 8 |
| Real\testate | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Hedge\tfunds | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Insurance\tand\tspecial\n\t\tpurpose\tentities | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Public\tsector | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Other\tindustries | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% |

Note:	Total	exposure	includes	direct	outstandings	and	unfunded	lending	commitments. (1)	In	addition	to	this	exposure,	Citi	has	energy-related	exposure	within	the	"Public	sector"	(e.g., energy-related	state-owned	entities)	and	"Transportation	and	industrial"	sector	(e.g.,	off- shore	drilling	entities)	included	in	the	table	above.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	total exposure	to	these	energy-related	entities	remained	largely	consistent	with	the	prior	quarter,	at approximately	$6	billion,	of	which	approximately	$4	billion	consisted	of	direct	outstanding funded	loans.

# Exposure	to	the	Energy	and	Energy-Related	Sector

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	total	corporate	credit	exposure	to	the	energy	and energy-related	sector	(see	footnote	1	to	the	table	above)	was	approximately	$58 billion,	with	approximately	$21	billion,	or	3%,	of	Citi's	total	outstanding	loans consisting	of	direct	outstanding	funded	loans.	This	compared	to	approximately	$61 billion	of	total	corporate	credit	exposure	and	$21	billion	of	direct	outstanding funded	loans	as	of	September	30,	2015.	In	addition,	as	of	December	31,	2015, approximately	72%	of	Citi's	total	corporate	credit	energy	and	energy-related exposure	was	in	the	United	States,	United	Kingdom	and	Canada	(compared	to approximately	73%	at	September	30,	2015).	Also	as	of	December	31,	2015, approximately	80%	of	Citi's	total	energy	and	energy-related	exposures	were	rated investment	grade	(compared	to	approximately	79%	as	of	September	30,	2015). During	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015,	Citi	built	additional	energy	and	energy- related	loan	loss	reserves	of	approximately	$250	million,	and	incurred approximately	$75	million	of	net	credit	losses	in	these	portfolios.	For	the	full	year 2015,	Citi	built	net	loan	loss	reserves	against	energy	and	energy-related	exposures by	approximately	$530

million,	and	incurred	net	credit	losses	of	approximately	$95	million.	As	of December	31,	2015,	Citi	held	loan	loss	reserves	against	its	funded	energy	and energy-related	loans	equal	to	approximately	3.8%	of	these	loans.	For	additional information	on	energy	and	energy-related	reserving	actions	in	ICG,	see "Institutional	Clients	Group"	above.

# Exposure	to	Banks,	Broker-Dealers	and	Finance	Companies

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	total	corporate	credit	exposure	to	banks,	broker- dealers	and	finance	companies	was	approximately	$42	billion,	of	which	$29	billion represented	direct	outstanding	funded	loans,	or	5%	of	Citi's	total	outstanding loans.	These	amounts	were	mostly	unchanged	when	compared	to	$43	billion	of total	corporate	credit	exposure	and	$29	billion	of	direct	outstanding	funded	loans	to banks,	broker-dealers	and	finance	companies	as	of	September	30,	2015.	Also	as	of December	31,	2015,	approximately	84%	of	Citi's	bank,	broker-dealers	and	finance companies	total	corporate	credit	exposure	was	rated	investment	grade.

Included	in	the	amounts	noted	above,	Citi's	total	corporate	credit	exposure	to banks	was	approximately	$26	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	was	not concentrated	in	any	particular	geographic	region.		Of	this	exposure,	more	than	70% had	a	tenor	of	less	than	12	months.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	direct outstanding	funded	loans	to	banks	was	$21	billion,	or	3%	of	Citi's	total outstanding	loans.

In	addition	to	the	corporate	lending	exposures	described	above,	Citi	has additional	exposure	to	banks,	broker-dealers	and	finance	companies	in	the	form	of derivatives	and	securities	financing	transactions,	which	are	typically	executed	as repurchase	and	reverse	repurchase	agreements	or	securities	loaned	or	borrowed arrangements.		As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	net	derivative	credit	exposure	to banks,	broker	dealers	and	finance	companies	of	approximately	$5	billion	after	the application	of	netting	arrangements,	legally	enforceable	margin	agreements	and other	collateral	arrangements.	The	collateral	considered	as	part	of	the	net derivative	credit	exposure	was	represented	primarily	by	high	quality,	liquid assets.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	net	credit	exposure	to	banks,	broker- dealers	and	finance	companies	in	the	form	of	securities	financing	transactions	of	$7 billion	after	the	application	of	netting	and	collateral	arrangements.	The	collateral considered	in	the	net	exposure	for	the	securities	financing	transactions	exposure was	primarily	cash	and	highly	liquid	investment	grade	securities.

# Credit	Risk	Mitigation

As	part	of	its	overall	risk	management	activities,	Citigroup	uses	credit	derivatives and	other	risk	mitigants	to	hedge	portions	of	the	credit	risk	in	its	corporate	credit portfolio,	in	addition	to	outright	asset	sales.	The	results	of	the	mark-to-market	and any	realized	gains	or	losses	on	credit	derivatives	are	reflected	primarily	in	Other revenue	on	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

At	December	31,	2015,	September	30,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	$34.5 billion,	$33.0	billion	and	$27.6	billion,	respectively,	of	the	corporate	credit portfolio	was	economically	hedged.	Citigroup's	expected	loss	model	used	in	the calculation	of	its	loan	loss	reserve	does	not	include	the	favorable	impact	of	credit derivatives	and	other	mitigants	that	are	marked	to	market.	In	addition,	the	reported amounts	of	direct	outstandings	and	unfunded	lending	commitments	in	the	tables above	do	not	reflect	the	impact	of	these	hedging	transactions.	The	credit	protection was	economically	hedging	underlying	corporate	credit	portfolio	exposures	with	the following	risk	rating	distribution:

# Rating	of	Hedged	Exposure

|  | December	31,<br>2015 | September	30,<br>2015 | December	31,<br>2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| AAA/AA/A | 21% | 24% | 24% |
| BBB | 48 | 44 | 42 |
| BB/B | 27 | 28 | 28 |
| CCC\tor\tbelow | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% |

The	credit	protection	was	economically	hedging	underlying	corporate	credit portfolio	exposures	with	the	following	industry	distribution:

# Industry	of	Hedged	Exposure

|  | December	31,<br>2015 | September	30,<br>2015 | December	31,<br>2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Transportation\tand\nindustrial | 28% | 28% | 30% |
| Consumer\tretail\tand\nhealth | 17 | 15 | 11 |
| Technology,\tmedia\tand\ntelecom | 16 | 15 | 15 |
| Energy | 13 | 13 | 10 |
| Power,\tchemicals, |  |  |  |
| commodities\tand |  |  |  |
| metals\tand\tmining | 12 | 13 | 15 |
| Public\tsector | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Insurance\tand\tspecial\npurpose\tentities | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Banks/broker-dealers | 4 | 4 | 7 |
| Other\tindustries | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% |

# Loan	Maturities	and	Fixed/Variable	Pricing	Corporate Loans

(1) Based	on	contractual	terms.	Repricing	characteristics	may	effectively be	modified	from	time	to	time	using	derivative	contracts.	See	Note	23 to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# ADDITIONAL	CONSUMER	AND	CORPORATE	CREDIT	DETAILS

# Loans	Outstanding

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Consumer\tloans |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate(1) | $80,281 | $96,533 | $108,453 | $125,946 | $139,177 |
| Installment,\trevolving\tcredit,\tand\tother | 3,480 | 14,450 | 13,398 | 14,070 | 15,616 |
| Cards | 112,800 | 112,982 | 115,651 | 111,403 | 117,908 |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | 6,407 | 5,895 | 6,592 | 5,344 | 4,766 |
| Lease\tfinancing | — | — | — | — | 1 |
|  | $202,968 | $229,860 | $244,094 | $256,763 | $277,468 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate(1) | $47,062 | $54,462 | $55,511 | $54,709 | $52,052 |
| Installment,\trevolving\tcredit,\tand\tother | 29,480 | 31,128 | 33,182 | 33,958 | 32,673 |
| Cards | 27,342 | 32,032 | 36,740 | 40,653 | 38,926 |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | 21,679 | 22,561 | 24,107 | 22,225 | 21,915 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 427 | 609 | 769 | 781 | 711 |
|  | $125,990 | $140,792 | $150,309 | $152,326 | $146,277 |
| Total\tconsumer\tloans | $328,958 | $370,652 | $394,403 | $409,089 | $423,745 |
| Unearned\tincome(2) | 825 | (682) | (572) | (418) | (405) |
| Consumer\tloans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | $329,783 | $369,970 | $393,831 | $408,671 | $423,340 |
| Corporate\tloans |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices |  |  |  |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $41,147 | $35,055 | $32,704 | $26,985 | $20,830 |
| Loans\tto\tfinancial\tinstitutions | 36,396 | 36,272 | 25,102 | 18,159 | 15,113 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate(1) | 37,565 | 32,537 | 29,425 | 24,705 | 21,516 |
| Installment,\trevolving\tcredit,\tand\tother | 33,374 | 29,207 | 34,434 | 32,446 | 33,182 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 1,780 | 1,758 | 1,647 | 1,410 | 1,270 |
|  | $150,262 | $134,829 | $123,312 | $103,705 | $91,911 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. |  |  |  |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $78,420 | $79,239 | $82,663 | $82,939 | $79,764 |
| Loans\tto\tfinancial\tinstitutions | 28,704 | 33,269 | 38,372 | 37,739 | 29,794 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate(1) | 5,106 | 6,031 | 6,274 | 6,485 | 6,885 |
| Installment,\trevolving\tcredit,\tand\tother | 20,853 | 19,259 | 18,714 | 14,958 | 14,114 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 238 | 356 | 527 | 605 | 568 |
| Governments\tand\tofficial\tinstitutions | 4,911 | 2,236 | 2,341 | 1,159 | 1,576 |
|  | $138,232 | $140,390 | $148,891 | $143,885 | $132,701 |
| Total\tcorporate\tloans | $288,494 | $275,219 | $272,203 | $247,590 | $224,612 |
| Unearned\tincome(3) | (660) | (554) | (562) | (797) | (710) |
| Corporate\tloans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | $287,834 | $274,665 | $271,641 | $246,793 | $223,902 |
| Total\tloans—net\tof\tunearned\tincome | $617,617 | $644,635 | $665,472 | $655,464 | $647,242 |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses—on\tdrawn\texposures | (12,626) | (15,994) | (19,648) | (25,455) | (30,115) |
| Total\tloans—net\tof\tunearned\tincome\nand\tallowance\tfor\tcredit\tlosses | $604,991 | $628,641 | $645,824 | $630,009 | $617,127 |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\ttotal\tloans—\nnet\tof\tunearned\tincome(4) | 2.06% | 2.50% | 2.97% | 3.92% | 4.69% |
| Allowance\tfor\tconsumer\tloan\tlosses\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\ntotal\tconsumer\tloans—net\tof\tunearned\tincome(4) | 3.01% | 3.68% | 4.34% | 5.57% | 6.45% |
| Allowance\tfor\tcorporate\tloan\tlosses\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\ntotal\tcorporate\tloans—net\tof\tunearned\tincome(4) | 0.96% | 0.89% | 0.97% | 1.14% | 1.31% |

(1) Loans	secured	primarily	by	real	estate.

(2) Unearned	income	on	consumer	loans	primarily	represents	unamortized	origination	fees,	costs,	premiums	and	discounts.	Prior	to	December	31,	2015,	these	items	were	more	than	offset	by	prepaid interest	on	loans	outstanding	issued	by	OneMain	Financial.	The	sale	of	OneMain	Financial	was	completed	on	November	16,	2015.

(3) Unearned	income	on	corporate	loans	primarily	represents	interest	received	in	advance	but	not	yet	earned	on	loans	originated	on	a	discount	basis.

(4) All	periods	exclude	loans	that	are	carried	at	fair	value.

# Details	of	Credit	Loss	Experience

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $15,994 | $19,648 | $25,455 | $30,115 | $40,655 |
| Provision\tfor\tloan\tlosses |  |  |  |  |  |
| Consumer | $6,265 | $6,693 | $7,603 | $10,371 | $12,075 |
| Corporate | 843 | 135 | 1 | 87 | (739) |
|  | $7,108 | $6,828 | $7,604 | $10,458 | $11,336 |
| Gross\tcredit\tlosses |  |  |  |  |  |
| Consumer |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices(1)(2) | $5,500 | $6,780 | $8,402 | $12,226 | $15,767 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 3,210 | 3,901 | 3,998 | 4,139 | 4,932 |
| Corporate |  |  |  |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial,\tand\tother |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | 112 | 66 | 125 | 154 | 392 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 164 | 283 | 144 | 305 | 649 |
| Loans\tto\tfinancial\tinstitutions |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | — | 2 | 2 | 33 | 215 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 4 | 13 | 7 | 68 | 391 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S\toffices | 8 | 8 | 62 | 59 | 182 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 43 | 55 | 29 | 21 | 171 |
|  | $9,041 | $11,108 | $12,769 | $17,005 | $22,699 |
| Credit\trecoveries(3) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Consumer |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $975 | $1,122 | $1,073 | $1,302 | $1,467 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 667 | 874 | 1,065 | 1,055 | 1,159 |
| Corporate |  |  |  |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial,\tand\tother |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | 22 | 64 | 62 | 243 | 175 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 59 | 63 | 52 | 95 | 93 |
| Loans\tto\tfinancial\tinstitutions |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | 7 | 1 | 1 | — | — |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 2 | 11 | 20 | 43 | 89 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | 7 | — | 31 | 17 | 27 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | — | — | 2 | 19 | 2 |
|  | $1,739 | $2,135 | $2,306 | $2,774 | $3,012 |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $4,609 | $5,669 | $7,424 | $10,910 | $14,887 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 2,693 | 3,304 | 3,039 | 3,321 | 4,800 |
| Total | $7,302 | $8,973 | $10,463 | $14,231 | $19,687 |
| Other—net(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) | $(3,174) | $(1,509) | $(2,948) | (887) | $(2,189) |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tat\tend\tof\tperiod | $12,626 | $15,994 | $19,648 | $25,455 | $30,115 |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\ttotal\tloans(11) | 2.06% | 2.50% | 2.97% | 3.92% | 4.69% |
| Allowance\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments(10)(12) | $1,402 | $1,063 | $1,229 | $1,119 | $1,136 |
| Total\tallowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tand\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | $14,028 | $17,057 | $20,877 | $26,574 | $31,251 |
| Net\tconsumer\tcredit\tlosses | $7,068 | $8,685 | $10,262 | $14,008 | $18,073 |
| As\ta\tpercentage\tof\taverage\tconsumer\tloans | 2.06% | 2.28% | 2.63% | 3.43% | 4.15% |
| Net\tcorporate\tcredit\tlosses | $234 | $288 | $201 | $223 | $1,614 |

| As	a	percentage	of	average	corporate	loans | 0.08% | 0.10% | 0.08% | 0.09% | 0.79% |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tat\tend\tof\tperiod(13) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Citicorp | $10,616 | $11,465 | $13,174 | $14,623 | $16,699 |
| Citi\tHoldings | 2,010 | 4,529 | 6,474 | 10,832 | 13,416 |
| Total\tCitigroup | $12,626 | $15,994 | $19,648 | $25,455 | $30,115 |
| Allowance\tby\ttype |  |  |  |  |  |
| Consumer | $9,916 | $13,605 | $17,064 | $22,679 | $27,236 |
| Corporate | 2,710 | 2,389 | 2,584 | 2,776 | 2,879 |
| Total\tCitigroup | $12,626 | $15,994 | $19,648 | $25,455 | $30,115 |

(1) 2012	includes	approximately	$635	million	of	incremental	charge-offs	related	to	the	Office	of	the	Comptroller	of	the	Currency	(OCC)	guidance	issued	in	the	third	quarter	of	2012,	which	required mortgage	loans	to	borrowers	that	have	gone	through	Chapter	7	U.S.	Bankruptcy	Code	to	be	written	down	to	collateral	value.	There	was	a	corresponding	approximate	$600	million	release	in	the	third quarter	of	2012	Allowance	for	loan	losses	related	to	these	charge-offs.	2012	also	includes	a	benefit	to	charge-offs	of	approximately	$40	million	related	to	finalizing	the	impact	of	the	OCC	guidance	in the	fourth	quarter	of	2012.

(2) 2012	includes	approximately	$370	million	of	incremental	charge-offs	related	to	previously	deferred	principal	balances	on	modified	loans	in	the	first	quarter	of	2012.	These	charge-offs	were	related	to anticipated	forgiveness	of	principal	in	connection	with	the	national	mortgage	settlement.	There	was	a	corresponding	approximate	$350	million	reserve	release	in	the	first	quarter	of	2012	related	to	these charge-offs.

(3) Recoveries	have	been	reduced	by	certain	collection	costs	that	are	incurred	only	if	collection	efforts	are	successful.

(4) Includes	all	adjustments	to	the	allowance	for	credit	losses,	such	as	changes	in	the	allowance	from	acquisitions,	dispositions,	securitizations,	FX	translation,	purchase	accounting	adjustments,	etc.

(5) 2015	includes	reductions	of	approximately	$2.4	billion	related	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	held-for-sale	(HFS)	of	various	loan	portfolios,	which	includes	approximately	 $1.5	billion	related	to	the	transfer	of various	real	estate	loan	portfolios	to	HFS.	Additionally,	2015	includes	a	reduction	of	approximately	$474	million	related	to	FX	translation.

(6) 2014	includes	reductions	of	approximately	$1.1	billion	related	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	HFS	of	various	loan	portfolios,	which	includes	approximately	$411	million	related	to	the	transfer	of	various	real estate	loan	portfolios	to	HFS,	approximately	$204	million	related	to	the	transfer	to	HFS	of	a	business	in	Greece,	approximately	$177	million	related	to	the	transfer	to	HFS	of	a	business	in	Spain, approximately	$29	million	related	to	the	transfer	to	HFS	of	a	business	in	Honduras,	and	approximately	$108	million	related	to	the	transfer	to	HFS	of	various	EMEA	loan	portfolios.	Additionally,	2014 includes	a	reduction	of	approximately	$463	million	related	to	FX	translation.

(7) 2013	includes	reductions	of	approximately	$2.4	billion	related	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	HFS	of	various	loan	portfolios,	which	includes	approximately	$360	million	related	to	the	sale	of	Credicard	and approximately	$255	million	related	to	a	transfer	to	HFS	of	a	loan	portfolio	in	Greece,	approximately	$230	million	related	to	a	non-provision	transfer	of	reserves	associated	with	deferred	interest	to other	assets	which	includes	deferred	interest	and	approximately	$220	million	related	to	FX	translation.

(8) 2012	includes	reductions	of	approximately	$875	million	related	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	HFS	of	various	U.S.	loan	portfolios.

(9) 2011	includes	reductions	of	approximately	$1.6	billion	related	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	HFS	of	various	U.S.	loan	portfolios,	approximately	$240	million	related	to	the	sale	of	the	Egg	Banking	PLC credit	card	business,	approximately	$72	million	related	to	the	transfer	of	the	Citi	Belgium	business	to	held-for-sale	and	approximately	$290	million	related	to	FX	translation.

(10) 2015	includes	a	reclassification	of	$271	million	of	Allowance	for	loan	losses	to	allowance	for	unfunded	lending	commitments,	included	in	the	Other	line	item.	This	reclassification	reflects	the	re-

attribution	of	$271	million	in	allowance	for	credit	losses	between	the	funded	and	unfunded	portions	of	the	corporate	credit	portfolios	and	does	not	reflect	a	change	in	the	underlying	credit	performance of	these	portfolios.

(12) Represents	additional	credit	reserves	recorded	as	Other	liabilities	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

(13) Allowance	for	loan	losses	represents	management's	best	estimate	of	probable	losses	inherent	in	the	portfolio,	as	well	as	probable	losses	related	to	large	individually	evaluated	impaired	loans	and troubled	debt	restructurings.	See	"Significant	Accounting	Policies	and	Significant	Estimates"	and	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	below.	Attribution	of	the	allowance	is	made	for analytical	purposes	only	and	the	entire	allowance	is	available	to	absorb	probable	credit	losses	inherent	in	the	overall	portfolio.

# Allowance	for	Loan	Losses

The	following	tables	detail	information	on	Citi's	allowance	for	loan	losses,	loans	and	coverage	ratios:

| In	billions	of	dollars | Allowance	for<br>loan	losses | Loans,	net	of<br>unearned	income | Allowance	as	a<br>percentage	of	loans(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| North\tAmerica\tcards(2) | $4.5 | $113.4 | 4.0% |
| North\tAmerica\tmortgages(3)(4) | 1.7 | 79.6 | 2.1 |
| North\tAmerica\tother | 0.5 | 12.6 | 4.0 |
| International\tcards | 1.6 | 26.7 | 6.0 |
| International\tother(5) | 1.6 | 97.5 | 1.6 |
| Total\tconsumer | $9.9 | $329.8 | 3.0% |
| Total\tcorporate | 2.7 | 287.8 | 1.0 |
| Total\tCitigroup | $12.6 | $617.6 | 2.0% |

(1) Allowance	as	a	percentage	of	loans	excludes	loans	that	are	carried	at	fair	value.

(2) Includes	both	Citi-branded	cards	and	Citi	retail	services.	The	$4.5	billion	of	loan	loss	reserves	represented	approximately	15	months	of	coincident	net	credit	loss	coverage.

(3) Of	the	$1.7	billion,	approximately	$1.6	billion	was	allocated	to	North	America	mortgages	in	Citi	Holdings.	The	$1.7	billion	of	loan	loss	reserves	represented	approximately	97	months	of	coincident	net credit	loss	coverage	(for	both	total	North	America	mortgages	and	Citi	Holdings	North	America	mortgages),	excluding	the	HFS	portfolios.	The	increased	months	of	coverage	from	December	31,	2014 was	primarily	due	to	the	high	percentage	of	troubled	debt	restructuring	(TDR)	loans	and	related	Allowance	for	loan	losses,	as	well	as	the	transfer	of	certain	consumer	mortgages	and	related	 Allowance for	loan	losses	to	HFS	during	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015.

(4) Of	the	$1.7	billion	in	loan	loss	reserves,	approximately	$0.6	billion	and	$1.1	billion	are	determined	in	accordance	with	ASC	450-20	and	ASC	310-10-35	(troubled	debt	restructurings),	respectively.	Of the	$79.6	billion	in	loans,	approximately	$72.3	billion	and	$7.1	billion	of	the	loans	are	evaluated	in	accordance	with	ASC	450-20	and	ASC	310-10-35	(troubled	debt	restructurings),	respectively.	For additional	information,	see	Note	16	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(5) Includes	mortgages	and	other	retail	loans.

| In	billions	of	dollars | Allowance	for<br>loan	losses | Loans,	net	of<br>unearned	income | Allowance	as	a<br>percentage	of	loans(1) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| North\tAmerica\tcards(2) | $4.9 | $114.0 | 4.3% |
| North\tAmerica\tmortgages(3)(4) | 3.7 | 95.9 | 3.9 |
| North\tAmerica\tother | 1.2 | 21.6 | 5.6 |
| International\tcards | 1.9 | 31.5 | 6.0 |
| International\tother(5) | 1.9 | 106.9 | 1.8 |
| Total\tconsumer | $13.6 | $369.9 | 3.7% |
| Total\tcorporate | 2.4 | 274.7 | 0.9 |
| Total\tCitigroup | $16.0 | $644.6 | 2.5% |

(3) Of	the	$3.7	billion,	approximately	$3.5	billion	was	allocated	to	North	America	mortgages	in	Citi	Holdings.	The	$3.7	billion	of	loan	loss	reserves	represented	approximately	53	months	of	coincident	net credit	loss	coverage	(for	both	total	North	America	mortgages	and	Citi	Holdings	North	America	mortgages).

(4) Of	the	$3.7	billion	in	loan	loss	reserves,	approximately	$1.2	billion	and	$2.5	billion	are	determined	in	accordance	with	ASC	450-20	and	ASC	310-10-35	(troubled	debt	restructurings),	respectively.	Of the	$95.9	billion	in	loans,	approximately	$80.4	billion	and	$15.2	billion	of	the	loans	are	evaluated	in	accordance	with	ASC	450-20	and	ASC	310-10-35	(troubled	debt	restructurings),	respectively.	For additional	information,	see	Note	16	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Non-Accrual	Loans	and	Assets	and	Renegotiated	Loans

There	is	a	certain	amount	of	overlap	among	non-accrual	loans	and	assets	and renegotiated	loans.	The	following	summary	provides	a	general	description	of	each category:

# Non-Accrual	Loans	and	Assets:

•Corporate	and	consumer	(commercial	market)	non-accrual	status	is	based	on the	determination	that	payment	of	interest	or	principal	is	doubtful. •A	corporate	loan	may	be	classified	as	non-accrual	and	still	be	performing under	the	terms	of	the	loan	structure.	Payments	received	on	corporate	non- accrual	loans	are	generally	applied	to	loan	principal	and	not	reflected	as interest	income.	Approximately	45%	and	40%	of	Citi's	corporate	non-accrual loans	were	performing	at	December	31,	2015	and	September	30,	2015, respectively.

•Consumer	non-accrual	status	is	generally	based	on	aging,	i.e.,	the	borrower has	fallen	behind	on	payments.

•Mortgage	loans	in	regulated	bank	entities	discharged	through	Chapter	7 bankruptcy,	other	than	FHA	insured	loans,	are	classified	as	non-accrual.	Non- bank	mortgage	loans	discharged	through	Chapter	7	bankruptcy	are	classified as	non-accrual	at	90	days	or	more	past	due.	In	addition,	home	equity	loans	in regulated	bank	entities	are	classified	as	non-accrual	if	the	related	residential first	mortgage	loan	is	90	days	or	more	past	due.

•North	America	Citi-branded	cards	and	Citi	retail	services	are	not	included because,	under	industry	standards,	credit	card	loans	accrue	interest	until	such loans	are	charged	off,	which	typically	occurs	at	180	days	contractual delinquency.

# Renegotiated	Loans:

•Includes	both	corporate	and	consumer	loans	whose	terms	have	been	modified in	a	troubled	debt	restructuring	(TDR). •Includes	both	accrual	and	non-accrual TDRs.

The	table	below	summarizes	Citigroup's	non-accrual	loans	as	of	the	periods indicated.	Non-accrual	loans	may	still	be	current	on	interest	payments.	In situations	where	Citi	reasonably	expects	that	only	a	portion	of	the	principal	owed

will	ultimately	be	collected,	all	payments	received	are	reflected	as	a	reduction	of principal	and	not	as	interest	income.	For	all	other	non-accrual	loans,	cash	interest receipts	are	generally	recorded	as	revenue.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Citicorp | $3,092 | $3,011 | $3,777 | $4,031 | $3,776 |
| Citi\tHoldings | 2,162 | 4,096 | 5,226 | 7,499 | 7,292 |
| Total\tnon-accrual\tloans | $5,254 | $7,107 | $9,003 | $11,530 | $11,068 |
| Corporate\tnon-accrual\tloans(1)(2) |  |  |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $818 | $321 | $736 | $735 | $1,246 |
| EMEA | 317 | 267 | 766 | 1,131 | 1,293 |
| Latin\tAmerica | 301 | 416 | 127 | 128 | 362 |
| Asia | 128 | 179 | 279 | 339 | 335 |
| Total\tcorporate\tnon-accrual\tloans | $1,564 | $1,183 | $1,908 | $2,333 | $3,236 |
| Citicorp | $1,511 | $1,126 | $1,580 | $1,909 | $2,217 |
| Citi\tHoldings | 53 | 57 | 328 | 424 | 1,019 |
| Total\tcorporate\tnon-accrual\tloans | $1,564 | $1,183 | $1,908 | $2,333 | $3,236 |
| Consumer\tnon-accrual\tloans(1)(3) |  |  |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $2,515 | $4,412 | $5,238 | $7,149 | $5,888 |
| Latin\tAmerica | 876 | 1,188 | 1,426 | 1,285 | 1,107 |
| Asia(4) | 299 | 324 | 431 | 763 | 837 |
| Total\tconsumer\tnon-accrual\tloans | $3,690 | $5,924 | $7,095 | $9,197 | $7,832 |
| Citicorp | $1,581 | $1,885 | $2,197 | $2,122 | $1,559 |
| Citi\tHoldings | 2,109 | 4,039 | 4,898 | 7,075 | 6,273 |
| Total\tconsumer\tnon-accrual\tloans | $3,690 | $5,924 | $7,095 | $9,197 | $7,832 |

(2) Included	within	the	increase	in	corporate	non-accrual	loans	from	December	31,	2014	to	December	31,	2015	is	an	approximate	$340	million	increase	during	the	third	quarter	of	2015	primarily	related to	Citi's	North	America	energy	and	energy-related	corporate	credit	exposure.	For	additional	information,	see	"Corporate	Credit	Details"	above.

(3)	2015	decline	includes	the	impact	related	to	the	transfer	of	approximately	$8	billion	of	mortgage	loans	to	Loans,	held-for-sale	(HFS)	(included	within	Other	assets).

The	changes	in	Citigroup's	non-accrual	loans	were	as	follows:

|  |  | Year	ended |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | December\t31,\t2015 |  |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Corporate | Consumer | Total |
| Non-accrual\tloans\tat\tbeginning\tof\nperiod | $1,183 | $5,924 | $7,107 |
| Additions | 1,318 | 5,219 | 6,537 |
| Sales\tand\ttransfers\tto\theld-for-sale | (222) | (2,249) | (2,471) |
| Returned\tto\tperforming | (64) | (1,080) | (1,144) |
| Paydowns/settlements | (459) | (1,255) | (1,714) |
| Charge-offs | (145) | (2,642) | (2,787) |
| Other | (47) | (227) | (274) |
| Ending\tbalance | $1,564 | $3,690 | $5,254 |

The	table	below	summarizes	Citigroup's	other	real	estate	owned	(OREO)	assets	as	of	the	periods	indicated.	This	represents	the	carrying	value	of	all	real	estate	property acquired	by	foreclosure	or	other	legal	proceedings	when	Citi	has	taken	possession	of	the	collateral:

(1) Reflects	a	decrease	of	$130	million	related	to	the	adoption	of	ASU	2014-14	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2014,	which	requires	certain	government	guaranteed	mortgage	loans	to	be	recognized	as	separate other	receivables	upon	foreclosure.	Prior	periods	have	not	been	restated.

(2) The	allowance	for	loan	losses	includes	the	allowance	for	Citi's	credit	card	portfolios	and	purchased	distressed	loans,	while	the	non-accrual	loans	exclude	credit	card	balances	(with	the	exception	of certain	international	portfolios)	and	purchased	distressed	loans	as	these	continue	to	accrue	interest	until	charge-off.

(3) 2015	decline	includes	the	impact	related	to	the	transfer	of	approximately	$8	billion	of	mortgage	loans	to Loans,	held-for-sale	(HFS)	(included	within	Other	assets). N/A	Not	available	at	the	Citicorp	or	Citi	Holdings	level.

# Foregone	Interest	Revenue	on	Loans(1)

# The	following	table	presents	Citi's	loans	modified	in	TDRs.

(1) Includes	$258	million	and	$135	million	of	non-accrual	loans	included	in	the	non-accrual assets	table	above	at	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	respectively.	The remaining	loans	are	accruing	interest.

(2) In	addition	to	modifications	reflected	as	TDRs	at	December	31,	2015,	Citi	also	modified $173	million	and	$17	million	of	commercial	loans	risk	rated	"Substandard	Non-Performing" or	worse	(asset	category	defined	by	banking	regulators)	in	offices	inside	and	outside	the U.S.,	respectively.	These	modifications	were	not	considered	TDRs	because	the	modifications did	not	involve	a	concession	(a	required	element	of	a	TDR	for	accounting	purposes).

(3) In	addition	to	modifications	reflected	as	TDRs	at	December	31,	2015,	Citi	also	modified $22	million	of	commercial	real	estate	loans	risk	rated	"Substandard	Non-Performing"	or worse	(asset	category	defined	by	banking	regulators)	in	offices	inside	the	U.S.	These modifications	were	not	considered	TDRs	because	the	modifications	did	not	involve	a concession	(a	required	element	of	a	TDR	for	accounting	purposes).

(4) Includes	$1,861	million	and	$3,132	million	of	non-accrual	loans	included	in	the	non-accrual assets	table	above	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.	The	remaining	loans	are accruing	interest.

(5) Includes	$53	million	and	$124	million	of	commercial	real	estate	loans	at	December	31,	2015 and	2014,	respectively.

(7) Smaller-balance	homogeneous	loans	were	derived	from	Citi's	risk	management	systems.

(8) Reduction	in	2015	includes	$7,548	million	related	to	TDRs	sold	or	transferred	to	held-for-

sale.

# LIQUIDITY	RISK

Adequate	and	diverse	sources	of	funding	and	liquidity	are	essential	to	Citi's businesses.		Funding	and	liquidity	risks	arise	from	several	factors,	many	of	which are	mostly	or	entirely	outside	Citi's	control,	such	as	disruptions	in	the	financial markets,	changes	in	key	funding	sources,	credit	spreads,	changes	in	Citi's	credit ratings	and	political	and	economic	conditions	in	certain	countries.	For	additional information,	see	"Risk	Factors"	above.

Citi's	funding	and	liquidity	objectives	are	aimed	at	(i)	funding	its	existing asset	base;	(ii)	growing	its	core	businesses	in	Citicorp;	(iii)	maintaining	sufficient liquidity,	structured	appropriately,	so	that	Citi	can	operate	under	a	variety	of adverse	circumstances,	including	potential	firm-specific	and/or	market	liquidity events	in	varying	durations	and	severity;	and	(iv)	satisfying	regulatory requirements.	Citigroup's	primary	liquidity	objectives	are	established	by	entity,	and in	aggregate,	across	two	major	categories:

# •Citibank;	and

•the	non-bank	and	other,	which	includes	the	parent	holding	company (Citigroup),	Citi's	broker-dealer	subsidiaries	and	other	non-bank	subsidiaries that	are	consolidated	into	Citigroup,	as	well	as	Banamex	and	Citibank (Switzerland)	AG.

At	an	aggregate	level,	Citigroup's	goal	is	to	maintain	sufficient	funding	in amount	and	tenor	to	fully	fund	customer	assets	and	to	provide	an	appropriate amount	of	cash	and	high-quality	liquid	assets	(as	discussed	further	below),	even	in times	of	stress.	The	liquidity	risk	management	framework	provides	that	certain entities	be	self-sufficient	or	net	providers	of	liquidity,	including	in	conditions established	under	their	designated	stress	tests.

Citi's	primary	sources	of	funding	include	(i)	deposits	via	Citi's	bank subsidiaries,	which	are	Citi's	most	stable	and	lowest	cost	source	of	long-term funding,	(ii)	long-term	debt	(primarily	senior	and	subordinated	debt)	primarily issued	at	the	parent	and	certain	bank	subsidiaries,	and	(iii)	stockholders'	equity. These	sources	may	be	supplemented	by	short-term	borrowings,	primarily	in	the form	of	secured	funding	transactions.

As	referenced	above,	Citigroup	works	to	ensure	that	the	structural	tenor	of these	funding	sources	is	sufficiently	long	in	relation	to	the	tenor	of	its	asset	base. The	goal	of	Citi's	asset/liability	management	is	to	ensure	that	there	is	excess	tenor in	the	liability	structure	relative	to	the	liquidity	profile	of	the	assets.	This	reduces the	risk	that	liabilities	will	become	due	before	asset	maturities	or	monetizations through	sale,	and	in	turn	generates	liquidity.	This	liquidity	is	held	primarily	in	the form	of	high-quality	liquid	assets	(HQLA),	as	set	forth	in	the	table	below.

Citi's	Treasurer	has	overall	responsibility	for	management	of	Citi's	HQLA. Citi's	liquidity	is	managed	via	a	centralized	treasury	model	by	Corporate	Treasury, in	conjunction	with	regional	and	in-country	treasurers.	Pursuant	to	this	approach, Citi's	HQLA	is	managed	with	emphasis	on	asset-liability	management	and	entity- level	liquidity	adequacy	throughout	Citi.

Citi's	Chief	Risk	Officer	is	responsible	for	the	overall	risk	profile	of	Citi's HQLA.	The	Chief	Risk	Officer	and	Citi's	CFO	co-chair	Citi's	Asset	Liability Management	Committee	(ALCO),	which	includes	Citi's	Treasurer	and	other	senior executives.	ALCO	sets	the	strategy	of	the	liquidity	portfolio	and	monitors	its performance.	Significant	changes	to	portfolio	asset	allocations	need	to	be	approved by	ALCO.

# High-Quality	Liquid	Assets	(HQLA)

|  |  | Citibank |  | Non-Bank	and	Other(1) | Non-Bank	and	Other(1) |  |  | Total |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars | Dec.\t31,\t2015 | Sept.\t30,\t2015 | Dec.\t31,\t2014 | Dec.\t31,\t2015 | Sept.\t30,\t2015 | Dec.\t31,\t2014 | Dec.\t31,\t2015 | Sept.\t30,\t2015 | Dec.\t31,\t2014 |
| Available\tcash | $52.4 | $68.9 | $65.2 | $16.9 | $21.5 | $37.5 | $69.3 | $90.4 | $102.7 |
| \tU.S.\tsovereign | 110.1 | 119.6 | 112.4 | 32.4 | 22.4 | 27.1 | 142.4 | 142.0 | 139.5 |
| U.S.\tagency/agency\tMBS | 63.8 | 60.1 | 56.4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 64.9 | 61.1 | 57.1 |
| Foreign\tgovernment\tdebt(2) | 84.8 | 87.6 | 97.3 | 14.9 | 15.5 | 12.8 | 99.7 | 103.0 | 110.2 |
| Other\tinvestment\tgrade | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 3.1 |
| Total | $312.1 | $337.0 | $333.1 | $66.4 | $61.9 | $79.6 | $378.5 | $398.9 | $412.6 |

Note:	Amounts	set	forth	in	the	table	above	are	as	of	period	end	and	may	increase	or	decrease	intra-period	in	the	ordinary	course	of	business.	For	securities,	the	amounts	represent	the	liquidity	value	that potentially	could	be	realized,	and	thus	exclude	any	securities	that	are	encumbered,	as	well	as	the	haircuts	that	would	be	required	for	securities	financing	transactions.

(1) "Non-Bank	and	Other"	includes	the	parent	holding	company	(Citigroup),	Citi's	broker-dealer	subsidiaries	and	other	non-bank	subsidiaries	that	are	consolidated	into	Citigroup	as	well	as	Banamex	and Citibank	(Switzerland)	AG.	Banamex	and	Citibank	(Switzerland)	AG	account	for	approximately	$6	billion	of	the	"Non-Bank	and	Other"	HQLA	balance	as	of	December	31,	2015.

(2) Foreign	government	debt	includes	securities	issued	or	guaranteed	by	foreign	sovereigns,	agencies	and	multilateral	development	banks.	Foreign	government	debt	securities	are	held	largely	to	support local	liquidity	requirements	and	Citi's	local	franchises,	and	principally	include	government	bonds	from	Hong	Kong,	India,

Korea	and	Mexico.

As	set	forth	in	the	table	above,	Citi's	HQLA	decreased	both	year-over-year	as well	as	sequentially,	driven	primarily	by	reductions	in	long-term	debt	and	short- term	borrowings,	as	discussed	further	under	"Secured	Funding	Transactions	and Short-Term	Borrowings"	below.

Citi's	HQLA	as	set	forth	above	does	not	include	Citi's	available	borrowing capacity	from	the	Federal	Home	Loan	Banks	(FHLB)	of	which	Citi	is	a	member, which	was	approximately	$36	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015	(unchanged	from September	30,	2015	and	compared	to	$26	billion	as	of	December	31,	2014)	and maintained	by	eligible	collateral	pledged	to	such	banks.	The	HQLA	also	does	not include	Citi's	borrowing	capacity	at	the	U.S.	Federal	Reserve	Bank	discount window	or	other	central	banks,	which	would	be	in	addition	to	the	resources	noted above.

In	general,	Citi's	liquidity	is	fungible	across	legal	entities	within	its	bank group.	Citi's	bank	subsidiaries,	including	Citibank,	can	lend	to	the	Citi	parent	and broker-dealer	entities	in	accordance	with	Section	23A	of	the	Federal	Reserve	Act. As	of	December	31,	2015,	the	capacity	available	for	lending	to	these	entities	under Section	23A	was	approximately	$17	billion,	largely	unchanged	from	prior	periods, subject	to	certain	eligible	non-cash	collateral	requirements.

# Loans

As	part	of	its	funding	and	liquidity	objectives,	Citi	seeks	to	fund	its	existing	asset base	appropriately	as	well	as	maintain	sufficient	liquidity	to	grow	its	core businesses	in	Citicorp,	including	its	loan	portfolio.	Citi	maintains	a	diversified portfolio	of	loans	to	its	consumer	and	institutional	clients.	The	table	below	sets forth	the	end-of-period	loans,	by	business	and/or	segment,	and	the	total	average loans	for	each	of	the	periods	indicated:

| In	billions	of	dollars | Dec.	31,	2015 | Sept.	30,<br>2015 | Dec.	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Global\tConsumer\tBanking |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $165.1 | $158.5 | $160.8 |
| Latin\tAmerica | 31.5 | 31.4 | 35.5 |
| Asia(1) | 88.7 | 88.4 | 94.8 |
| Total | $285.3 | $278.3 | $291.1 |
| Institutional\tClients\tGroup |  |  |  |
| Corporate\tlending | 114.9 | 116.5 | 108.4 |
| Treasury\tand\ttrade\tsolutions\t(TTS) | 71.3 | 73.4 | 76.0 |
| Private\tbank,\tmarkets\tand\tsecurities\nservices\tand\tother | 101.3 | 98.9 | 89.9 |
| Total | $287.5 | $288.8 | $274.3 |
| Total\tCiticorp | 572.8 | 567.1 | 565.4 |
| Total\tCiti\tHoldings | 44.8 | 55.3 | 79.2 |
| Total\tCitigroup\tloans\t(EOP) | $617.6 | $622.4 | $644.6 |
| Total\tCitigroup\tloans\t(AVG) | $625.1 | $623.2 | $650.8 |

# (1) For	reporting	purposes,	includes	EMEA	GCB	for	all	periods	presented.

End-of-period	loans	declined	4%	year-over-year	and	1%	quarter-over-quarter. Excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	Citigroup's	end-of-period	loans	decreased 1%	both	year-over-year	and	sequentially,	in	each	case	driven	by	continued	overall declines	in	Citi	Holdings.

Excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	Citicorp	loans	increased	5%	year- over-year.	GCB	loans	grew	2%	year-over-year,	driven	by	3%	growth	in	North America.	ICG	loans	increased	8%	year-over-year.	Within	ICG,	corporate	loans increased	9%	driven	by	both	new	business	and	the	funding	of	prior	commitments. Treasury	and	trade	solutions	loans	declined	3%,	as	Citi	continued	to	distribute	a significant	portion	of	its	trade	loan	originations,	which	allows	it	to	support	its clients	while	maintaining	balance	sheet	discipline	in	a	continued	low	spread environment.	Private	bank,	markets	and	securities	services	and	other	loans	grew 14%	year-over-year.

Citi	Holdings	loans	decreased	43%	year-over-year	driven	by	over	$21	billion of	reductions	in	North	America	mortgages,	including	transfers	to	held-for-sale	(see Note	15	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements),	as	well	as	the	sale	of	OneMain Financial,	which	was	completed	during	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015.

# Deposits

Deposits	are	Citi's	primary	and	lowest	cost	funding	source.	The	table	below	sets forth	the	end-of-period	deposits,	by	business	and/or	segment,	and	the	total	average deposits	for	each	of	the	periods	indicated:

|  |  | Sept.	30, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars | Dec.\t31,\t2015 | 2015 | Dec.\t31,\t2014 |
| Global\tConsumer\tBanking |  |  |  |
| North\tAmerica | $172.8 | $170.9 | $171.4 |
| Latin\tAmerica | 40.8 | 38.8 | 43.7 |
| Asia(1) | 87.8 | 87.1 | 89.2 |
| Total | $301.4 | $296.8 | $304.3 |
| Institutional\tClients\tGroup |  |  |  |
| Treasury\tand\ttrade\tsolutions\t(TTS) | 392.2 | 398.7 | 378.0 |
| Banking\tex-TTS | 118.8 | 117.4 | 94.5 |
| Markets\tand\tsecurities\tservices | 76.3 | 78.8 | 82.9 |
| Total | $587.3 | $594.9 | $555.4 |
| Corporate/Other | 12.1 | 5.4 | 22.8 |
| Total\tCiticorp | $900.8 | $897.1 | $882.5 |
| Total\tCiti\tHoldings | 7.1 | 7.1 | 16.8 |
| Total\tCitigroup\tdeposits\t(EOP) | $907.9 | $904.2 | $899.3 |
| Total\tCitigroup\tdeposits\t(AVG) | $908.8 | $903.1 | $938.7 |

End-of-period	deposits	increased	1%	year-over-year	and	remained	relatively unchanged	quarter-over-quarter.	Excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation, Citigroup's	end-of-period	deposits	increased	4%	year-over-year	and	1% sequentially,	despite	significant	reductions	in	Citi	Holdings	deposits	from	the prior-year	period.

Excluding	the	impact	of	FX	translation,	Citicorp	deposits	grew	5%	year-over- year.	Within	Citicorp,	GCB	deposits	increased	2%	year-over-year,	driven	by	5% growth	in	international	deposits.	ICG	deposits	increased	9%	year-over-year,	with continued	deposit	growth	in	treasury	and	trade	solutions	and	the	private	bank.

The	decline	in	Citi	Holdings	deposits	from	the	prior-year	period	was	primarily driven	by	the	now-complete	transfer	of	Morgan	Stanley	Smith	Barney	(MSSB) deposits	to	Morgan	Stanley.

Citi	monitors	its	deposit	base	across	multiple	dimensions,	including	what	Citi refers	to	as	"LCR	value"	or	the	liquidity	value	of	the	deposit	base	under	the	U.S. LCR	rules	(as	discussed	under	"Short-Term	Liquidity	Measurement:	Liquidity Coverage	Ratio	(LCR)"	below).	Citi	defines	the	liquidity	value	of	deposits	as	the percentage	of	deposits	assumed	to	remain	following	a	30-day	period	of	liquidity stress.	As	discussed	below,	under	the	LCR	rules,	deposits	are	assigned	liquidity values	based	on	expected	behavior	under	stress,	determined	by	the	type	of	deposit and	the	type	of	client.	Generally,	the	LCR	rules	prioritize	transactional	and operating	accounts	of	consumers	(including	retail	and	commercial	banking deposits)	and	corporations	respectively,	while	assigning	lower	liquidity	values	to non-operating	deposit	balances	of	financial	institutions.	As	of	December	31,	2015, Citi's	total	deposits	had	an	aggregate	liquidity	value	of	approximately	73%,	down slightly	sequentially	and	unchanged	from	December	31,	2014.	Within	the	73% total	liquidity	value	as	of	year-end	2015,	Citi's	GCB	deposits	had	a	liquidity	value of	approximately	87%	and	ICG	deposits,	including	Corporate/Other,	had	a liquidity	value	of	approximately	66%.

# Long-Term	Debt

Long-term	debt	(generally	defined	as	debt	with	original	maturities	of	one	year	or more)	represents	the	most	significant	component	of	Citi's	funding	for	the	parent entities	and	is	a	supplementary	source	of	funding	for	the	bank	entities.

Long-term	debt	is	an	important	funding	source	due	in	part	to	its	multi-year contractual	maturity	structure.	The	weighted-average	maturities	of	unsecured	long- term	debt	issued	by	Citigroup	and	its	affiliates	(including	Citibank)	with	a remaining	life	greater	than	one	year	(excluding	remaining	trust	preferred	securities outstanding)	was	approximately	6.9	years	as	of	December	31,	2015,	unchanged from	the	prior-year	period	and	a	slight	increase	sequentially,	due	in	part	to	the issuance	of	longer-dated	debt	securities	and	the	redemption	of	shorter-dated	debt securities	during	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015.

Citi's	long-term	debt	outstanding	at	the	parent	includes	senior	and subordinated	debt	and	what	Citi	refers	to	as	customer-related	debt,	consisting	of structured	notes,	such	as	equity-	and	credit-linked	notes,	as	well	as	non-structured notes.	Citi's	issuance	of	customer-related	debt	is	generally

driven	by	customer	demand	and	supplements	benchmark	debt	issuance	as	a	source of	funding	for	Citi's	parent	entities.	Citi's	long-term	debt	at	the	bank	also	includes FHLB	advances	and	securitizations.

# Long-Term	Debt	Outstanding

The	following	table	sets	forth	Citi's	total	long-term	debt	outstanding	for	the periods	indicated:

|  |  | Sept.	30, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars | Dec.\t31,\t2015 | 2015 | Dec.\t31,\t2014 |
| Parent |  |  |  |
| Benchmark\tdebt: |  |  |  |
| Senior\tdebt | $90.3 | $99.5 | $97.9 |
| Subordinated\tdebt | 26.9 | 26.8 | 25.5 |
| Trust\tpreferred | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
| Customer-related\tdebt |  |  |  |
| Structured\tdebt | 21.8 | 23.1 | 22.3 |
| Non-structured\tdebt | 3.0 | 3.6 | 5.9 |
| Local\tcountry\tand\tother(1) | 2.4 | 2.1 | 4.7 |
| Total\tparent | $146.1 | $156.8 | $158.0 |
| Bank |  |  |  |
| FHLB\tborrowings | $17.8 | $17.3 | $19.8 |
| Securitizations(2) | 30.9 | 32.0 | 38.1 |
| Local\tcountry\tand\tother(1) | 6.5 | 7.4 | 7.2 |
| Total\tbank | $55.2 | $56.7 | $65.1 |
| Total\tlong-term\tdebt | $201.3 | $213.5 | $223.1 |

Note:	Amounts	represent	the	current	value	of	long-term	debt	on	Citi's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet which,	for	certain	debt	instruments,	includes	consideration	of	fair	value,	hedging	impacts	and unamortized	discounts	and	premiums.

(1) Local	country	debt	includes	debt	issued	by	Citi's	affiliates	in	support	of	their	local operations.

(2) Predominantly	credit	card	securitizations,	primarily	backed	by	Citi-branded	credit	card receivables.

Citi's	total	long-term	debt	outstanding	decreased	both	year-over-year	and quarter-over-quarter,	primarily	due	to	significant	buybacks	of	senior	and subordinated	debt	at	the	parent	level	during	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015	(discussed below),	as	well	as	continued	reductions	in	securitizations	at	the	bank	entities.

As	part	of	its	liability	management,	Citi	has	considered,	and	may	continue	to consider,	opportunities	to	repurchase	its	long-term	debt	pursuant	to	open	market purchases,	tender	offers	or	other	means.	Such	repurchases	help	reduce	Citi's overall	funding	costs	and	assist	it	in	meeting	regulatory	changes	and	requirements. During	2015,	Citi	repurchased	an	aggregate	of	approximately	$21.1	billion	of	its outstanding	long-term	debt,	including	early	redemptions	of	FHLB	advances.	Of this	amount,	approximately	$11.5	billion	was	repurchased	in	the	fourth	quarter	of 2015	as	Citi	completed	significant	asset	sales	in	Citi	Holdings,	including	the OneMain	Financial	business.	Accordingly,	while	Citi	anticipates	continued liability	management	activities	in	2016,	it	does	not	currently	expect	repurchases	to remain	at	the	level	experienced	in	2015.

# Long-Term	Debt	Issuances	and	Maturities

The	table	below	details	Citi's	long-term	debt	issuances	and	maturities	(including	repurchases	and	redemptions)	during	the	periods	presented:

|  | 2015 |  | 2014 |  | 2013 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars | Maturities | Issuances | Maturities | Issuances | Maturities | Issuances |
| Parent |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Benchmark\tdebt: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Senior\tdebt | $23.9 | $20.2 | $18.9 | $18.6 | $25.6 | $17.8 |
| Subordinated\tdebt | 4.0 | 7.5 | 5.0 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 4.6 |
| Trust\tpreferred | — | — | 2.1 | — | 6.4 | — |
| Customer-related\tdebt: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Structured\tdebt | 7.7 | 9.1 | 7.5 | 9.5 | 8.5 | 7.3 |
| Non-structured\tdebt | 2.2 | 0.4 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 3.7 | 1.0 |
| Local\tcountry\tand\tother | 0.4 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 3.7 | 0.8 | — |
| Total\tparent | $38.2 | $39.1 | $38.3 | $36.0 | $46.0 | $30.7 |
| Bank |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| FHLB\tborrowings | $4.0 | $2.0 | $8.0 | $13.9 | $11.8 | $9.5 |
| Securitizations | 7.9 | 0.8 | 8.9 | 13.6 | 2.4 | 11.5 |
| Local\tcountry\tand\tother | 2.8 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 2.7 |
| Total\tbank | $14.7 | $5.5 | $20.6 | $30.8 | $17.8 | $23.7 |
| Total | $52.9 | $44.6 | $58.9 | $66.8 | $63.8 | $54.4 |

The	table	below	shows	Citi's	aggregate	long-term	debt	maturities	(including	repurchases	and	redemptions)	in	2015,	as	well	as	its	aggregate	expected	annual	long-term	debt maturities	as	of	December	31,	2015:

| In	billions	of	dollars | Maturities<br>2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Thereafter | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Parent |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Benchmark\tdebt: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Senior\tdebt | $23.9 | $11.8 | $14.3 | $17.9 | $13.6 | $6.4 | $26.3 | $90.3 |
| Subordinated\tdebt | 4.0 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 1.3 | — | 20.7 | 26.9 |
| Trust\tpreferred | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1.7 | 1.7 |
| Customer-related\tdebt: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Structured\tdebt | 7.7 | 4.9 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 8.1 | 21.8 |
| Non-structured\tdebt | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Local\tcountry\tand\tother | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | — | 1.5 | 2.4 |
| Total\tparent | $38.2 | $19.0 | $19.7 | $22.1 | $16.9 | $8.9 | $59.5 | $146.1 |
| Bank |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| FHLB\tborrowings | $4.0 | $9.5 | $7.8 | $0.5 | $— | $— | $— | $17.8 |
| Securitizations | 7.9 | 11.6 | 5.3 | 8.4 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 3.5 | 30.9 |
| Local\tcountry\tand\tother | 2.8 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 6.5 |
| Total\tbank | $14.7 | $24.5 | $14.7 | $9.3 | $2.3 | $0.5 | $3.9 | $55.2 |
| Total\tlong-term\tdebt | $52.9 | $43.5 | $34.4 | $31.4 | $19.2 | $9.4 | $63.4 | $201.3 |

# Total	Loss-Absorbing	Capacity	(TLAC)

In	November	2015,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	issued	a	notice	of	proposed rulemaking	that	would	impose	minimum	loss-absorbing	capacity	and	long-term debt	requirements	on	global	systemically	important	bank	holding	companies (GSIBs),	including	Citi,	the	intended	purpose	of	which	would	be	to	facilitate	the orderly	resolution	of	U.S.	GSIBs	under	the	U.S.	Bankruptcy	Code	and	Title	II	of the	Dodd-Frank	Act.	There	are	significant	uncertainties	and	interpretive	issues arising	from	the	Federal	Reserve	Board's	proposal.	For	additional	information,	see "Risk	Factors—Liquidity	Risks"	above.	For	an	additional	discussion	of	the	method 1	and	method	2	GSIB	capital	surcharge	methodology	as	well	as	other	regulatory capital	aspects	of	the	TLAC	proposal,	see	"Capital	Resources"	above.

Pursuant	to	the	proposal,	U.S.	GSIBs	would	be	required	to	issue	and	maintain minimum	levels	of	external	TLAC	and	eligible	long-term	debt	(LTD),	each	set	by reference	to	the	GSIB's	consolidated	risk-weighted	assets	(RWA)	and	total leverage	exposure.	The	proposed	minimum	external	TLAC	requirement	would	be the	greater	of	(i)	18%	of	the	GSIB's	RWA	plus	the	applicable	external	TLAC buffer	and	(ii)	9.5%	of	its	total	leverage	exposure.	The	applicable	external	TLAC buffer	equals	the	2.5%	capital	conservation	buffer,	plus	any	applicable countercyclical	capital	buffer,	plus	the	GSIB's	capital	surcharge	as	determined under	method	1	of	the	GSIB	surcharge	rule.	Accordingly,	Citi's	total	estimated current	TLAC	requirement	would	be	22.5%	of	RWA	under	the	proposal.	Breach	of the	proposed	external	TLAC	buffer	would	subject	the	GSIB	to	restrictions	on distributions	and	discretionary	bonus	payments.	The	proposed	minimum	external LTD	requirement	would	be	the	greater	of	(i)	6%	of	the	GSIB's	RWA	plus	its capital	surcharge	as	determined	under	method	2	of	the	GSIB	surcharge	rule,	for	a total	estimated	current	requirement	of	9%	of	RWA	for	Citi	and	(ii)	4.5%	of	the GSIB's	total	leverage	exposure.

As	proposed,	external	TLAC	would	generally	include	(i)	Common	Equity Tier	1	Capital	and	Additional	Tier	1	Capital	issued	directly	by	the	bank	holding company	plus	(ii)	eligible	external	LTD.	Eligible	external	LTD,	which	is	a subcategory	of	external	TLAC,	would	include	unsecured,	"plain	vanilla"	debt securities	(i.e.,	would	not	include	structured	notes	or	securities	containing derivative-linked	features)	issued	directly	by	the	bank	holding	company,	governed by	U.S.	law	and	with	a	remaining	maturity	greater	than	one	year.	Further,	pursuant to	what	has	been	referred	to	as	the	"haircut"	provision,	otherwise	eligible	external LTD	with	a	remaining	maturity	of	less	than	two	years	would	be	subject	to	a	50% haircut	for	purposes	of	meeting	the	minimum	external	LTD	requirement.	In addition,	otherwise	eligible	external	LTD	which	provides	for	acceleration	of	the payment	of	principal	and	interest	other	than	upon	the	occurrence	of	insolvency	or non-payment	would	not	be	eligible	LTD.

Designed	to	further	enhance	the	resolvability	of	a	U.S.	GSIB,	the	proposal would	also	prohibit	or	limit	certain	financial	arrangements	at	the	bank	holding company	level,	or	what	are	referred	to	as	"clean	holding	company"	requirements. Pursuant	to	these	requirements,	the	bank	holding	company

would	be	prohibited	from	having	certain	types	of	third-party	liabilities,	including short-term	debt,	derivatives	and	other	qualified	financial	contracts,	liabilities guaranteed	by	a	subsidiary	(i.e.,	upstream	guarantees)	and	guarantees	of	subsidiary liabilities	or	similar	arrangements	if	the	liability	or	guarantee	includes	a	default right	linked	to	the	insolvency	of	the	bank	holding	company	(i.e.,	downstream guarantees	with	cross	default	provisions).	In	addition,	the	clean	holding	company requirements	would	limit	the	third-party,	non-contingent	liabilities	of	the	bank holding	company	that	are	not	related	to	TLAC	or	LTD	and	are	pari	passu	with	or junior	to	eligible	external	LTD,	including	structured	notes	and	various	operating liabilities,	to	5%	of	the	U.S.	GSIB's	outstanding	external	TLAC.

The	proposal	would	further	require	that	U.S.	GSIBs	deduct	from	their regulatory	capital	any	investment	in	unsecured	debt	issued	by	GSIBs	in	excess	of certain	thresholds.	This	deduction	would	be	required	regardless	of	the	tenor	of	the instrument	and	regardless	of	whether	the	debt	instrument	would	qualify	as	eligible external	LTD.

While	not	included	in	its	proposed	requirements,	the	Federal	Reserve	Board also	indicated	in	its	notice	of	proposed	rulemaking	that	it	was	considering imposing	"domestic	internal	TLAC"	requirements	for	the	material	operating subsidiaries	of	U.S.	GSIBs.	The	Board	indicated	any	such	requirements	would	be designed	to,	among	other	things,	require	the	maintenance	of	"contributable resources"	(in	the	form	of	high-quality	liquid	assets)	at	the	bank	holding	company and/or	"prepositioned	resources"	at	the	level	of	the	material	operating	subsidiaries (in	the	form	of	debt	and	equity	investments	in	the	subsidiaries).

The	proposed	effective	date	for	the	requirements	included	in	the	proposal would	be	January	1,	2019,	with	the	exception	of	the	RWA	component	of	the external	TLAC	requirement,	which	would	be	16%	as	of	January	1,	2019	and	would increase	to	18%	on	January	1,	2022.

# Secured	Funding	Transactions	and	Short-Term	Borrowings

As	referenced	above,	Citi	supplements	its	primary	sources	of	funding	with	short- term	borrowings.	Short-term	borrowings	generally	include	(i)	secured	funding transactions	(securities	loaned	or	sold	under	agreements	to	repurchase,	or	repos) and	(ii)	to	a	lesser	extent,	short-term	borrowings	consisting	of	commercial	paper and	borrowings	from	the	FHLB	and	other	market	participants	(see	Note	18	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	further	information	on	Citigroup's	and	its affiliates'	outstanding	short-term	borrowings).	Citi	has	purposefully	reduced	its other	short-term	borrowings,	including	FHLB	borrowings,	as	it	continued	to	grow its	high-quality	deposits.

# Secured	Funding

Secured	funding	is	primarily	accessed	through	Citi's	broker-dealer	subsidiaries	to fund	efficiently	both	secured	lending	activity	and	a	portion	of	securities	inventory held	in	the	context	of	market	making	and	customer	activities.	Citi	also	executes	a smaller	portion	of	its	secured	funding	transactions	through	its	bank	entities,	which is	typically	collateralized	by	foreign	government	debt	securities.	Generally,	daily changes

in	the	level	of	Citi's	secured	funding	are	primarily	due	to	fluctuations	in	secured lending	activity	in	the	matched	book	(as	described	below)	and	securities	inventory. Secured	funding	of	$146	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015	declined	16%	from the	prior-year	period	and	13%	sequentially.	Excluding	the	impact	of	FX translation,	secured	funding	decreased	11%	from	the	prior-year	period	and	12% sequentially,	both	driven	by	normal	business	activity.	Average	balances	for	secured funding	were	approximately	$163	billion	for	the	quarter	ended	December	31,	2015. The	portion	of	secured	funding	in	the	broker-dealer	subsidiaries	that	funds secured	lending	is	commonly	referred	to	as	"matched	book"	activity.	The	majority of	this	activity	is	secured	by	high	quality,	liquid	securities	such	as	U.S.	Treasury securities,	U.S.	agency	securities	and	foreign	government	debt	securities.	Other secured	funding	is	secured	by	less	liquid	securities,	including	equity	securities, corporate	bonds	and	asset-backed	securities.	The	tenor	of	Citi's	matched	book liabilities	is	generally	equal	to	or	longer	than	the	tenor	of	the

# corresponding	matched	book	assets.

The	remainder	of	the	secured	funding	activity	in	the	broker-dealer	subsidiaries serves	to	fund	securities	inventory	held	in	the	context	of	market	making	and customer	activities.	To	maintain	reliable	funding	under	a	wide	range	of	market conditions,	including	under	periods	of	stress,	Citi	manages	these	activities	by taking	into	consideration	the	quality	of	the	underlying	collateral,	and	stipulating financing	tenor.	The	weighted	average	maturity	of	Citi's	secured	funding	of	less liquid	securities	inventory	was	greater	than	110	days	as	of	December	31,	2015.

Citi	manages	the	risks	in	its	secured	funding	by	conducting	daily	stress	tests	to account	for	changes	in	capacity,	tenors,	haircut,	collateral	profile	and	client	actions. Additionally,	Citi	maintains	counterparty	diversification	by	establishing concentration	triggers	and	assessing	counterparty	reliability	and	stability	under stress.	Citi	generally	sources

secured	funding	from	more	than	150	counterparties.

The	following	table	contains	the	year-end,	average	and	maximum	month-end amounts	for	the	following	respective	short-term	borrowings	categories	at	the	end of	each	of	the	three	prior	fiscal	years:

| dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Amounts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| outstanding |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| at\tyear\tend | $146.5 | $173.4 | $203.5 | $10.0 | $16.2 | $17.9 | $11.1 | $42.1 | $41.0 |
| Average |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| outstanding |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| during\tthe |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| year(4)(5) | 174.5 | 190.0 | 229.4 | 10.7 | 16.8 | 16.3 | 22.2 | 45.3 | 39.6 |
| Maximum |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| month-end |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| outstanding | 186.2 | 200.1 | 239.9 | 15.3 | 17.9 | 18.8 | 41.9 | 47.1 | 44.7 |
| Weighted- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| average |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| interest |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| rate |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| During |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| the |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| year(4)(5) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (6) | 0.93% | 1.00% | 1.02% | 0.31% | 0.21% | 0.28% | 1.42% | 1.20% | 1.39 |
| At\tyear\nend(7) | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0.59 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 1.50 | 0.53 | 0.87 |

(1) Original	maturities	of	less	than	one	year.

(2)	Substantially	all	commercial	paper	outstanding	was	issued	by	certain	Citibank	entities	for	the periods	presented.

(3) Other	short-term	borrowings	include	borrowings	from	the	FHLB	and	other	market participants.

(4) Interest	rates	and	amounts	include	the	effects	of	risk	management	activities	associated	with the	respective	liability	categories.

(5) Average	volumes	of	securities	loaned	or	sold	under	agreements	to	repurchase	are	reported net	pursuant	to	FIN	41	(ASC	210-20-45);	average	rates	exclude	the	impact	of	FIN	41	(ASC 210-20-45).

(6) Average	rates	reflect	prevailing	local	interest	rates,	including	inflationary	effects	and monetary	correction	in	certain	countries.

(7) Based	on	contractual	rates	at	respective	year	ends;	non-interest-bearing	accounts	are excluded	from	the	weighted	average	interest	rate	calculated	at	year	end.

# Liquidity	Monitoring	and	Measurement

# Stress	Testing

Liquidity	stress	testing	is	performed	for	each	of	Citi's	major	entities,	operating subsidiaries	and/or	countries.	Stress	testing	and	scenario	analyses	are	intended	to quantify	the	potential	impact	of	a	liquidity	event	on	the	balance	sheet	and	liquidity position,	and	to	identify	viable	funding	alternatives	that	can	be	utilized.	These scenarios	include	assumptions	about	significant	changes	in	key	funding	sources, market	triggers	(such	as	credit	ratings),	potential	uses	of	funding	and	political	and economic	conditions	in	certain	countries.	These	conditions	include	expected	and stressed	market	conditions	as	well	as	Company-specific	events.

Liquidity	stress	tests	are	conducted	to	ascertain	potential	mismatches	between liquidity	sources	and	uses	over	a	variety	of	time	horizons	(overnight,	one	week, two	weeks,	one	month,	three	months,	one	year)	and	over	a	variety	of	stressed conditions.	Liquidity	limits	are	set	accordingly.	To	monitor	the	liquidity	of	an entity,	these	stress	tests	and	potential	mismatches	are	calculated	with	varying frequencies,	with	several	tests	performed	daily.

Given	the	range	of	potential	stresses,	Citi	maintains	a	series	of	contingency funding	plans	on	a	consolidated	basis	and	for	individual	entities.	These	plans specify	a	wide	range	of	readily	available	actions	for	a	variety	of	adverse	market conditions	or	idiosyncratic	stresses.

# Short-Term	Liquidity	Measurement:	Liquidity	Coverage	Ratio	(LCR)

In	addition	to	internal	measures	that	Citi	has	developed	for	a	30-day	stress scenario,	Citi	also	monitors	its	liquidity	by	reference	to	the	LCR,	as	calculated pursuant	to	the	U.S.	LCR	rules.

Generally,	the	LCR	is	designed	to	ensure	that	banks	maintain	an	adequate level	of	HQLA	to	meet	liquidity	needs	under	an	acute	30-day	stress	scenario.	The LCR	is	calculated	by	dividing	HQLA	by	estimated	net	outflows	over	a	stressed	30- day	period,	with	the	net	outflows	determined	by	applying	prescribed	outflow factors	to	various	categories	of	liabilities,	such	as	deposits,	unsecured	and	secured wholesale	borrowings,	unused	lending	commitments	and	derivatives-related exposures,	partially	offset	by	inflows	from	assets	maturing	within	30	days.	Banks are	required	to	calculate	an	add-on	to	address	potential	maturity	mismatches between	contractual	cash	outflows	and	inflows	within	the	30-day	period	in determining	the	total	amount	of	net	outflows.	The	minimum	LCR	requirement	is 90%	effective	January	2016,	increasing	to	100%	in	January	2017.

The	table	below	sets	forth	the	components	of	Citi's	LCR	calculation	and HQLA	in	excess	of	net	outflows	as	of	the

# periods	indicated:

| In	billions	of	dollars | Dec.	31,	2015 | Sept.	30,	2015 | Dec.	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| HQLA | $378.5 | $398.9 | $412.6 |
| Net\toutflows | 336.5 | 355.6 | 368.6 |
| LCR | 112% | 112% | 112% |
| HQLA\tin\texcess\tof\tnet\toutflows | $42.0 | $43.3 | $44.0 |

As	set	forth	in	the	table	above,	Citi's	LCR	was	unchanged	both	year-over-year	and quarter-over-quarter,	as	the	reduction	in	Citi's	HQLA	was	offset	by	a	reduction	in net	outflows,	reflecting	reductions	in	Citi's	long-term	debt	and	short-term borrowings.

# Long-Term	Liquidity	Measurement:	Net	Stable	Funding	Ratio	(NSFR)

For	12-month	liquidity	stress	periods,	Citi	uses	several	measures,	including	its internal	long-term	liquidity	measure,	based	on	a	12-month	scenario	assuming deterioration	due	to	a	combination	of	idiosyncratic	and	market	stresses	of	moderate to	high	severity.	It	is	broadly	defined	as	the	ratio	of	unencumbered	liquidity resources	to	net	stressed	cumulative	outflows	over	a	12-month	period.

In	addition,	in	October	2014,	the	Basel	Committee	on	Banking	Supervision (Basel	Committee)	issued	final	standards	for	the	implementation	of	the	Basel	III NSFR,	with	full	compliance	required	by	January	1,	2018.	Similar	to	Citi's	internal long-term	liquidity	measure,	the	NSFR	is	intended	to	measure	the	stability	of	a banking	organization's	funding	over	a	one-year	time	horizon.	Pursuant	to	the	Basel Committee's	final	standards,	the	NSFR	is	calculated	by	dividing	the	level	of	a bank's	available	stable	funding	by	its	required	stable	funding.	The	ratio	is	required to	be	greater	than	100%.	Under	the	Basel	Committee	standards,	available	stable funding	primarily	includes	portions	of	equity,	deposits	and	long-term	debt,	while required	stable	funding	primarily	includes	the	portion	of	long-term	assets	which are	deemed	illiquid.	The	U.S.	banking	agencies	have	not	yet	proposed	the	U.S. version	of	the	NSFR,	although	a	proposal	is	expected	during	2016.

# Credit	Ratings

Citigroup's	funding	and	liquidity,	its	funding	capacity,	ability	to	access	capital markets	and	other	sources	of	funds,	the	cost	of	these	funds,	and	its	ability	to maintain	certain	deposits	are	partially	dependent	on	its	credit	ratings.

The	table	below	sets	forth	the	ratings	for	Citigroup	and	Citibank	as	of December	31,	2015.	While	not	included	in	the	table	below,	the	long-term	and short-term	ratings	of	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Inc.	(CGMI)	were	A/A-1	at Standard	&	Poor's	and	A+/F1	at	Fitch	as	of	December	31,	2015.	The	long-term and	short-term	ratings	of	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Holdings	Inc.	(CGMHI)	were BBB+/A-2	at	Standard	&	Poor's	and	A/

# Recent	Credit	Rating	Developments

On	December	8,	2015,	Fitch	affirmed	Citigroup	Inc.'s	Viability	Rating	(VR)	and Long-Term	Issuer	Default	Rating	(IDR)	at	'a/A',	respectively.	At	the	same	time, Fitch	affirmed	Citibank's	VR	and	IDR	at	'a/A+',	respectively.	The	outlooks	for	the Long-Term	IDRs	are	stable.

On	December	2,	2015,	as	expected,	S&P	downgraded	the	holding	company ratings	of	all	eight	U.S.	GSIBs,	including	Citigroup	Inc.,	by	one	notch,	reflecting	its view	of	the	likelihood	of	extraordinary	government	support	to	be	"uncertain."	As	a result,	Citigroup	Inc.'s	long-term	rating	now	stands	at	BBB+	and	the	outlook	was upgraded	to	"Stable."	The	short-term	rating	of	Citigroup	Inc.	remained	at	A-2.	The operating	company	ratings	of	the	GSIBs,	including	Citibank,	N.A.	and	Citigroup Global	Markets	Inc.,	remained	unchanged,	with	a	"Watch	Positive"	outlook,	as S&P	waits	for	further	clarity	from	the	regulators	regarding	TLAC	eligibility	of certain	instruments.	S&P	has	stated	it	expects	to	conclude	its	credit	watch	within the	first	half	of	2016.

# Potential	Impacts	of	Ratings	Downgrades

Ratings	downgrades	by	Moody's,	Fitch	or	S&P	could	negatively	impact Citigroup's	and/or	Citibank's	funding	and	liquidity	due	to	reduced	funding capacity,	including	derivatives	triggers,	which	could	take	the	form	of	cash obligations	and	collateral	requirements.

The	following	information	is	provided	for	the	purpose	of	analyzing	the potential	funding	and	liquidity	impact	to	Citigroup	and	Citibank	of	a	hypothetical, simultaneous

ratings	downgrade	across	all	three	major	rating	agencies.	This	analysis	is	subject	to certain	estimates,	estimation	methodologies,	and	judgments	and	uncertainties. Uncertainties	include	potential	ratings	limitations	that	certain	entities	may	have with	respect	to	permissible	counterparties,	as	well	as	general	subjective counterparty	behavior.	For	example,	certain	corporate	customers	and	markets counterparties	could	re-

evaluate	their	business	relationships	with	Citi	and	limit	transactions	in	certain contracts	or	market	instruments	with	Citi.	Changes	in	counterparty	behavior	could impact	Citi's	funding	and	liquidity,	as	well	as	the	results	of	operations	of	certain	of its	businesses.	The	actual	impact	to	Citigroup	or	Citibank	is	unpredictable	and	may differ	materially	from	the	potential	funding	and	liquidity	impacts	described	below. For	additional	information	on	the	impact	of	credit	rating	changes	on	Citi	and	its applicable	subsidiaries,	see	"Risk	Factors—Liquidity	Risks"	above.

# Citigroup	Inc.	and	Citibank—Potential	Derivative	Triggers

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	estimates	that	a	hypothetical	one-notch	downgrade of	the	senior	debt/long-term	rating	of	Citigroup	Inc.	across	all	three	major	rating agencies	could	impact	Citigroup's	funding	and	liquidity	due	to	derivative	triggers by	approximately	$0.6	billion,	compared	to	$0.7	billion	as	of	September	30,	2015. Other	funding	sources,	such	as	securities	financing	transactions	and	other	margin requirements,	for	which	there	are	no	explicit	triggers,	could	also	be	adversely affected.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	estimates	that	a	hypothetical	one-notch downgrade	of	the	senior	debt/long-term	rating	of	Citibank	across	all	three	major rating	agencies	could	impact	Citibank's	funding	and	liquidity	by	approximately $1.3	billion,	compared	to	$1.5	billion	as	of	September	30,	2015,	due	to	derivative triggers.

In	total,	Citi	estimates	that	a	one-notch	downgrade	of	Citigroup	and	Citibank, across	all	three	major	rating	agencies,	could	result	in	aggregate	cash	obligations and	collateral	requirements	of	approximately	$1.9	billion,	compared	to	$2.2	billion as	of	September	30,	2015	(see	also	Note	23	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements).	As	set	forth	under	"High-Quality	Liquid	Assets"	above,	the	liquidity resources	of	Citibank	were	approximately	$312	billion	and	the	liquidity	resources of	Citi's	non-bank	and	other	entities	were	approximately	$66	billion,	for	a	total	of approximately	$379	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015.	These	liquidity	resources	are available	in	part	as	a	contingency	for	the	potential	events	described	above. In	addition,	a	broad	range	of	mitigating	actions	are	currently	included	in Citigroup's	and	Citibank's	contingency	funding	plans.	For	Citigroup,	these mitigating	factors	include,	but	are	not	limited	to,	accessing	surplus	funding capacity	from	existing	clients,	tailoring	levels	of	secured	lending,	and	adjusting	the size	of	select	trading	books	and	collateralized	borrowings	from	certain	Citibank subsidiaries.	Mitigating	actions	available	to	Citibank	include,	but	are	not	limited to,	selling	or	financing	highly	liquid	government	securities,	tailoring	levels	of secured	lending,	adjusting	the	size	of	select	trading	assets,	reducing	loan originations	and	renewals,	raising	additional	deposits,	or	borrowing	from	the FHLB	or	central	banks.	Citi	believes	these	mitigating	actions	could	substantially reduce	the	funding	and	liquidity	risk,	if	any,	of	the	potential	downgrades	described above.

# Citibank—Additional	Potential	Impacts

In	addition	to	the	above	derivative	triggers,	Citi	believes	that	a	potential	one-notch downgrade	of	Citibank's	senior	debt/long-term	rating	by	S&P	could	also	have	an adverse	impact	on	the	commercial	paper/short-term	rating	of	Citibank.	As	of December	31,	2015,	Citibank	had	liquidity	commitments	of	approximately $10.0	billion	to	consolidated	asset-backed	commercial	paper	conduits,	compared	to $9.4	billion	as	of	September	30,	2015	(as	referenced	in	Note	22	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements).

In	addition	to	the	above-referenced	liquidity	resources	of	certain	Citibank	and Banamex	entities,	Citibank	could	reduce	the	funding	and	liquidity	risk,	if	any,	of the	potential	downgrades	described	above	through	mitigating	actions,	including repricing	or	reducing	certain	commitments	to	commercial	paper	conduits.	In	the event	of	the	potential	downgrades	described	above,	Citi	believes	that	certain corporate	customers	could	re-evaluate	their	deposit	relationships	with	Citibank. This	re-evaluation	could	result	in	clients	adjusting	their	discretionary	deposit	levels or	changing	their	depository	institution,	which	could	potentially	reduce	certain deposit	levels	at	Citibank.	However,	Citi	could	choose	to	adjust	pricing,	offer alternative	deposit	products	to	its	existing	customers	or	seek	to	attract	deposits from	new	customers,	in	addition	to	the	mitigating	actions	referenced	above.

# MARKET	RISK

Market	risk	is	the	potential	for	losses	arising	from	changes	in	the	value	of	Citi's assets	and	liabilities	resulting	from	changes	in	market	variables	such	as	interest rates,	foreign	exchange	rates,	equity	prices,	commodity	prices	and	credit	spreads, as	well	as	their	implied	volatilities.

Each	business	is	required	to	establish,	with	approval	from	Citi's	market	risk management,	a	market	risk	limit	framework	for	identified	risk	factors	that	clearly defines	approved	risk	profiles	and	is	within	the	parameters	of	Citi's	overall	risk appetite.	These	limits	are	monitored	by	the	Risk	organization,	Citi's	country	and business	Asset	and	Liability	Committees	and	the	Citigroup	Asset	and	Liability Committee.	In	all	cases,	the	businesses	are	ultimately	responsible	for	the	market risks	taken	and	for	remaining	within	their	defined	limits.

Market	risk	emanates	from	both	Citi's	trading	and	non-trading	portfolios. Trading	portfolios	comprise	all	assets	and	liabilities	marked-to-market,	with	results reflected	in	earnings.	Non-trading	portfolios	include	all	other	assets	and	liabilities.

# MARKET	RISK	OF	NON-TRADING	PORTFOLIOS

Market	risk	from	non-trading	portfolios	stems	from	the	potential	impact	of changes	in	interest	rates	and	foreign	exchange	rates	on	Citi's	net	interest	revenues,

the	changes	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	(AOCI)	from	its

investment	portfolios	and	capital	invested	in	foreign	currencies.

# Net	Interest	Revenue	at	Risk

Net	interest	revenue,	for	interest	rate	exposure	purposes,	is	the	difference	between the	yield	earned	on	the	non-trading	portfolio	assets	(including	customer	loans)	and the	rate	paid	on	the	liabilities	(including	customer	deposits	or	company borrowings).	Net	interest	revenue	is	affected	by	changes	in	the	level	of	interest rates,	as	well	as	the	amounts	of	assets	and	liabilities,	and	the	timing	of	repricing	of assets	and	liabilities	to	reflect	market	rates.

Citi's	principal	measure	of	risk	to	net	interest	revenue	is	interest	rate	exposure (IRE).	IRE	measures	the	change	in	expected	net	interest	revenue	in	each	currency resulting	solely	from	unanticipated	changes	in	forward	interest	rates.

Citi's	estimated	IRE	incorporates	various	assumptions	including	prepayment rates	on	loans,	customer	behavior,	and	the	impact	of	pricing	decisions.	For example,	in	rising	interest	rate	scenarios,	portions	of	the	deposit	portfolio	may	be assumed	to	experience	rate	increases	that	are	less	than	the	change	in	market interest	rates.		In	declining	interest	rate	scenarios,	it	is	assumed	that	mortgage portfolios	experience	higher	prepayment	rates.	IRE	assumes	that	businesses	and/or Citi	Treasury	make	no	additional	changes	in	balances	or	positioning	in	response	to the	unanticipated	rate	changes.

In	order	to	manage	changes	in	interest	rates	effectively,	Citi	may	modify pricing	on	new	customer	loans	and	deposits,	purchase	fixed	rate	securities,	issue debt	that	is	either	fixed	or	floating	or	enter	into	derivative	transactions	that	have	the opposite	risk	exposures.	Citi	regularly	assesses	the	viability	of	these	and	other strategies	to	reduce	its	interest	rate	risks	and

implements	such	strategies	when	it	believes	those	actions	are	prudent. Citi	manages	interest	rate	risk	as	a	consolidated	company-wide	position.	Citi's client-facing	businesses	create	interest-rate	sensitive	positions,	including	loans	and deposits,	as	part	of	their	ongoing	activities.	Citi	Treasury	aggregates	these	risk positions	and	manages	them	centrally.	Operating	within	established	limits,	Citi Treasury	makes	positioning	decisions	and	uses	tools,	such	as	Citi's	investment securities	portfolio,	company-issued	debt,	and	interest	rate	derivatives,	to	target	the desired	risk	profile.	Changes	in	Citi's	interest	rate	risk	position	reflect	the accumulated	changes	in	all	non-trading	assets	and	liabilities,	with	potentially	large and	offsetting	impacts,	as	well	as	Citi	Treasury's	positioning	decisions.

Citigroup	employs	additional	measurements,	including	stress	testing	the impact	of	non-linear	interest	rate	movements	on	the	value	of	the	balance	sheet;	the analysis	of	portfolio	duration	and	volatility,	particularly	as	they	relate	to	mortgage loans	and	mortgage-backed	securities;	and	the	potential	impact	of	the	change	in	the spread	between	different	market	indices.

# Interest	Rate	Risk	of	Investment	Portfolios—Impact	on	AOCI

Citi	also	measures	the	potential	impacts	of	changes	in	interest	rates	on	the	value	of its	AOCI,	which	can	in	turn	impact	Citi's	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio. Citi's	goal	is	to	benefit	from	an	increase	in	the	market	level	of	interest	rates,	while limiting	the	impact	of	changes	in	AOCI	on	its	regulatory	capital	position.

AOCI	at	risk	is	managed	as	part	of	the	company-wide	interest	rate	risk position.	AOCI	at	risk	considers	potential	changes	in	AOCI	(and	the	corresponding impact	on	the	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio)	relative	to	Citi's	capital generation	capacity.

The	following	table	sets	forth	the	estimated	impact	to	Citi's	net	interest	revenue,	AOCI	and	the	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	(on	a	fully	implemented	basis),	each assuming	an	unanticipated	parallel	instantaneous	100	basis	point	increase	in	interest	rates.

| In	millions	of	dollars	(unless	otherwise	noted) | Dec.	31,	2015 | Sept.	30,	2015 | Dec.	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Estimated\tannualized\timpact\tto\tnet\tinterest\trevenue |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tdollar(1) | $1,419 | $1,533 | $1,123 |
| All\tother\tcurrencies | 635 | 616 | 629 |
| Total | $2,054 | $2,149 | $1,752 |
| As\ta\tpercentage\tof\taverage\tinterest-earning\tassets | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.11% |
| Estimated\tinitial\timpact\tto\tAOCI\t(after-tax)(2) | $(4,837) | $(4,450) | $(3,961) |
| Estimated\tinitial\timpact\ton\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\tratio\t(bps) (3) | (57) | (50) | (44) |

(1) Certain	trading-oriented	businesses	within	Citi	have	accrual-accounted	positions	that	are	excluded	from	the	estimated	impact	to	net	interest	revenue	in	the	table	since	these	exposures	are	managed economically	in	combination	with	mark-to-market	positions.	The	U.S.	dollar	interest	rate	exposure	associated	with	these	businesses	was	$(211)	million	for	a	100	basis	point	instantaneous	increase	in interest	rates	as	of	December	31,	2015.

(2) Includes	the	effect	of	changes	in	interest	rates	on	AOCI	related	to	investment	securities,	cash	flow	hedges	and	pension	liability	adjustments.

(3) The	estimated	initial	impact	to	the	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	considers	the	effect	of	Citi's	deferred	tax	asset	position	and	is	based	on	only	the	estimated	initial	AOCI	impact	above.

The	sequential	decrease	in	the	estimated	impact	to	net	interest	revenue primarily	reflected	Citi	Treasury	actions,	offset	by	an	increase	in	certain	of	Citi's deposit	balances	and	an	increasing	capital	base.	The	sequential	increase	in	the estimated	impact	to	AOCI	and	the	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	primarily reflected	changes	in	the	composition	of	Citi	Treasury's	investment	and	interest	rate derivatives	portfolio.

In	the	event	of	an	unanticipated	parallel	instantaneous	100	basis	point	increase in	interest	rates,	Citi	expects	the	negative	impact	to	AOCI	would	be	offset	in shareholders'	equity

through	the	combination	of	expected	incremental	net	interest	revenue	and	the expected	recovery	of	the	impact	on	AOCI	through	accretion	of	Citi's	investment portfolio	over	a	period	of	time.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	expects	that	the negative	$4.8	billion	impact	to	AOCI	in	such	a	scenario	could	potentially	be	offset over	approximately	22	months.

The	following	table	sets	forth	the	estimated	impact	to	Citi's	net	interest revenue,	AOCI	and	the	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	(on	a	fully implemented	basis)	under	four	different	changes	in	interest	rate	scenarios	for	the U.S.	dollar	and	Citi's	other	currencies.

| In	millions	of	dollars	(unless	otherwise	noted) | Scenario	1 | Scenario	2 | Scenario	3 | Scenario	4 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Overnight\trate\tchange\t(bps) | 100 | 100 | — | — |
| 10-year\trate\tchange\t(bps) | 100 | — | 100 | (100) |
| Estimated\tannualized\timpact\tto\tnet\tinterest\trevenue |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tdollar | $1,419 | $1,346 | $100 | $(172) |
| All\tother\tcurrencies | 635 | 580 | 36 | (36) |
| Total | $2,054 | $1,926 | $136 | $(208) |
| Estimated\tinitial\timpact\tto\tAOCI\t(after-tax)(1) | $(4,837) | $(2,893) | $(2,212) | $1,845 |
| Estimated\tinitial\timpact\tto\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\tratio\t(bps)(2) | (57) | (34) | (26) | 22 |

Note:	Each	scenario	in	the	table	above	assumes	that	the	rate	change	will	occur	instantaneously.	Changes	in	interest	rates	for	maturities	between	the	overnight	rate	and	the	10-year	rate	are	interpolated.

(2) The	estimated	initial	impact	to	the	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	considers	the	effect	of	Citi's	deferred	tax	asset	position	and	is	based	on	only	the	estimated	AOCI	impact	above.

As	shown	in	the	table	above,	the	magnitude	of	the	impact	to	Citi's	net	interest revenue	and	AOCI	is	greater	under	scenario	2	as	compared	to	scenario	3.	This	is because	the	combination	of	changes	to	Citi's	investment	portfolio,	partially	offset by	changes	related	to	Citi's	pension	liabilities,	results	in	a	net	position	that	is	more sensitive	to	rates	at	shorter	and	intermediate	term	maturities.

# Changes	in	Foreign	Exchange	Rates—Impacts	on	AOCI	and	Capital

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	estimates	that	an	unanticipated	parallel instantaneous	5%	appreciation	of	the	U.S.	dollar	against	all	of	the	other	currencies in	which	Citi	has	invested	capital	could	reduce	Citi's	tangible	common	equity (TCE)	by	approximately	$1.5	billion,	or	0.8%	of	TCE,	as	a	result	of	changes	to Citi's	foreign	currency	translation	adjustment	in	AOCI,	net	of	hedges.	This	impact would	be	primarily	due	to	changes	in	the	value	of	the	Mexican	peso,	the	Euro,	the British	pound	sterling	and	the	Chinese	yuan.

This	impact	is	also	before	any	mitigating	actions	Citi	may	take,	including ongoing	management	of	its	foreign	currency	translation	exposure.	Specifically,	as currency	movements	change	the	value	of	Citi's	net	investments	in	foreign- currency-denominated	capital,	these	movements	also	change	the	value	of	Citi's risk-weighted	assets	denominated	in	those	currencies.	This,	coupled	with	Citi's foreign	currency	hedging	strategies,	such	as	foreign	currency	borrowings,	foreign currency	forwards	and	other	currency	hedging	instruments,	lessens	the	impact	of foreign	currency	movements	on	Citi's	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio. Changes	in	these	hedging	strategies,	as	well	as	hedging	costs,	divestitures	and	tax impacts,	can	further	impact	the	actual	impact	of	changes	in	foreign	exchange	rates on	Citi's	capital	as	compared	to	an	unanticipated	parallel	shock,	as	described above.

The	effect	of	Citi's	ongoing	management	strategies	with	respect	to	changes	in foreign	exchange	rates	and	the	impact	of	these	changes	on	Citi's	TCE	and Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital	ratio	are	shown	in	the	table	below.	For	additional information	in	the	changes	in	AOCI,	see	Note	20	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements.

| In	millions	of	dollars	(unless	otherwise	noted) | Dec.	31,	2015 | Sept.	30,	2015 | Dec.	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Change\tin\tFX\tspot\trate(1) | (1.1)% | (6.0)% | (4.9)% |
| Change\tin\tTCE\tdue\tto\tFX\ttranslation,\tnet\tof\thedges | $(696) | $(2,010) | $(1,932) |
| As\ta\tpercentage\tof\tTCE | (0.4)% | (1.1)% | (1.1)% |
| Estimated\timpact\tto\tCommon\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\tratio\t(on\ta\tfully\timplemented\tbasis)\tdue\n\t\tto\tchanges\tin\tFX\ttranslation,\tnet\tof\thedges\t(bps) | — | (5) | (1) |

(1) FX	spot	rate	change	is	a	weighted	average	based	upon	Citi's	quarterly	average	GAAP	capital	exposure	to	foreign	countries.

# Interest	Revenue/Expense	and	Net	Interest	Margin

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	as	otherwise	noted | 2015 |  | 2014 |  | 2013 |  | Change<br>	2015	vs.	2014 |  | Change<br>	2014	vs.	2013 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Interest\trevenue(1) | $59,040 |  | $62,180 |  | $63,491 |  | (5)% |  | (2)% |  |
| Interest\texpense | 11,921 |  | 13,690 |  | 16,177 |  | (13) |  | (15) |  |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue(1)(2) | $47,119 |  | $48,490 |  | $47,314 |  | (3)% |  | 2\t% |  |
| Interest\trevenue—average\trate | 3.68% |  | 3.72% |  | 3.83% |  | (4) | bps | (11) | bps |
| Interest\texpense—average\trate | 0.95 |  | 1.02 |  | 1.19 |  | (7) | bps | (17) | bps |
| Net\tinterest\tmargin | 2.93 |  | 2.90 |  | 2.85 |  | 3 | bps | 5 | bps |
| Interest-rate\tbenchmarks |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Two-year\tU.S.\tTreasury\tnote—average\trate | 0.69% |  | 0.46% |  | 0.31% |  | 23 | bps | 15 | bps |
| 10-year\tU.S.\tTreasury\tnote—average\trate | 2.14 |  | 2.54 |  | 2.35 |  | (40) | bps | 19 | bps |
| 10-year\tvs.\ttwo-year\tspread | 145 | bps | 208 | bps | 204 | bps |  |  |  |  |

Note:	All	interest	expense	amounts	include	FDIC	deposit	insurance	assessments.

(1) Net	interest	revenue	includes	the	taxable	equivalent	adjustments	related	to	the	tax-exempt	bond	portfolio	(based	on	the	U.S.	federal	statutory	tax	rate	of	35%)	of	$487	million,	$498	million,	and	$521 million	for	2015,	2014	and	2013,	respectively.

(2) Excludes	expenses	associated	with	certain	hybrid	financial	instruments,	which	are	classified	as 	Long-term	debt	and	accounted	for	at	fair	value	with	changes	recorded	in 	Principal	transactions.

Citi's	net	interest	margin	(NIM)	is	calculated	by	dividing	gross	interest	revenue less	gross	interest	expense	by	average	interest	earning	assets.	Citi's	NIM	was 2.92%	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015,	a	slight	decrease	from	2.94%	in	the	third quarter	of	2015,	and	improved	to	2.93%	for	the	full	year	2015,	compared	to	2.90% in	2014.	The	improvement	in	Citi's	NIM	for	the	full	year	2015	was	driven	by trading	NIM	and	the	impact	of	lower	cost	of	funds,	primarily	declines	in	the	cost	of long-term	debt,	partially	offset	by	lower	loan	yields.	Going	into	2016,	Citi's	NIM will	reflect	the	sale	of	OneMain	Financial,	which	will	be	partially	offset	by	the benefit	of	debt	repurchases	during	2015,	including	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015. Accordingly,	Citi	currently	expects	a	decrease	in	its	NIM	in	the	first	half	of	2016. As	noted	in	the	tables	above,	Citi's	interest	expense	includes	the	impact	of FDIC	deposit	insurance	assessments.

As	part	of	the	Dodd-Frank	Act,	the	FDIC	is	required	to	ensure	that	its	deposit insurance	fund	reserve	ratio	reaches	1.35%	by	September	30,	2020.	In	the	fourth quarter	of	2015,	the	FDIC	issued	a	notice	of	proposed	rulemaking	that	would impose	on	insured	depository	institutions	with	at	least	$10	billion	in	assets	(large banks),	which	includes	Citibank,	a	surcharge	of	4.5	basis	points	per	annum	until the	fund	reaches	the	required	ratio,	which	the	FDIC	estimates	would	take approximately	two	years.	Based	on	its	current	assessment	base,	Citi	estimates	the net	impact	to	Citibank	would	be	approximately	$500	million	over	the	two-year period.	As	part	of	its	proposed	rulemaking,	the	FDIC	also	discussed	an	alternative to	the	surcharge	proposal	which	would	impose	a	one-time	assessment,	similar	to	a shortfall	assessment,	on	large	banks	in	order	to	reach	the	1.35%	target.	As discussed	by	the	FDIC,	this	shortfall	assessment	would	be	approximately	12	basis points	on	the

then-current	assessment	base	in	the	quarter	determined	by	the	FDIC.	If	the	FDIC were	to	adopt	this	approach,	Citi	estimates	the	net	impact	to	Citibank	would	be approximately	$900	million,	based	on	its	current	assessment	base.	As	an alternative	to	either	of	the	proposals	put	forth	by	the	FDIC,	in	commenting	on	the FDIC's	notice	of	proposed	rulemaking,	industry	groups	recommended	that	in	lieu of	any	surcharge	on

large	banks,	the	FDIC	maintain	the	assessment	rate	framework	in	effect	as	of	year- end	2015	until	the	reserve	ratio	reaches	1.35%,	which	would	be	expected	to	occur by	year-end	2019	(and	within	the	timeframe	required	under	the	Dodd-Frank	Act). It	is	not	certain	when	the	FDIC's	proposal	will	be	finalized	and	what	the	ultimate impact	will	be	to	Citi.

# Additional	Interest	Rate	Details

# Average	Balances	and	Interest	Rates—Assets(1)(2)(3)(4)

|  |  | Average	volume |  |  | Interest	revenue |  |  | %	Average	rate |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars,\texcept\trates | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Deposits\twith\tbanks(5) | $133,790 | $161,359 | $144,904 | $727 | $959 | $1,026 | 0.54% | 0.59% | 0.71% |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| borrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| agreements\tto\tresell(6) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $150,359 | $153,688 | $158,237 | $1,211 | $1,034 | $1,133 | 0.81% | 0.67% | 0.72% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(5) | 84,006 | 101,177 | 109,233 | 1,305 | 1,332 | 1,433 | 1.55 | 1.32 | 1.31 |
| Total | $234,365 | $254,865 | $267,470 | $2,516 | $2,366 | $2,566 | 1.07% | 0.93% | 0.96% |
| Trading\taccount\tassets(7)(8) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $114,639 | $114,910 | $126,123 | $3,945 | $3,472 | $3,728 | 3.44% | 3.02% | 2.96% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(5) | 103,348 | 119,801 | 127,291 | 2,141 | 2,538 | 2,683 | 2.07 | 2.12 | 2.11 |
| Total | $217,987 | $234,711 | $253,414 | $6,086 | $6,010 | $6,411 | 2.79% | 2.56% | 2.53% |
| Investments |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Taxable | $214,714 | $188,910 | $174,084 | $3,812 | $3,286 | $2,713 | 1.78% | 1.74% | 1.56% |
| Exempt\tfrom\tU.S.\tincome\ttax | 20,034 | 20,386 | 18,075 | 443 | 626 | 811 | 2.21 | 3.07 | 4.49 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(5) | 102,376 | 113,163 | 114,122 | 3,071 | 3,627 | 3,761 | 3.00 | 3.21 | 3.30 |
| Total | $337,124 | $322,459 | $306,281 | $7,326 | $7,539 | $7,285 | 2.17% | 2.34% | 2.38% |
| Loans\t(net\tof\tunearned\tincome)(9) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $354,439 | $361,769 | $354,707 | $24,558 | $26,076 | $25,941 | 6.93% | 7.21% | 7.31% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(5) | 273,072 | 296,656 | 292,852 | 15,988 | 18,723 | 19,660 | 5.85 | 6.31 | 6.71 |
| Total | $627,511 | $658,425 | $647,559 | $40,546 | $44,799 | $45,601 | 6.46% | 6.80% | 7.04% |
| Other\tinterest-earning\tassets(10) | $55,060 | $40,375 | $38,233 | $1,839 | $507 | $602 | 3.34% | 1.26% | 1.57% |
| Total\tinterest-earning\tassets | $1,605,837 | $1,672,194 | $1,657,861 | $59,040 | $62,180 | $63,491 | 3.68% | 3.72% | 3.83% |
| Non-interest-earning\tassets(7) | $218,000 | $224,721 | $222,526 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tassets\tfrom\tdiscontinued\noperations | — | — | 2,909 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tassets | $1,823,837 | $1,896,915 | $1,883,296 |  |  |  |  |  |  |

(2) Interest	rates	and	amounts	include	the	effects	of	risk	management	activities	associated	with	the	respective	asset	categories.

(3) Monthly	or	quarterly	averages	have	been	used	by	certain	subsidiaries	where	daily	averages	are	unavailable.

(4) Detailed	average	volume,	Interest	revenue	and	Interest	expense	exclude	Discontinued	operations.	See	Note	2	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(5) Average	rates	reflect	prevailing	local	interest	rates,	including	inflationary	effects	and	monetary	corrections	in	certain	countries.

(6) Average	volumes	of	securities	borrowed	or	purchased	under	agreements	to	resell	are	reported	net	pursuant	to	ASC	210-20-45.	However, Interest	revenue	excludes	the	impact	of	ASC	210-20-45.

(7) The	fair	value	carrying	amounts	of	derivative	contracts	are	reported	net,	pursuant	to	ASC	815-10-45,	in

Non-interest-earning	assets	and	Other	non-interest-bearing	liabilities.

(8) Interest	expense	on	Trading	account	liabilities	of	ICG	is	reported	as	a	reduction	of	Interest	revenue.	Interest	revenue	and	Interest	expense	on	cash	collateral	positions	are	reported	in	interest	on Trading	account	assets	and	Trading	account	liabilities,	respectively.

(9) Includes	cash-basis	loans.

(10) Includes	brokerage	receivables.

# Average	Balances	and	Interest	Rates—Liabilities	and	Equity,	and	Net	Interest	Revenue(1)(2)(3)(4)

|  |  | Average	volume |  |  | Interest	expense |  |  | %	Average	rate |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars,\texcept\trates | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Liabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Deposits |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices(5) | $273,122 | $289,669 | $262,544 | $1,291 | $1,432 | $1,754 | 0.47% | 0.49% | 0.67% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(6) | 425,053 | 465,144 | 481,134 | 3,761 | 4,260 | 4,482 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.93 |
| Total | $698,175 | $754,813 | $743,678 | $5,052 | $5,692 | $6,236 | 0.72% | 0.75% | 0.84% |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\nor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase(7) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $108,286 | $102,246 | $126,742 | $721 | $656 | $677 | 0.67% | 0.64% | 0.53% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(6) | 66,200 | 87,777 | 102,623 | 893 | 1,239 | 1,662 | 1.35 | 1.41 | 1.62 |
| Total | $174,486 | $190,023 | $229,365 | $1,614 | $1,895 | $2,339 | 0.93% | 1.00% | 1.02% |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities(8)(9) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $25,837 | $30,451 | $24,834 | $111 | $75 | $93 | 0.43% | 0.25% | 0.37% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(6) | 44,126 | 45,205 | 47,908 | 105 | 93 | 76 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.16 |
| Total | $69,963 | $75,656 | $72,742 | $216 | $168 | $169 | 0.31% | 0.22% | 0.23% |
| Short-term\tborrowings(10) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $66,086 | $79,028 | $77,439 | $234 | $161 | $176 | 0.35% | 0.20% | 0.23% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(6) | 50,043 | 39,220 | 35,551 | 288 | 419 | 421 | 0.58 | 1.07 | 1.18 |
| Total | $116,129 | $118,248 | $112,990 | $522 | $580 | $597 | 0.45% | 0.49% | 0.53% |
| Long-term\tdebt(11) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $182,371 | $194,295 | $194,140 | $4,309 | $5,093 | $6,602 | 2.36% | 2.62% | 3.40% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(6) | 7,643 | 7,761 | 10,194 | 208 | 262 | 234 | 2.72 | 3.38 | 2.30 |
| Total | $190,014 | $202,056 | $204,334 | $4,517 | $5,355 | $6,836 | 2.38% | 2.65% | 3.35% |
| Total\tinterest-bearing\tliabilities | $1,248,767 | $1,340,796 | $1,363,109 | $11,921 | $13,690 | $16,177 | 0.95% | 1.02% | 1.19% |
| Demand\tdeposits\tin\tU.S.\toffices | $26,124 | $26,216 | $21,948 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Other\tnon-interest-bearing\tliabilities(8) | 329,756 | 317,351 | 299,052 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tliabilities\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations | — | — | 362 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tliabilities | $1,604,647 | $1,684,363 | $1,684,471 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Citigroup\tstockholders'\tequity(12) | $217,875 | $210,863 | $196,884 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Noncontrolling\tinterest | 1,315 | 1,689 | 1,941 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tequity(12) | $219,190 | $212,552 | $198,825 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tliabilities\tand\tstockholders'\tequity | $1,823,837 | $1,896,915 | $1,883,296 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\taverage\ninterest-earning\tassets(13) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $923,334 | $953,394 | $926,291 | $28,495 | $27,497 | $25,591 | 3.09% | 2.88% | 2.76% |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(6) | 682,503 | 718,800 | 731,570 | 18,624 | 20,993 | 21,723 | 2.73 | 2.92 | 2.97 |
| Total | $1,605,837 | $1,672,194 | $1,657,861 | $47,119 | $48,490 | $47,314 | 2.93% | 2.90% | 2.85% |

(5) Consists	of	other	time	deposits	and	savings	deposits.	Savings	deposits	are	made	up	of	insured	money	market	accounts,	NOW	accounts,	and	other	savings	deposits.	The	interest	expense	on	savings deposits	includes	FDIC	deposit	insurance	assessments.

(7) Average	volumes	of	securities	sold	under	agreements	to	repurchase	are	reported	net	pursuant	to	ASC	210-20-45.	However, Interest	expense	excludes	the	impact	of	ASC	210-20-45.

(8) The	fair	value	carrying	amounts	of	derivative	contracts	are	reported	net,	pursuant	to	ASC	815-10-45,	in Non-interest-earning	assets	and	Other	non-interest-bearing	liabilities.

(10) Includes	brokerage	payables.

(11) Excludes	hybrid	financial	instruments	and	beneficial	interests	in	consolidated	VIEs	that	are	classified	as	 Long-term	debt,	as	these	obligations	are	accounted	for	in	changes	in	fair	value	recorded	in Principal	transactions.

(12) Includes	stockholders'	equity	from	discontinued	operations.

(13) Includes	allocations	for	capital	and	funding	costs	based	on	the	location	of	the	asset.

# Analysis	of	Changes	in	Interest	Revenue(1)(2)(3)

|  | 2015	vs.	2014 | 2015	vs.	2014 | 2015	vs.	2014 | 2014	vs.	2013 | 2014	vs.	2013 | 2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | Increase\t(decrease)\ndue\tto\tchange\tin: |  |  | Increase\t(decrease)\ndue\tto\tchange\tin: |  |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Average\nvolume | Average\nrate | Net\nchange | Average\nvolume | Average\nrate | Net\nchange |
| Deposits\twith\tbanks(4) | $(154) | $(78) | $(232) | $109 | $(176) | $(67) |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\n\t\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $(23) | $200 | $177 | $(32) | $(67) | $(99) |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | (246) | 219 | (27) | (106) | 5 | (101) |
| Total | $(269) | $419 | $150 | $(138) | $(62) | $(200) |
| Trading\taccount\tassets(5) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $(8) | $481 | $473 | $(337) | $81 | $(256) |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | (342) | (55) | (397) | (159) | 14 | (145) |
| Total | $(350) | $426 | $76 | $(496) | $95 | $(401) |
| Investments(1) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $464 | $(121) | $343 | $319 | $69 | $388 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | (332) | (224) | (556) | (31) | (103) | (134) |
| Total | $132 | $(345) | $(213) | $288 | $(34) | $254 |
| Loans\t(net\tof\tunearned\tincome)(6) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $(521) | $(997) | $(1,518) | $512 | $(377) | $135 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | (1,432) | (1,303) | (2,735) | 253 | (1,190) | (937) |
| Total | $(1,953) | $(2,300) | $(4,253) | $765 | $(1,567) | $(802) |
| Other\tinterest-earning\tassets(7) | $239 | $1,093 | $1,332 | $32 | $(127) | $(95) |
| Total\tinterest\trevenue | $(2,355) | $(785) | $(3,140) | $560 | $(1,871) | $(1,311) |

(1) The	taxable	equivalent	adjustment	is	related	to	the	tax-exempt	bond	portfolio	based	on	the	U.S.	federal	statutory	tax	rate	of	35%	and	is	included	in	this	presentation.

(2) Rate/volume	variance	is	allocated	based	on	the	percentage	relationship	of	changes	in	volume	and	changes	in	rate	to	the	total	net	change.

(4) Changes	in	average	rates	reflect	changes	in	prevailing	local	interest	rates,	including	inflationary	effects	and	monetary	corrections	in	certain	countries.

(7) Includes	brokerage	receivables.

# Analysis	of	Changes	in	Interest	Expense	and	Net	Interest	Revenue(1)(2)(3)

|  | 2015	vs.	2014 | 2015	vs.	2014 | 2015	vs.	2014 | 2014	vs.	2013 | 2014	vs.	2013 | 2014	vs.	2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | Increase\t(decrease)\ndue\tto\tchange\tin: | Increase\t(decrease)\ndue\tto\tchange\tin: |  |  | Increase\t(decrease)\ndue\tto\tchange\tin: |  |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Average\nvolume | Average\nrate | Net\nchange | Average\nvolume | Average\nrate | Net\nchange |
| Deposits |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $(80) | $(61) | $(141) | $168 | $(490) | $(322) |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | (358) | (141) | (499) | (147) | (75) | (222) |
| Total | $(438) | $(202) | $(640) | $21 | $(565) | $(544) |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $40 | $25 | $65 | $(144) | $123 | $(21) |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | (293) | (53) | (346) | (224) | (199) | (423) |
| Total | $(253) | $(28) | $(281) | $(368) | $(76) | $(444) |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities(5) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $(13) | $49 | $36 | $18 | $(36) | $(18) |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | (2) | 14 | 12 | (4) | 21 | 17 |
| Total | $(15) | $63 | $48 | $14 | $(15) | $(1) |
| Short-term\tborrowings(6) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $(30) | $103 | $73 | $4 | $(19) | $(15) |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | 96 | (227) | (131) | 41 | (43) | (2) |
| Total | $66 | $(124) | $(58) | $45 | $(62) | $(17) |
| Long-term\tdebt |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| In\tU.S.\toffices | $(301) | $(483) | $(784) | $5 | $(1,514) | $(1,509) |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S.(4) | (4) | (50) | (54) | (65) | 93 | 28 |
| Total | $(305) | $(533) | $(838) | $(60) | $(1,421) | $(1,481) |
| Total\tinterest\texpense | $(945) | $(824) | $(1,769) | $(348) | $(2,139) | $(2,487) |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $(1,410) | $39 | $(1,371) | $908 | $268 | $1,176 |

(6) Includes	brokerage	payables.

# MARKET	RISK	OF	TRADING	PORTFOLIOS

Trading	portfolios	include	positions	resulting	from	market	making	activities, hedges	of	certain	available-for-sale	(AFS)	debt	securities,	the	CVA	relating	from derivatives	counterparties	and	all	associated	hedges,	fair	value	option	loans,	hedges to	the	loan	portfolio	and	the	leverage	finance	pipeline	within	capital	markets origination	within	ICG.

The	market	risk	of	Citi's	trading	portfolios	is	monitored	using	a	combination of	quantitative	and	qualitative	measures,	including	but	not	limited	to:

•factor	sensitivities;

•value	at	risk	(VAR); and •stress	testing.

permitted	product	lists	and	a	new	product	approval	process	for	complex	products. The	following	chart	of	total	daily	trading-related	revenue	(loss)	captures trading	volatility	and	shows	the	number	of	days	in	which	revenues	for	Citi's trading	businesses	fell	within	particular	ranges.	Trading-related	revenues	includes trading,	net	interest	and	other	revenue	associated	with	Citi's	trading	businesses.	It excludes	DVA,	FVA	and	CVA	adjustments	incurred	due	to	changes	in	the	credit quality	of	counterparties	as	well	as	any	associated	hedges	to	that	CVA.	In	addition, it	excludes	fees	and	other	revenue	associated	with	capital	markets	origination activities.	Trading-related	revenues	are	driven	by	both	customer	flows	and	the changes	in	valuation	of	the	trading	inventory.	As	shown	in	the	chart,	positive trading-related	revenue	was	achieved	for	97%	of	the	trading	days	in	2015.

Each	trading	portfolio	across	Citi's	businesses	has	its	own	market	risk	limit framework	encompassing	these	measures	and	other	controls,	including	trading mandates,

# Daily	Trading-Related	Revenue	(Loss)	(1)—	Twelve	Months	ended	December	31,	2015

(1) Reflects	the	effects	of	asymmetrical	accounting	for	economic	hedges	of	certain	AFS	debt	securities.		Specifically,	the	change	in	the	fair	value	of	hedging	derivatives	is	included	in revenue,	while	the	offsetting	change	in	the	fair	value	of	hedged	AFS	debt	securities	is	included	in	AOCI	and	not	reflected	above.

(2) Occurred	on	January	15,	2015,	principally	related	to	the	impact	of	the	Swiss	National	Bank's	announcement	removing	the	minimum	exchange	rate	of	Swiss	franc	per	Euro.

	Trading-related

Factor	sensitivities	are	expressed	as	the	change	in	the	value	of	a	position	for	a defined	change	in	a	market	risk	factor,	such	as	a	change	in	the	value	of	a	U.S. Treasury	bill	for	a	one	basis	point	change	in	interest	rates.	Citi's	Market	Risk Management,	within	the	Risk	organization,	works	to	ensure	that	factor	sensitivities are	calculated,	monitored	and,	in	most	cases,	limited	for	all	material	risks	taken	in the	trading	portfolios.

# Value	at	Risk

VAR	estimates,	at	a	99%	confidence	level,	the	potential	decline	in	the	value	of	a position	or	a	portfolio	under	normal	market	conditions	assuming	a	one-day	holding period.	VAR	statistics,	which	are	based	on	historical	data,	can	be	materially different	across	firms	due	to	differences	in	portfolio	composition,	differences	in VAR	methodologies,	and	differences	in	model	parameters.	As	a	result,	Citi believes	VAR	statistics	can	be	used	more	effectively	as	indicators	of	trends	in	risk- taking	within	a	firm,	rather	than	as	a	basis	for	inferring	differences	in	risk-taking across	firms.

Citi	uses	a	single,	independently	approved	Monte	Carlo	simulation	VAR model	(see	"VAR	Model	Review	and	Validation"	below),	which	has	been	designed to	capture	material	risk	sensitivities	(such	as	first-	and	second-order	sensitivities	of positions	to	changes	in	market	prices)	of

various	asset	classes/risk	types	(such	as	interest	rate,	credit	spread,	foreign exchange,	equity	and	commodity	risks).	Citi's	VAR	includes	positions	which	are measured	at	fair	value;	it	does	not	include	investment	securities	classified	as	AFS or	HTM.	For	information	on	these	securities,	see	Note	14	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements.

Citi	believes	its	VAR	model	is	conservatively	calibrated	to	incorporate	fat-tail scaling	and	the	greater	of	short-term	(approximately	the	most	recent	month)	and long-term	(three	years)	market	volatility.	The	Monte	Carlo	simulation	involves approximately	300,000	market	factors,	making	use	of	approximately	180,000	time series,	with	sensitivities	updated	daily,	volatility	parameters	updated	daily	to weekly	and	correlation	parameters	updated	monthly.	The	conservative	features	of the	VAR	calibration	contribute	an	approximate	17%	add-on	to	what	would	be	a VAR	estimated	under	the	assumption	of	stable	and	perfectly,	normally	distributed markets.

As	set	forth	in	the	table	below,	Citi's	average	and	year-end	Trading	VAR decreased	from	2014	to	2015,	mainly	due	to	changes	in	interest	rate	and	credit spread	exposures	in	the	markets	and	securities	services	businesses	within	ICG. Trading	and	Credit	Portfolio	VAR	also	declined,	although	the	decrease	from Trading	VAR	was	partially	offset	by	additional	hedging	related	to	lending activities	in	2015.

| In	millions	of	dollars | December	31,<br>2015 | 2015	Average | December	31,<br>2014 | 2014	Average |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Interest\trate | $37 | $44 | $68 | N/A |
| Credit\tspread | 56 | 69 | 87 | N/A |
| Covariance\tadjustment(1) | (25) | (26) | (36) | N/A |
| Fully\tdiversified\tinterest\trate\tand\tcredit\tspread | $68 | $87 | $119 | $114 |
| Foreign\texchange | 27 | 34 | 27 | 31 |
| Equity | 17 | 17 | 17 | 24 |
| Commodity | 17 | 19 | 23 | 16 |
| Covariance\tadjustment(1) | (53) | (65) | (56) | (73) |
| Total\ttrading\tVAR—all\tmarket\trisk\tfactors,\tincluding\tgeneral\tand\tspecific\trisk\t(excluding\tcredit\tportfolios)(2) | $76 | $92 | $130 | $112 |
| Specific\trisk-only\tcomponent(3) | $11 | $6 | $10 | $12 |
| Total\ttrading\tVAR—general\tmarket\trisk\tfactors\tonly\t(excluding\tcredit\tportfolios)(2) | $65 | $86 | $120 | $100 |
| Incremental\timpact\tof\tthe\tcredit\tportfolio(4) | $22 | $25 | $18 | $21 |
| Total\ttrading\tand\tcredit\tportfolio\tVAR | $98 | $117 | $148 | $133 |

(1) Covariance	adjustment	(also	known	as	diversification	benefit)	equals	the	difference	between	the	total	VAR	and	the	sum	of	the	VARs	tied	to	each	individual	risk	type.	The	benefit	reflects	the	fact	that the	risks	within	each	and	across	risk	types	are	not	perfectly	correlated	and,	consequently,	the	total	VAR	on	a	given	day	will	be	lower	than	the	sum	of	the	VARs	relating	to	each	individual	risk	type.	The determination	of	the	primary	drivers	of	changes	to	the	covariance	adjustment	is	made	by	an	examination	of	the	impact	of	both	model	parameter	and	position	changes.

(2)	The	total	Trading	VAR	includes	mark-to-market	and	certain	fair	value	option	trading	positions	from	ICG	and	Citi	Holdings,	with	the	exception	of	hedges	to	the	loan	portfolio,	fair	value	option	loans, and	all	CVA	exposures.	Available-for-sale	and	accrual	exposures	are	not	included.

(3) The	specific	risk-only	component	represents	the	level	of	equity	and	fixed	income	issuer-specific	risk	embedded	in	VAR.

(4) The	credit	portfolio	is	composed	of	mark-to-market	positions	associated	with	non-trading	business	units	including	Citi	Treasury,	the	CVA	relating	to	derivative	counterparties	and	all	associated	CVA hedges.	FVA	and	DVA	are	not	included.	The	credit	portfolio	also	includes	hedges	to	the	loan	portfolio,	fair	value	option	loans	and	hedges	to	the	leveraged	finance	pipeline	within	capital	markets origination	within	ICG.

The	table	below	provides	the	range	of	market	factor	VARs	associated	with	Citi's	total	trading	VAR,	inclusive	of	specific	risk:

|  | 2015 | 2015 | 2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Low | High | Low | High |
| Interest\trate | $28 | $84 | N/A | N/A |
| Credit\tspread | 56 | 94 | N/A | N/A |
| Fully\tdiversified\tinterest\trate\tand\tcredit\tspread | $65 | $127 | $84 | $158 |
| Foreign\texchange | 20 | 54 | 20 | 59 |
| Equity | 9 | 35 | 14 | 48 |
| Commodity | 12 | 37 | 11 | 27 |
| Total\ttrading | $70 | $140 | $84 | $163 |
| Total\ttrading\tand\tcredit\tportfolio | 89 | 158 | 96 | 188 |

Note:	No	covariance	adjustment	can	be	inferred	from	the	above	table	as	the	high	and	low	for	each	market	factor	will	be	from	different	close	of	business	dates.

The	following	table	provides	the	VAR	for	ICG,	excluding	the	CVA	relating	to derivative	counterparties,	hedges	of	CVA,	fair	value	option	loans	and	hedges	to	the loan	portfolio:

# VAR	Model	Review	and	Validation

Generally,	Citi's	VAR	review	and	model	validation	process	entails	reviewing	the model	framework,	major	assumptions,	and	implementation	of	the	mathematical algorithm.	In	addition,	as	part	of	the	model	validation	process,	product	specific back-testing	on	portfolios	is	periodically	completed	and	reviewed	with	Citi's	U.S. banking	regulators.	Furthermore,	Regulatory	VAR	(as	described	below)	back- testing	is	performed	against	buy-and-hold	profit	and	loss	on	a	monthly	basis	for multiple	sub-portfolios	across	the	organization	(trading	desk	level,	ICG	business segment	and	Citigroup)	and	the	results	are	shared	with	the	U.S.	banking	regulators. Significant	VAR	model	and	assumption	changes	must	be	independently validated	within	Citi's	risk	management	organization.	This	validation	process includes	a	review	by	Citi's	model	validation	group	and	further	approval	from	its model	validation	review	committee,	which	is	composed	of	senior	quantitative	risk management	officers.	In	the	event	of	significant	model	changes,	parallel	model runs	are	undertaken	prior	to	implementation.	In	addition,	significant	model	and assumption	changes	are	subject	to	the	periodic	reviews	and	approval	by	Citi's	U.S. banking	regulators.

Citi	uses	the	same	independently	validated	VAR	model	for	both	Regulatory VAR	and	Risk	Management	VAR	(i.e.,	Total	trading	and	Total	trading	and	credit portfolios	VARs)	and,	as	such,	the	model	review	and	oversight	process	for	both purposes	is	as	described	above.

Regulatory	VAR,	which	is	calculated	in	accordance	with	Basel	III,	differs from	Risk	Management	VAR	due	to	the	fact

that	certain	positions	included	in	Risk	Management	VAR	are	not	eligible	for market	risk	treatment	in	Regulatory	VAR.	The	composition	of	Risk	Management VAR	is	discussed	under	"Value	at	Risk"	above.	The	applicability	of	the	VAR model	for	positions	eligible	for	market	risk	treatment	under	U.S.	regulatory	capital rules	is	periodically	reviewed	and	approved	by	Citi's	U.S.	banking	regulators.

In	accordance	with	Basel	III,	Regulatory	VAR	includes	all	trading	book covered	positions	and	all	foreign	exchange	and	commodity	exposures.	Pursuant	to Basel	III,	Regulatory	VAR	excludes	positions	that	fail	to	meet	the	intent	and ability	to	trade	requirements	and	are	therefore	classified	as	non-trading	book	and categories	of	exposures	that	are	specifically	excluded	as	covered	positions. Regulatory	VAR	excludes	CVA	on	derivative	instruments	and	DVA	on	Citi's	own fair	value	option	liabilities.	CVA	hedges	are	excluded	from	Regulatory	VAR	and included	in	credit	risk-weighted	assets	as	computed	under	the	Advanced Approaches	for	determining	risk-weighted	assets.

# Regulatory	VAR	Back-testing

In	accordance	with	Basel	III,	Citi	is	required	to	perform	back-testing	to	evaluate the	effectiveness	of	its	Regulatory	VAR	model.	Regulatory	VAR	back-testing	is the	process	in	which	the	daily	one-day	VAR,	at	a	99%	confidence	interval,	is compared	to	the	buy-and-hold	profit	and	loss	(i.e.,	the	profit	and	loss	impact	if	the portfolio	is	held	constant	at	the	end	of	the	day	and	re-priced	the	following	day). Buy-and-hold	profit	and	loss	represents	the	daily	mark-to-market	profit	and	loss attributable	to	price	movements	in	covered	positions	from	the	close	of	the	previous business	day.	Buy-and-hold	profit	and	loss	excludes	realized	trading	revenue,	net interest,	fees	and	commissions,	intra-day	trading	profit	and	loss,	and	changes	in reserves.

Based	on	a	99%	confidence	level,	Citi	would	expect	two	to	three	days	in	any one	year	where	buy-and-hold	losses	exceeded	the	Regulatory	VAR.	Given	the conservative	calibration	of	Citi's	VAR	model	(as	a	result	of	taking	the	greater	of short-	and	long-term	volatilities	and	fat-tail	scaling	of	volatilities),	Citi	would expect	fewer	exceptions	under	normal	and	stable	market	conditions.	Periods	of unstable	market	conditions	could	increase	the	number	of	back-testing	exceptions.

The	following	graph	shows	the	daily	buy-and-hold	profit	and	loss	associated with	Citi's	covered	positions	compared	to	Citi's	one-day	Regulatory	VAR	during 2015.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	there	was	one	back-testing	exception	observed	for Citi's	Regulatory	VAR	for	the	prior	12	months.	As	previously	disclosed,	trading losses	on	January	15,	2015	exceeded	the	VAR	estimate	at	the	Citigroup	level following	the	Swiss	National	Bank's	announcement	removing	the	minimum exchange	rate	of	Swiss	franc	per	Euro.

The	difference	between	the	38%	of	days	with	buy-and-hold	gains	for Regulatory	VAR	back-testing	and	the	97%	of	days	with	trading,	net	interest	and other	revenue	associated	with	Citi's	trading	businesses	shown	in	the	histogram	of daily	trading-related	revenue	above	reflects,	among	other	things,	that	a	significant portion	of	Citi's	trading-related	revenue	is	not	generated	from	daily	price movements	on	these	positions	and	exposures,	as	well	as	differences	in	the	portfolio composition	of	Regulatory	VAR	and	Risk	Management	VAR.

# Regulatory	Trading	VAR	and	Associated	Buy-and-Hold	Profit	and	Loss

(1) Buy-and-hold	profit	and	loss,	as	defined	by	the	banking	regulators	under	Basel	III,	represents	the	daily	mark-to-market	revenue	movement	attributable	to	the	trading	position	from	the	close	of	the previous	business	day.	Buy-and-hold	profit	and	loss	excludes	realized	trading	revenue,	net	interest,	intra-day	trading	profit	and	loss	on	new	and	terminated	trades,	as	well	as	changes	in	reserves. Therefore	it	is	not	comparable	to	the	trading-related	revenue	presented	in	the	chart	below	of	Daily	Trading-related	revenue.

Citi	performs	stress	testing	on	a	regular	basis	to	estimate	the	impact	of	extreme market	movements.	It	is	performed	on	individual	positions	and	trading	portfolios, as	well	as	in	aggregate,	inclusive	of	multiple	trading	portfolios.	Citi's	Market	Risk management,	after	consultations	with	the	businesses,	develops	both	systemic	and specific	stress	scenarios,	reviews	the	output	of	periodic	stress	testing	exercises,	and uses	the	information	to	assess	the	ongoing	appropriateness	of	exposure	levels	and limits.	Citi	uses	two	complementary	approaches	to	market	risk	stress	testing	across all	major	risk	factors	(i.e.,	equity,	foreign	exchange,	commodity,	interest	rate	and credit	spreads):	top-down	systemic	stresses	and	bottom-up	business	specific stresses.	Systemic	stresses	are	designed	to	quantify	the	potential	impact	of	extreme market	movements	on	an	institution-wide	basis,	and	are	constructed	using	both historical	periods	of	market	stress	and	projections	of	adverse	economic	scenarios. Business	specific	stresses	are	designed	to	probe	the	risks	of	particular	portfolios and	market	segments,

especially	those	risks	that	are	not	fully	captured	in	VAR	and	systemic	stresses.

The	systemic	stress	scenarios	and	business	specific	stress	scenarios	at	Citi	are used	in	several	reports	reviewed	by	senior	management	and	also	to	calculate internal	risk	capital	for	trading	market	risk.	In	general,	changes	in	market	factors are	defined	over	a	one-year	horizon.	However,	for	the	purpose	of	calculating internal	risk	capital,	changes	in	a	very	limited	number	of	the	most	liquid	market factors	are	defined	over	a	shorter	three-month	horizon.	The	limited	set	of	market factors	subject	to	the	shorter	three-month	time	horizon	are	those	that	in management's	judgment	have	historically	remained	very	liquid	during	financial crises,	even	as	the	trading	liquidity	of	most	other	market	factors	materially decreased.

# OPERATIONAL	RISK

Operational	risk	is	the	risk	of	loss	resulting	from	inadequate	or	failed	internal processes,	systems	or	human	factors,	or	from	external	events.	It	includes	the reputation	and	franchise	risk	associated	with	business	practices	or	market	conduct in	which	Citi	is	involved.	Operational	risk	is	inherent	in	Citi's	global	business activities,	as	well	as	the	internal	processes	that	support	those	business	activities, and	can	result	in	losses	arising	from	events	related	to	the	following,	among	others:

•fraud,	theft	and	unauthorized	activity; •employment	practices	and	workplace environment;

•clients,	products	and	business	practices; •physical	assets	and	infrastructure; and

•execution,	delivery	and	process	management.

Citi	manages	operational	risk	consistent	with	the	overall	framework	described in	"Managing	Global	Risk—Overview"	above.	The	goal	is	to	keep	operational	risk at	appropriate	levels	relative	to	the	characteristics	of	Citi's	businesses,	the	markets in	which	it	operates,	its	capital	and	liquidity,	and	the	competitive,	economic	and regulatory	environment.

To	anticipate,	mitigate	and	control	operational	risk,	Citi	maintains	a	system	of policies	and	has	established	a	consistent	framework	for	monitoring,	assessing	and communicating	operational	risks	and	the	overall	operating	effectiveness	of	the internal	control	environment	across	Citigroup.	As	part	of	this	framework,	Citi	has established	a	manager's	control	assessment	process	(as	described	under "Compliance,	Conduct	and	Legal	Risk—Compliance	Risk"	below)	to	help managers	self-assess	significant	operational	risks	and	key	controls	and	identify	and address	weaknesses	in	the	design	and/or	operating	effectiveness	of	internal	controls that	mitigate	significant	operational	risks.

Each	major	business	segment	must	implement	an	operational	risk	process consistent	with	the	requirements	of	this	framework.	The	process	for	operational risk	management	includes	the	following	steps:

•identify	and	assess	key	operational risks;

•design	controls	to	mitigate	identified	risks;

•establish	key	risk

indicators;

•implement	a	process	for	early	problem	recognition	and	timely escalation;

•produce	comprehensive	operational	risk	reporting;

•ensure	that	sufficient	resources	are	available	to	actively	improve	the operational	risk	environment	and	mitigate	emerging	risks.

As	new	products	and	business	activities	are	developed,	processes	are	designed, modified	or	sourced	through	alternative	means	and	operational	risks	are considered.

An	Operational	Risk	Management	Committee	has	been	established	to	provide oversight	for	operational	risk	across	Citigroup	and	to	provide	a	forum	to	assess Citi's	operational	risk	profile	and	ensure	actions	are	taken	so	that	Citi's	operational risk	exposure	is	actively	managed	consistent	with	Citi's	risk	appetite.	The Committee	seeks	to	ensure	that	these	actions	address	the	root	causes	that persistently	lead	to

operational	risk	losses	and	create	lasting	solutions	to	minimize	these	losses. Members	include	Citi's	Chief	Risk	Officer	and	Citi's	Head	of	Operational	Risk and	senior	members	of	their	organizations.	These	members	cover	multiple dimensions	of	risk	management	and	include	business	and	regional	Chief	Risk Officers	and	senior	operational	risk	managers.

In	addition,	Risk	management,	including	Operational	Risk	Management, works	proactively	with	the	businesses	and	other	independent	control	functions	to embed	a	strong	operational	risk	management	culture	and	framework	across	Citi. Operational	Risk	Management	engages	with	the	businesses	and	the	respective Chief	Risk	Officers	to	ensure	effective	implementation	of	the	Operational	Risk Management	framework	by	focusing	on	(i)	identification,	analysis	and	assessment of	operational	risks;	(ii)	effective	challenge	of	key	control	issues	and	operational risks;	and	(iii)	anticipation	and	mitigation	of	operational	risk	events.

Information	about	the	businesses'	operational	risk,	historical	operational	risk losses	and	the	control	environment	is	reported	by	each	major	business	segment	and functional	area.	The	information	is	summarized	and	reported	to	senior management,	as	well	as	to	the	Audit	Committee	of	Citi's	Board	of	Directors. Operational	risk	is	measured	and	assessed	through	risk	capital.	Projected operational	risk	losses	under	stress	scenarios	are	also	required	as	part	of	the	Federal Reserve	Board's	CCAR	process.

# COUNTRY	RISK

# Emerging	Markets	Exposures

Citi	generally	defines	emerging	markets	as	countries	in	Latin	America,	Asia	(other than	Japan,	Australia	and	New	Zealand),	Central	and	Eastern	Europe,	the	Middle East	and	Africa.

Chinese	subsidiary	of	a	Switzerland-based	corporation	will	generally	be categorized	as	a	loan	in	China.	Trading	account	assets	and	investment	securities are	generally	categorized	below	based	on	the	domicile	of	the	issuer	of	the	security or	the	underlying	reference	entity	(for	additional	information	on	the	assets included	in	the	table,	see	the	footnotes	to	the	table	below).

The	following	table	presents	Citicorp's	principal	emerging	markets	assets	as of	December	31,	2015.	For

purposes	of	the	table	below,	loan	amounts	are	generally	based	on	the	domicile	of the	borrower.	For	example,	a	loan	to	a

|  |  | As	of	December	31,	2015 | As	of	December	31,	2015 |  |  | As	of	Sept.	30,<br>2015 | As	of	Dec.	31,<br>2014 |  | GCB	NCL	Rate |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\ndollars | Trading\taccount\nassets(1) | Investment\nsecurities(2) | Corporate\tloans(3) | GCB\tloans | Aggregate(4) | Aggregate(4) | Aggregate(4) | 4Q'15 | 3Q'15 | 4Q'14 |
| Mexico | $4.5 | $16.5 | $8.0 | $25.5 | $54.5 | $55.1 | $58.1 | 4.7\t% | 4.7\t% | 5.7\t% |
| Korea | 1.5 | 9.3 | 3.0 | 19.7 | 33.5 | 34.4 | 34.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| India | 3.1 | 8.1 | 9.1 | 6.3 | 26.6 | 26.7 | 25.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| Singapore | — | 5.6 | 5.3 | 13.5 | 24.4 | 25.3 | 26.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Hong\tKong | 1.6 | 4.6 | 7.3 | 10.7 | 24.2 | 24.0 | 23.1 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Brazil | 2.8 | 2.7 | 13.5 | 2.8 | 21.8 | 20.9 | 24.7 | 9.0 | 5.4 | 6.8 |
| China | 2.2 | 3.4 | 7.1 | 4.8 | 17.5 | 18.8 | 19.6 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| Taiwan | 1.2 | 0.7 | 3.5 | 7.7 | 13.1 | 13.6 | 13.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Poland | 0.7 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 2.7 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 10.0 | (0.7) | 0.4 | (1.7) |
| Malaysia | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 4.6 | 6.9 | 6.5 | 8.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Colombia | — | 0.4 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 3.4 |
| Thailand | 0.2 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 2.8 |
| UAE | (0.2) | — | 2.6 | 1.6 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 1.9 |
| Russia(5) | 0.2 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 4.0 | 4.7 | 6.2 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 2.8 |
| Indonesia | 0.1 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 4.4 | 7.8 | 6.7 | 3.3 |
| Turkey | (0.3) | 0.3 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 0.5 | (0.3) | (0.1) |
| Argentina(5) | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 1.0 |
| Philippines | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
| South\tAfrica | — | 0.8 | 1.1 | — | 1.9 | 2.7 | 3.3 | — | — | — |
| Chile | — | — | 1.8 | — | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.1 | — | — | — |

Note:	Aggregate	may	not	cross-foot	due	to	rounding.	Prior	periods	have	been	reclassified	to	conform	to	current	period	presentation.

(1) Trading	account	assets	are	shown	on	a	net	basis	and	include	derivative	exposures	where	the	underlying	reference	entity	is	located	in	that	country.	Does	not	include	counterparty	credit	exposures.

(2) Investment	securities	include	securities	available-for-sale,	recorded	at	fair	market	value,	and	securities	held-to-maturity,	recorded	at	historical	cost.	Does	not	include	investments	accounted	for	under the	equity	method.

(3) Corporate	loans	reflect	funded	loans	within	ICG,	excluding	the	private	bank,	net	of	unearned	income.	In	addition	to	the	funded	loans	disclosed	in	the	table	above,	through	its	 ICG	businesses (excluding	the	private	bank),	Citi	had	unfunded	commitments	to	corporate	customers	in	the	emerging	markets	of	approximately	$34	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015	(compared	to	$32	billion	and	$33 billion	as	of	September	30,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	respectively);	no	single	country	accounted	for	more	than	$4	billion	of	this	amount.	For	information	on	private	bank	loans,	see	the	narrative to	the	table	below.

(4) Aggregate	of	Trading	account	assets,	Investment	securities,	Corporate	loans	and	GCB	loans,	based	on	the	methodologies	described	above.

(5) For	additional	information	on	Citi's	exposures	in	Russia	and	Argentina,	see	below.

# Emerging	Markets	Trading	Account	Assets	and	Investment	Securities

In	the	ordinary	course	of	business,	Citi	holds	securities	in	its	trading	accounts	and investment	accounts,	including	those	above.	Trading	account	assets	are	marked	to market	daily,	with	asset	levels	varying	as	Citi	maintains	inventory	consistent	with customer	needs.	Investment	securities	are	recorded	at	either	fair	value	or	historical cost,	based	on	the	underlying	accounting	treatment,	and	are	predominantly	held	as part	of	the	local	entity	asset	and	liability	management	program	or	to	comply	with local	regulatory	requirements.	In	the	markets	in	the	table	above,	approximately 99%	of	Citi's	investment	securities	were	related	to	sovereign	issuers	as	of December	31,	2015.

# Emerging	Markets	Consumer	Lending

GCB's	strategy	within	the	emerging	markets	is	consistent	with	GCB's	overall strategy,	which	is	to	leverage	its	global	footprint	to	serve	its	target	clients.	The retail	bank	seeks	to	be	the	preeminent	bank	for	the	emerging	affluent	and	affluent consumers	in	large	urban	centers.	In	credit	cards	and	in	certain	retail	markets,	Citi serves	customers	in	a	somewhat	broader	set	of	segments	and	geographies. Commercial	banking	generally	serves	small-	and	middle-market	enterprises operating	in	GCB's	geographic	markets,	focused	on	clients	that	value	Citi's	global capabilities.	Overall,	Citi	believes	that	its	customers	are	more	resilient	than	the overall	market	under	a	wide	range	of	economic	conditions.	Citi's	consumer business	has	a	well-established	risk	appetite	framework	across	geographies	and products	that	reflects	the	business	strategy	and	activities	and	establishes	boundaries around	the	key	risks	that	arise	from	the	strategy	and	activities.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	GCB	had	approximately	$110	billion	of	consumer loans	outstanding	to	borrowers	in	the	emerging	markets,	or	approximately	38%	of GCB's	total	loans,	largely	unchanged	from	September	30,	2015	and	compared	to $118	billion	(41%)	as	of	December	31,	2014.	Of	the	approximate	$110	billion	as of	December	31,	2015,	the	five	largest	emerging	markets—Mexico,	Korea, Singapore,	Hong	Kong	and	Taiwan—comprised	approximately	27%	of	GCB's	total loans.	Within	the	emerging	markets,	30%	of	Citi's	GCB	loans	were	mortgages, 26%	were	commercial	markets	loans,	24%	were	personal	loans	and	20%	were credit	card	loans,	each	as	of	December	31,	2015.

Overall	consumer	credit	quality	remained	generally	stable	in	the	fourth	quarter of	2015,	as	net	credit	losses	in	the	emerging	markets	were	1.9%	of	average	loans, compared	to	1.8%	and	2.2%	in	the	third	quarter	of	2015	and	fourth	quarter	of	2014, respectively,	consistent	with	Citi's	target	market	strategy	and	risk	appetite framework.	The	increase	in	net	credit	losses	in	certain	emerging	market	countries in	Asia,	such	as	Hong	Kong	and	Indonesia,	primarily	related	to	Citi's	commercial banking	business	in	such	countries	and	was	primarily	due	to	the	impact	of	lower commodity	prices	as	well	as	the	slowdown	in	growth	in	the	region.	The	increase	in net	credit	losses	in	Brazil	also	related	to	the	commercial	banking	business	and largely	related	to	a	wind-down	portfolio	in	Brazil,	where	the	losses	were	mostly offset	by	the	release	of	previously-established	loan	loss	reserves.

# Emerging	Markets	Corporate	Lending

Consistent	with	ICG's	overall	strategy,	Citi's	corporate	clients	in	the	emerging markets	are	typically	large,	multinational	corporations	that	value	Citi's	global network.	Citi	aims	to	establish	relationships	with	these	clients	that	encompass multiple	products,	consistent	with	client	needs,	including	cash	management	and trade	services,	foreign	exchange,	lending,	capital	markets	and	M&A	advisory.	Citi believes	that	its	target	corporate	segment	is	more	resilient	under	a	wide	range	of economic	conditions,	and	that	its	relationship-based	approach	to	client	service enables	it	to	effectively	manage	the	risks	inherent	in	such	relationships.	Citi	has	a well-established	risk	appetite	framework	around	its	corporate	lending	activities, including	risk-based	limits	and	approval	authorities	and	portfolio	concentration boundaries.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	corporate	loans	(excluding	the	private	bank)	were approximately	$93	billion	in	the	emerging	markets,	representing	approximately 43%	of	total	corporate	loans	outstanding,	compared	to	$97	billion	(43%)	and	$99 billion	(47%)	as	of	September	30,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	respectively.	No single	emerging	markets	country	accounted	for	more	than	6%	of	Citi's	corporate loans	as	of	the	end	of	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	approximately	75%	of	Citi's	emerging	markets corporate	credit	portfolio	(excluding	the	private	bank),	including	loans	and unfunded	lending	commitments,	was	rated	investment	grade,	which	Citi	considers to	be	ratings	of	BBB	or	better	according	to	its	internal	risk	measurement	system and	methodology	(for	additional	information	on	Citi's	internal	risk	measurement system	for	corporate	credit,	see	"Corporate	Credit"	above).	The	majority	of	the remainder	was	rated	BB	or	B	according	to	Citi's	internal	risk	measurement	system and	methodology.

The	private	bank,	which	is	part	of	ICG	and	primarily	serves	high-net-worth individuals,	had	approximately	$17	billion	of	loans	in	the	emerging	markets	as	of December	31,	2015,	representing	approximately	25%	of	the	business's	total	loans outstanding,	unchanged	from	September	30,	2015	and	compared	to	$17	billion (27%)	as	of	December	31,	2014.	Private	bank	loans	are	typically	secured	by	liquid collateral	or	real	estate	and,	consistent	with	the	rest	of	the	ICG	loan	portfolio,	the business	has	a	well-established	risk	appetite	framework	around	its	lending activities,	including	risk-based	limits	and	approval	authorities	and	portfolio concentration	boundaries.

Overall	ICG	net	credit	losses	in	the	emerging	markets	were	0.1%	of	average loans	in	the	fourth	quarter	of	2015,	compared	to	0.0%	and	0.4%	in	the	third	quarter of	2015	and	fourth	quarter	of	2014,	respectively.	The	ratio	of	non-accrual	ICG loans	to	total	loans	in	the	emerging	markets	remained	stable	at	0.4%	as	of December	31,	2015.

# Argentina

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	net	investment	in	its	Argentine	operations	was approximately	$747	million,	compared	to	$917	million	at	September	30,	2015	and $780	million	at	December	31,	2014.

Citi	uses	the	Argentine	peso	as	the	functional	currency	in	Argentina	and translates	its	financial	statements	into	U.S.	dollars	using	the	official	exchange	rate as	published	by	the	Central	Bank	of	Argentina.	Over	the	last	several	years,	the Argentine	government	has	imposed	strict	foreign	exchange	controls	which	have limited	Citi's	ability	to	access	U.S.	dollars	and	other	foreign	currencies,	repatriate capital	and	hedge	its	currency	risk,	among	other	impacts.	In	the	latter	part	of	2015, however,	Argentina	elected	a	new	president	and	the	Argentine	government	took steps	to	loosen	some	of	these	foreign	exchange	controls.	While	these	actions	were encouraging,	they	did	result	in	a	devaluation	of	the	Argentine	peso	to	13	pesos	per one	U.S.	dollar	at	December	31,	2015,	compared	to	9.4	pesos	per	one	U.S.	dollar at	September	30,	2015	and	8.6	pesos	per	one	U.S.	dollar	at	December	31,	2014. The	impact	of	devaluations	of	the	Argentine	peso	on	Citi's	net	investment	in Argentina	is	reported	as	a	translation	loss	in	stockholders'	equity	offset,	to	the extent	hedged,	by:

•gains	or	losses	recorded	in	stockholders'	equity	on	net	investment	hedges	that have	been	designated	as,	and	qualify	for,	hedge	accounting	under	ASC	815 Derivatives	and	Hedging;	and

•gains	or	losses	recorded	in	earnings	for	its	U.S.	dollar-denominated	monetary assets	or	currency	futures	held	in	Argentina	that	do	not	qualify	as	net investment	hedges	under	ASC	815.

At	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	cumulative	translation	losses	related	to	its investment	in	Argentina,	net	of	qualifying	net	investment	hedges,	of	approximately $1.88	billion	(pretax),	which	were	recorded	in	stockholders'	equity.	This	compared to	$1.66	billion	(pretax)	as	of	September	30,	2015	and	$1.51	billion	(pretax)	as	of December	31,	2014.	The	cumulative	translation	losses	would	not	be	reclassified into	earnings	unless	realized	upon	sale	or	liquidation	of	substantially	all	of	Citi's Argentine	operations.

As	noted	above,	Citi	hedges	currency	risk	in	its	net	investment	in	Argentina	to the	extent	possible	and	prudent.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	total	hedges against	its	net	investment	in	Argentina	were	approximately	$821	million (compared	to	$972	million	as	of	September	30,	2015	and	$810	million	as	of December	31,	2014).	Of	this	amount,	approximately	$567	million	consisted	of foreign	currency	forwards	that	were	recorded	as	net	investment	hedges	under	ASC 815	(compared	to	approximately	$562	million	as	of	September	30,	2015	and	$420 million	as	of	December	31,	2014).	The	remaining	hedges	of	approximately	$254 million	as	of	December	31,	2015	(compared	to	$410	million	as	of	September	30, 2015	and	$390	million	as	of	December	31,	2014)	were	net	U.S.	dollar- denominated	assets	and	foreign	currency	futures	in	Citi	Argentina	that	do	not qualify	for	hedge	accounting	under	ASC	815.

Although	Citi	currently	uses	the	Argentine	peso	as	the	functional	currency	for its	operations	in	Argentina,	an	increase	in	inflation	resulting	in	a	cumulative	three- year	inflation	rate	of	100%	or	more	would	result	in	a	change	in	the	functional currency	to	the	U.S.	dollar.	Citi	bases	its	evaluation	of	the	cumulative	three-year inflation	rate	on	the	official	inflation	statistics	published	by	INDEC,	the	Argentine government's	statistics	agency.	The	cumulative	three-year	inflation	rate	as	of November	30,	2015,	based	on	statistics	published	by	INDEC,	was	approximately 57%	(compared	to	52%	as	of	December	31,	2014).	While	a	change	in	the functional	currency	to	the	U.S.	dollar	would	not	result	in	any	immediate	gains	or losses	to	Citi,	it	would	result	in	future	devaluations	of	the	Argentine	peso	being recorded	in	earnings	for	Citi's	Argentine	peso-denominated	assets	and	liabilities. As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	total	third-party	assets	of	approximately $4.4	billion	in	Citi	Argentina	(unchanged	from	September	30,	2015	and	compared to	$4.1	billion	at	December	31,	2014),	primarily	composed	of	corporate	and consumer	loans	and	cash	on	deposit	with	and	short-term	paper	issued	by	the Central	Bank	of	Argentina.	A	significant	portion	of	these	assets	was	funded	with local	deposits.	Included	in	the	total	assets	were	U.S.	dollar-denominated	assets	of approximately	$918	million,	compared	to	approximately	$562	million	at September	30,	2015	and	$550	million	at	December	31,	2014.	The	sequential increase	in	U.S.	dollar-denominated	assets	was	largely	due	to	the	Argentine government's	loosening	of	foreign	exchange	controls	toward	the	end	of	2015,	as referenced	above.	(For	additional	information	on	Citi's	exposures	related	to Argentina,	see	"Emerging	Markets	Exposures"	above.)

In	addition	to	these	foreign	exchange	and	other	economic	risks,	as	widely reported,	Argentina	continues	to	be	engaged	in	litigation	in	the	U.S.	with	certain "holdout"	bond	investors	who	did	not	accept	restructured	bonds	in	the	restructuring of	Argentine	debt	after	Argentina	defaulted	on	its	sovereign	obligations	in	2001. Based	on	U.S.	court	rulings	to	date,	Argentina	has	been	ordered	to	negotiate	a settlement	with	"holdout"	bond	investors	and,	absent	a	negotiated	settlement,	not pay	interest	on	certain	of	its	restructured	bonds	unless	it	simultaneously	pays	all amounts	owed	to	the	"holdout"	investors	that	are	the	subject	of	the	litigation. Although	Argentina	has	been	in	technical	default	of	the	U.S.	court's	ruling	since mid-2014,	Argentina's	new	president	has	announced	that	it	will	be	a	priority	for his	administration	to	attempt	to	settle	the	dispute,	and	in	February	2016,	Argentina restarted	negotiations	with	its	creditors,	including	the	"holdout"	investors.

Citi	Argentina	acted	as	a	custodian	in	Argentina	for	certain	of	the	restructured bonds	that	are	part	of	the	"holdout"	bond	litigation;	specifically,	U.S.-dollar- denominated	restructured	bonds	governed	by	Argentine	law	and	payable	in Argentina.	In	2015,	the	U.S.	court	overseeing	the	Argentina	litigation	ruled	that Citi	Argentina's	processing	of	interest	payments	on	these	bonds,	as	custodian,	was prohibited	by	the	court's	order.	As	a	result,	Citi

announced	its	intention	to	exit	its	custody	business	in

Argentina,	which	such	exit	is	not	expected	to	have	a	material	impact	on	Citi Argentina's	results	of	operations.	Upon	such	announcement,	the	prior	Argentine government	took	a	number	of	adverse	actions	against	Citi	Argentina,	including filing	a	lawsuit	against	Citi	Argentina	and	suspending	certain	of	its	activities. While	the	new	government	has,	to	date,	indicated	a	willingness	to	settle	these matters,	it	remains	uncertain	as	to	when	these	matters	will	be	resolved	and	what impact,	if	any,	such	resolution	will	have	on	Citi	or	its	franchise	in	Argentina.

# Venezuela

The	Venezuelan	government	operates	restrictive	foreign	exchange	controls.	These exchange	controls	have	limited	Citi's	ability	to	obtain	U.S.	dollars	in	Venezuela; Citi	has	not	been	able	to	acquire	U.S.	dollars	from	the	Venezuelan	government since	2008,	other	than	for	its	customers'	needs.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	the	Venezuelan	government	operated	three separate	official	foreign	exchange	rates:	\

•the	preferential	foreign	exchange	rate	offered	by	the	National	Center	for Foreign	Trade	(CENCOEX),	fixed	at	6.3	bolivars	to	one	U.S.	dollar; •the	SICAD	rate,	which	was	13.5	bolivars	to	one	U.S.	dollar;	and •the	SIMADI	rate,	which	was	199	bolivars	to	one	U.S.	dollar.

Citi	uses	the	U.S.	dollar	as	the	functional	currency	for	its	operations	in Venezuela.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	uses	the	SICAD	rate	to	remeasure	its net	bolivar-denominated	monetary	assets	as	the	SICAD	rate	is	the	only	rate	at which	Citi	is	legally	eligible	to	acquire	U.S.	dollars	from	CENCOEX,	despite	the limited	availability	of	U.S.	dollars	and	although	the	SICAD	rate	may	not necessarily	be	reflective	of	economic	reality.	Re-measurement	of	Citi's	bolivar- denominated	assets	and	liabilities	due	to	changes	in	the	exchange	rate	is	recorded in	earnings.	Citi	has	been	unable	to	hedge	the	currency	risk	in	its	net	investment	in Venezuela	due	to	the	lack	of	effective	market	hedging	mechanisms.

At	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	net	investment	in	its	Venezuelan	operations	was approximately	$200	million	(compared	to	$187	million	at	September	30,	2015	and $180	million	at	December	31,	2014),	which	included	net	monetary	assets denominated	in	Venezuelan	bolivars	of	approximately	$177	million	(compared	to approximately	$160	million	at	September	30,	2015	and	$140	million	at	December 31,	2014).	Total	third-party	assets	of	Citi	Venezuela	were	approximately	$1.0 billion	at	December	31,	2015	(unchanged	from	September	30,	2015	and	compared to	$0.9	billion	at	December	31,	2014),	primarily	composed	of	cash	on	deposit	with the	Central	Bank	of	Venezuela,	corporate	and	consumer	loans,	and	government bonds.	A	significant	portion	of	these	assets	was	funded	with	local	deposits. On	February	17,	2016,	the	Venezuelan	government	announced	changes	to	its foreign	exchange	controls.	Based	on	the	announcement,	the	CENCOEX	rate	would increase	to	10	bolivars	per	U.S.	dollar,	the	SICAD	rate	would	no	longer

exist	and	the	SIMADI	rate	is	expected	to	become	a	free	floating	rate	of	at	least	202 bolivars	per	U.S.	dollar	at	inception.

Based	on	this	announcement,	Citi	expects	to	begin	using	the	SIMADI	rate	in the	first	quarter	of	2016	to	remeasure	its	net	bolivar-denominated	monetary	assets, despite	the	possibly	limited	availability	of	U.S.	dollars	(notwithstanding	the	fact that	it	has	been	described	as	a	free	floating	rate)	and	although	the	new	SIMADI rate	may	not	necessarily	be	reflective	of	economic	reality.	At	the	expected minimum	new	SIMADI	rate	of	202	bolivars	per	U.S.	dollar,	Citi	estimates	that	it will	incur	an	approximate	$172	million	foreign	currency	loss	in	the	first	quarter	of 2016,	which	could	increase	if	the	bolivar	continues	to	devalue	in	the	new	SIMADI market.	Additionally,	Citi	expects	its	revenues	and	expenses	will	be	translated	at the	SIMADI	rate	beginning	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016.	Because	the	new	foreign exchange	control	rules	have	not	yet	been	officially	published	and	are	thus	not	yet effective,	however,	the	impact	to	Citi's	results	of	operations	as	a	result	of	the February	17th	announcement	is	not	yet	certain.

# Russia

During	2015,	political	events	led	to	the	imposition	of	international	sanctions against	Russia	(as	well	as	Russian	entities,	business	sectors,	individuals	or otherwise).	These	ongoing	sanctions,	coupled	with	lower	oil	and	other	commodity prices,	particularly	during	the	second	half	of	2015,	have	had	a	significant	impact	on Russia's	economy,	and	could	continue	to	do	so.	During	2015,	the	Russian	ruble depreciated	by	22%	against	the	U.S.	dollar.

Citibank	operates	in	Russia	through	a	subsidiary,	which	uses	the	Russian	ruble as	its	functional	currency.	Citibank's	net	investment	in	Russia	was	approximately $0.8	billion	at	December	31,	2015,	compared	to	$0.9	billion	at	September	30,	2015 and	$1.1	billion	at	December	31,	2014.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	substantially	all of	Citibank's	net	investment	was	hedged	(subject	to	related	tax	adjustments)	using forward	foreign	exchange	contracts.	Total	third-party	assets	of	the	Russian Citibank	subsidiary	were	approximately	$5.0	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015, unchanged	from	September	30,	2015	and	compared	to	$6.1	billion	at	December 31,	2014.	These	assets	were	primarily	composed	of	corporate	and	consumer	loans, Russian	government	debt	securities,	and	cash	on	deposit	with	the	Central	Bank	of Russia.	The	large	majority	of	these	assets	were	funded	by	local	deposits.	(For additional	information	on	Citi's	exposures	related	to	Russia,	see	"Emerging Markets	Exposures"	above.)

# FFIEC—Cross-Border	Claims	on	Third	Parties	and	Local	Country	Assets

Citi's	cross-border	disclosures	are	based	on	the	country	exposure	bank	regulatory reporting	guidelines	of	the	Federal	Financial	Institutions	Examination	Council (FFIEC),	as	revised	in	December	2013.	The	following	summarizes	some	of	the FFIEC	key	reporting	guidelines:

•Amounts	are	based	on	the	domicile	of	the	ultimate	obligor,	counterparty, collateral,	issuer	or	guarantor,	as	applicable.

•Amounts	do	not	consider	the	benefit	of	collateral	received	for	securities financing	transactions	(i.e.,	repurchase	agreements,	reverse	repurchase agreements	and	securities	loaned	and	borrowed)	and	are	reported	based	on notional	amounts.

•Netting	of	derivatives	receivables	and	payables,	reported	at	fair	value,	is permitted,	but	only	under	a	legally	binding	netting	agreement	with	the	same specific	counterparty,	and	does	not	include	the	benefit	of	margin	received	or hedges.

•The	netting	of	long	and	short	positions	for	AFS	securities	and	trading portfolios	is	not	permitted.

•Credit	default	swaps	(CDS)	are	included	based	on	the	gross	notional	amount sold	and	purchased	and	do	not	include	any	offsetting	CDS	on	the	same underlying	entity.

•Loans	are	reported	without	the	benefit	of hedges.

Given	the	requirements	noted	above,	Citi's	FFIEC	cross-border	exposures	and total	outstandings	tend	to	fluctuate,	in	some	cases,	significantly,	from	period	to period.	As	an	example,	because	total	outstandings	under	FFIEC	guidelines	do	not include	the	benefit	of	margin	or	hedges,	market	volatility	in	interest	rates,	foreign exchange	rates	and	credit	spreads	may	cause	significant	fluctuations	in	the	level	of total	outstandings,	all	else	being	equal.

# The	tables	below	set	forth	each	country	whose	total	outstandings	exceeded	0.75%	of	total	Citigroup	assets:

# Cross-Border	Claims	on	Third	Parties	and	Local	Country	Assets

|  |  |  |  |  | Cross-Border	Claims	on	Third	Parties	and	Local	Country	Assets | Cross-Border	Claims	on	Third	Parties	and	Local	Country	Assets | Cross-Border	Claims	on	Third	Parties	and	Local	Country	Assets | Cross-Border	Claims	on	Third	Parties	and	Local	Country	Assets |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tU.S.\ndollars | Banks\t(a) | Public\n(a) | NBFIs(1)\t(a) | Other\t(corporate\nand\thouseholds)\t(a) | Trading\nassets(2)\t(included\nin\t(a)) | Short-term\nclaims(2)\t(included\nin\t(a)) | Total\toutstanding(3)\n(sum\tof\t(a)) | Commitments\n\tand\nguarantees(4) | Credit\tderivatives\npurchased(5) | Credit\nderivatives\nsold(5) |
| United\nKingdom | $25.1 | $20.4 | $56.2 | $19.3 | $12.0 | $57.8 | $121.0 | $23.9 | $85.5 | $85.2 |
| Mexico | 7.6 | 22.5 | 6.7 | 34.9 | 6.5 | 34.5 | 71.7 | 17.9 | 7.1 | 6.5 |
| Cayman\tIslands | 0.1 | — | 59.0 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 39.8 | 61.2 | 2.5 | — | — |
| Germany | 11.0 | 18.8 | 8.8 | 7.0 | 5.3 | 17.2 | 45.6 | 10.5 | 66.3 | 66.3 |
| France | 20.4 | 3.7 | 17.3 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 27.4 | 44.7 | 11.0 | 71.3 | 71.1 |
| Korea | 1.1 | 17.5 | 0.8 | 23.4 | 1.7 | 34.1 | 42.8 | 12.8 | 11.6 | 9.7 |
| Japan | 11.4 | 18.8 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 6.3 | 26.7 | 36.8 | 3.2 | 27.5 | 27.2 |
| China | 9.5 | 10.7 | 3.5 | 11.4 | 5.3 | 26.4 | 35.1 | 4.1 | 11.8 | 12.5 |
| India | 6.4 | 12.7 | 3.5 | 12.4 | 5.8 | 24.4 | 35.0 | 7.7 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
| Singapore | 2.3 | 12.7 | 2.1 | 14.7 | 0.3 | 22.4 | 31.8 | 13.0 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
| Australia | 6.4 | 6.3 | 3.2 | 15.4 | 4.1 | 9.1 | 31.3 | 11.2 | 25.1 | 24.7 |
| Netherlands | 5.1 | 10.2 | 8.3 | 6.7 | 2.6 | 12.7 | 30.3 | 8.1 | 27.6 | 27.5 |
| Brazil | 4.5 | 9.0 | 1.1 | 14.2 | 3.6 | 17.7 | 28.8 | 4.8 | 12.1 | 10.2 |
| Hong\tKong | 1.3 | 7.8 | 3.4 | 15.6 | 3.2 | 19.5 | 28.1 | 12.8 | 2.7 | 1.9 |
| Switzerland | 5.3 | 16.1 | 1.5 | 4.5 | 0.6 | 19.8 | 27.4 | 5.3 | 21.9 | 22.1 |
| Canada | 5.2 | 4.2 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 2.1 | 9.1 | 21.2 | 12.8 | 7.1 | 8.0 |
| Taiwan | 2.0 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 9.8 | 1.4 | 11.9 | 19.5 | 12.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Italy | 2.8 | 11.3 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 6.1 | 8.0 | 16.2 | 3.0 | 69.3 | 67.0 |

|  |  |  |  |  |  | December	31,	2014 |  |  |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  |  |  |  | Cross-Border\tClaims\ton\tThird\tParties\tand\tLocal\tCountry\tAssets | Cross-Border\tClaims\ton\tThird\tParties\tand\tLocal\tCountry\tAssets | Cross-Border\tClaims\ton\tThird\tParties\tand\tLocal\tCountry\tAssets |  |  |  |
| In\tbillions\tof\tU.S.\ndollars | Banks\t(a) | Public\t(a) | NBFIs(1)\t(a) | Other\n(corporate\nand\thouseholds)\t(a) | Trading\nassets(2)\t(included\nin\t(a)) | Short-term\nclaims(2)\t(included\nin\t(a)) | Total\toutstanding(3)\n(sum\tof\t(a)) | Commitments\n\tand\nguarantees(4) | Credit\tderivatives\npurchased(5) | Credit\nderivatives\nsold(5) |
| United\nKingdom | $23.7 | $17.7 | $47.7 | $28.8 | $12.8 | $59.1 | $117.9 | $19.4 | $104.0 | $105.5 |
| Mexico | 7.9 | 29.7 | 6.5 | 37.3 | 8.9 | 41.4 | 81.4 | 21.4 | 6.8 | 6.3 |
| Cayman\nIslands | 0.1 | — | 46.0 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 35.5 | 48.6 | 2.3 | — | — |
| Germany | 12.3 | 17.3 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 7.0 | 15.7 | 41.7 | 10.8 | 80.0 | 81.0 |
| France | 23.1 | 3.5 | 16.6 | 6.3 | 7.0 | 29.8 | 49.5 | 12.5 | 87.0 | 88.0 |
| Korea | 1.0 | 18.5 | 0.8 | 27.7 | 2.1 | 39.1 | 48.0 | 14.9 | 11.4 | 9.2 |
| Japan | 12.8 | 32.0 | 9.5 | 4.7 | 7.0 | 42.9 | 59.0 | 23.9 | 22.5 | 21.7 |
| China | 8.9 | 10.5 | 2.2 | 13.3 | 4.8 | 24.1 | 34.9 | 3.5 | 11.5 | 12.0 |
| India | 5.7 | 11.4 | 2.7 | 15.1 | 5.8 | 23.1 | 34.9 | 8.3 | 1.8 | 1.5 |
| Singapore | 2.5 | 12.3 | 1.6 | 17.3 | 0.7 | 20.1 | 33.7 | 10.7 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
| Australia | 8.0 | 5.3 | 3.6 | 16.9 | 6.6 | 12.7 | 33.8 | 10.8 | 12.1 | 11.7 |
| Netherlands | 9.5 | 7.6 | 8.4 | 6.9 | 2.3 | 11.3 | 32.4 | 7.3 | 30.4 | 30.6 |
| Brazil | 5.2 | 11.5 | 1.3 | 14.5 | 4.6 | 20.5 | 32.5 | 5.6 | 11.8 | 10.2 |
| Hong\tKong | 1.1 | 8.0 | 2.4 | 16.6 | 4.5 | 17.1 | 28.1 | 12.2 | 2.6 | 1.9 |
| Switzerland | 5.0 | 13.8 | 0.8 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 16.2 | 23.6 | 4.8 | 25.9 | 26.4 |
| Canada | 6.5 | 4.5 | 6.1 | 7.3 | 4.8 | 11.3 | 24.4 | 13.7 | 6.7 | 7.1 |
| Taiwan | 1.9 | 6.9 | 1.1 | 9.8 | 1.7 | 13.3 | 19.7 | 13.3 | 0.1 | — |
| Italy | 2.0 | 12.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 15.7 | 3.5 | 71.3 | 68.2 |

(1) Non-bank	financial	institutions.

(2) Included	in	total	outstanding.

(3) Total	outstanding	includes	cross-border	claims	on	third	parties,	as	well	as	local	country	assets.	Cross-border	claims	on	third	parties	include	cross-border	loans,	securities,	deposits	with	banks	and	other monetary	assets,	as	well	as	net	revaluation	gains	on	foreign	exchange	and	derivative	products.

(4) Commitments	(not	included	in	total	outstanding)	include	legally	binding	cross-border	letters	of	credit	and	other	commitments	and	contingencies	as	defined	by	the	FFIEC	guidelines.	The	FFIEC definition	of	commitments	includes	commitments	to	local	residents	to	be	funded	with	local	currency	liabilities	originated	within	the	country.

(5) CDS	are	not	included	in	total	outstanding.

# COMPLIANCE,	CONDUCT	AND	LEGAL	RISK

# COMPLIANCE	RISK

# Compliance	Risk	Appetite	Framework

Citi's	compliance	risk	appetite	framework	outlines	Citi's	compliance	risk	appetite, how	Citi	manages	its	adherence	to	its	compliance	risk	appetite	and	how	Citi evaluates	the	effectiveness	of	its	controls	for	managing	compliance	risks.	This framework	is	comprised	of	three	pillars:

•Setting	risk	appetite:	Citi	establishes	its	compliance	risk	appetite	by	setting limits	on	the	types	of	business	in	which	Citi	will	engage,	the	products	and services	Citi	will	offer,	the	types	of	customers	which	Citi	will	service,	the counterparties	with	which	Citi	will	deal,	and	the	locations	where	Citi	will	do business.	These	limits	are	guided	by	Citi's	mission	and	value	proposition	and the	principle	of	responsible	finance,	Citi's	adherence	to	relevant	standards	of conduct,	as	well	as	to	relevant	and	applicable	laws,	rules,	regulations,	and Citi's	internal	policies.

•Adhering	to	risk	appetite:	Citi	manages	adherence	to	its	compliance	risk appetite	through	the	execution	of	its	compliance	program,	which	includes governance	arrangements,	a	policy	framework,	customer	onboarding	and maintenance	processes,	product	development	processes,	transaction	and communication	surveillance	processes,	conduct-	and	culture-related	programs, monitoring	regulatory	changes,	and	new	products,	services,	and	complex transactions	approval	processes.	At	Citi,	it	is	the	responsibility	of	each employee	to	escalate	breaches	of	the	compliance	risk	appetite	in	a	timely manner.

•Evaluating	the	effectiveness	of	risk	appetite	controls:	Each	business	and Compliance	evaluate	the	effectiveness	of	controls	for	managing	compliance risk	through	the	manager's	control	assessment	(MCA)	process—a	process through	which	managers	at	Citi	identify,	monitor,	measure,	report	on,	and manage	risks.	Citi	also	relies	on	compliance	risk	assessments;	a	policy framework;	compliance	testing	and	monitoring	processes;	compliance	metrics related	to	key	operating	risks,	key	risk	indicators,	and	control-effectiveness indicators;	and	Internal	Audit	examinations	and	reports.

# Compliance	Program

Compliance	aims	to	operate	Citi's	compliance	risk	appetite—	and	thus	minimize, mitigate	or	manage	compliance	risks—	through	Citi's	compliance	program.	To achieve	this	mission,	Compliance	seeks	to:

•Understand	the	regulatory	environment,	requirements	and	expectations	to

which	Citi's	activities	are	subject.	Compliance	coordinates	with	Legal	and other	independent	control	functions,	as	appropriate,	to	identify,	communicate and	document	key	regulatory	requirements.

•Assess	the	compliance	risks	of	business	activities	and	the	state	of	mitigating controls,	including	the	risks	and	controls	in	legal	entities	in	which	activity	is conducted.	To

facilitate	the	identification	and	assessment	of	compliance	risk,	Compliance works	with	the	businesses	and	other	independent	control	functions	to	review significant	compliance	and	regulatory	issues	and	the	results	of	testing, monitoring,	and	internal	and	external	exams	and	audits.

•Define	Citi's	appetite,	in	conjunction	with	Citigoup's	Board	of	Directors	and

senior	management,	for	prudent	compliance	and	regulatory	risk	consistent

with	its	culture	of	compliance,	control	and	responsible	finance.	As	noted

above,	Citi	has	developed	a	compliance	risk	appetite	framework	that	is designed	to	minimize,	mitigate	or	manage	compliance	risk.

•Develop	controls	and	execute	programs	reasonably	designed	to	promote

conduct	that	is	consistent	with	Citi's	compliance	risk	appetite	and	promptly detect	and	mitigate	behavior	that	is	inconsistent	with	this	appetite.

Compliance	has	product-related	compliance	functions,	namely	the	corporate compliance	group	and	compliance	programs	for	Global	Consumer	Banking and	the	Institutional	Clients	Group.	Compliance	also	has	regional	programs together	with	thematic	groups	and	programs,	such	as	the	conduct,	governance and	emerging	risk	management	group	and	programs	that	focus	on	anti-bribery and	corruption,	ethics,	privacy	and	sanctions.	Each	of	these	functions, programs	and	groups	aims	to	mitigate	Citi's	exposure	to	conduct	that	is inconsistent	with	Citi's	compliance	risk	appetite.

•Detect,	report	on,	escalate	and	remediate	key	compliance	and	franchise	risks and	control	issues;	test	controls	for	design	and	operating	effectiveness, promptly	address	issues,	and	track	remediation	efforts.	Compliance	designs and	implements	policies,	standards,	procedures,	guidelines,	surveillance reports	and	other	solutions	for	use	by	the	business	and	Compliance	to promptly	detect,	address	and	remediate	issues,	test	controls	for	design	and operating	effectiveness,	and	track	remediation	efforts.

•Engage	with	the	Citigroup	Board,	business	management,	operating committees	and	Citi's	regulators	to	foster	effective	global	governance.

Compliance	provides	regular	reports	on	emerging	risks	and	other	issues	and their	implications	for	Citi,	as	well	as	the	performance	of	the	compliance program,	to	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors,	including	the	Audit	and	Ethics and	Culture	Committees,	as	well	as	other	committees	of	the	Board. Compliance	also	engages	with	business	management	on	an	ongoing	basis through	various	mechanisms,	including	governance	committees,	and	supports and	advises	the	businesses	and	other	global	functions	in	managing	regulatory relationships.

•Advise	and	train	Citi	personnel	across	businesses,	functions,	regions	and	legal entities	in	how	to	comply	with	laws,	regulations	and	other	relevant	standards of	conduct.	Compliance	helps	promote	a	strong	culture	of	compliance	and control	by	increasing	awareness	and	capability	across	Citi	on	key	compliance issues	through	training	and	communication	programs.	A	fundamental	element of	Citi's	culture	is	the	requirement	that	Citi	conduct	itself	in	accordance	with the	highest	standards	of	ethical	behavior.

Compliance	plays	a	key	role	in	developing	company-wide	initiatives	designed to	further	embed	ethics	in	Citi's	culture,	such	as	an	interactive	course	on ethics	and	leadership	for	employees,	which	included	training	on	using	an ethical	decision-making	framework	to	challenge	decisions	by	Citi's businesses.

•Enhance	the	compliance	program.	Compliance	fulfills	its	obligation	to enhance	the	compliance	program	in	part	by	using	results	from	its	annual compliance	risk	assessment	to	shape	annual	and	multi-year	program enhancements.

# Volcker	Compliance	Program

The	Volcker	rule	required	Citi	to	develop	and	provide	for	an	enhanced	compliance program	reasonably	designed	to	ensure	and	monitor	compliance	with	the	rule's prohibitions	and	restrictions	on	proprietary	trading	and	covered	fund	activities	and investments.		Citi's	Volcker	rule	office,	which	reports	to	business	management,	has responsibility	for	overall	coordination	and	monitoring	under	its	compliance program,	including	project	management	and	process	support,	and	providing assistance	in	coordinating	engagement	with	and	among	Citi's	second	line	of defense.		For	additional	information,	see	"Risk	Factors—Regulatory	Risks"	and "—Compliance,	Conduct	and	Legal	Risks"	above.

# CONDUCT	RISK

Citi	manages	its	exposure	to	conduct	risk	through	the	three	lines	of	defense,	as discussed	above.	Each	employee	in	each	line	of	defense	is	guided	by	Citi's	mission and	value	proposition	and	the	principle	of	responsible	finance.	Citi's	leadership standards,	which	are	aligned	with	Citi's	mission	and	value	proposition,	outline Citi's	expectations	of	employees'	behavior,	and	employees'	performance	is evaluated	against	those	standards.	Citi's	businesses	and	functions	are	responsible for	managing	their	conduct	risks.	Compliance	advises	Citi's	businesses	and	other functions	on	conduct	risks	and	associated	controls.	Internal	Audit,	among	other things,	assesses	the	adequacy	and	effectiveness	of	Citi's	management	of	and controls	for	conduct	risk.

In	2015,	Citi	issued	a	conduct	risk	policy	to	further	the	objectives	of	its Compliance-led	conduct	risk	program,	which	was	established	in	2014	to	enhance Citi's	culture	of	compliance	and	control	through	the	management,	minimization, and	mitigation	of	Citi's	exposure	to	conduct	risk.	Citi	uses	the	MCA	process	to assess	the	design	and	operation	of	controls	that	are	utilized	to	manage	the institution's	conduct	risks.	Citi	also	manages	its	conduct	risk	through	other initiatives,	including	various	culture-related	efforts.

# LEGAL	RISK

Citi	views	legal	risk	as	qualitative	in	nature	because	it	cannot	be	reliably	estimated or	measured	based	on	forecasts	rather	than	actual	results	using	statistical	methods and	does	not	lend	itself	to	an	appetite	expressed	through	a	numerical	limit.	As such,	Citi	seeks	to	manage	this	risk	in	accordance	with	its	qualitative	risk	appetite principle,	which	generally	state	that	activities	in	which	Citi	engages	and	the	risks those	activities	generate	must	be	consistent	with	Citi's	underlying

commitment	to	the	principle	of	responsible	finance	and	managed	with	a	goal	to eliminate,	minimize	or	mitigate	this	risk,	as	practicable.	To	accomplish	this	goal, legal	risk	is	managed	in	accordance	with	the	overall	framework	described	in	greater detail	in	"Managing	Global	Risk—Overview"	above.

# REPUTATIONAL	RISK

Citi's	reputation	is	a	vital	asset	in	building	trust	with	its	stakeholders,	and	Citi	is diligent	in	communicating	its	corporate	values,	including	the	importance	of protecting	Citi's	reputation,	to	its	employees,	customers	and	investors.		The responsibility	for	maintaining	Citi's	reputation	is	shared	by	all	employees,	who	are guided	by	Citi's	Code	of	Conduct.		Employees	are	required	to	exercise	sound judgment	and	common	sense	in	every	action	they	take	and	issues	that	present potential	franchise,	reputational	and/or	systemic	risks	are	to	be	appropriately escalated.		The	business	practices	committees	for	each	of	Citi's	businesses	and regions	are	part	of	the	governance	infrastructure	Citi	has	in	place	to	properly review	business	activities,	sales	practices,	product	design,	perceived	conflicts	of interest	and	other	potential	franchise	or	reputational	risks	that	arise	in	these businesses	and	regions.		These	committees	may	also	raise	potential	franchise, reputational	or	systemic	risks	for	due	consideration	by	the	business	practices committee	at	the	corporate	level.			All	of	these	committees,	which	are	composed	of Citi's	most	senior	executives,	provide	the	guidance	necessary	for	Citi's	business practices	to	meet	the	highest	standards	of	professionalism,	integrity	and	ethical behavior	consistent	with	Citi's	mission	and	value	proposition.

# SIGNIFICANT	ACCOUNTING	POLICIES	AND	SIGNIFICANT	ESTIMATES

Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	contains	a	summary	of Citigroup's	significant	accounting	policies,	including	a	discussion	of	recently issued	accounting	pronouncements.	These	policies,	as	well	as	estimates	made	by management,	are	integral	to	the	presentation	of	Citi's	results	of	operations	and financial	condition.	While	all	of	these	policies	require	a	certain	level	of management	judgment	and	estimates,	this	section	highlights	and	discusses	the significant	accounting	policies	that	require	management	to	make	highly	difficult, complex	or	subjective	judgments	and	estimates	at	times	regarding	matters	that	are inherently	uncertain	and	susceptible	to	change	(see	also	"Risk	Factors— Operational	Risks"	above).	Management	has	discussed	each	of	these	significant accounting	policies,	the	related	estimates,	and	its	judgments	with	the	Audit Committee	of	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors.

# Valuations	of	Financial	Instruments

Citigroup	holds	debt	and	equity	securities,	derivatives,	retained	interests	in securitizations,	investments	in	private	equity	and	other	financial	instruments. Substantially	all	of

these	assets	and	liabilities	are	reflected	at	fair	value	on	Citi's Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

Citi	purchases	securities	under	agreements	to resell	(reverse	repos)	and	sells	securities	under	agreements to	repurchase	(repos),	a	majority	of	which	are	carried	at fair	value.	In	addition,	certain	loans,	short-term	borrowings, long-term	debt	and	deposits,	as	well	as	certain	securities borrowed	and	loaned	positions	that	are	collateralized	with cash,	are	carried	at	fair	value.	Citigroup	holds	its	investments, trading	assets	and	liabilities,	and	resale	and	repurchase agreements	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	to	meet customer	needs	and	to	manage	liquidity	needs,	interest	rate	risks	and	private	equity investing.

When	available,	Citi	generally	uses	quoted	market	prices	to	determine	fair value	and	classifies	such	items	within	Level	1	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy established	under	ASC	820-10,	Fair	Value	Measurement.	If	quoted	market	prices are	not	available,	fair	value	is	based	upon	internally	developed	valuation	models that	use,	where	possible,	current	market-based	or	independently	sourced	market parameters,	such	as	interest	rates,	currency	rates	and	option	volatilities.	Such models	are	often	based	on	a	discounted	cash	flow	analysis.	In	addition,	items valued	using	such	internally	generated	valuation	techniques	are	classified according	to	the	lowest	level	input	or	value	driver	that	is	significant	to	the valuation.	Thus,	an	item	may	be	classified	under	the	fair	value	hierarchy	as	Level	3 even	though	there	may	be	some	significant	inputs	that	are	readily	observable. The	credit	crisis	caused	some	markets	to	become	illiquid,	thus	reducing	the availability	of	certain	observable	data	used	by	Citi's	valuation	techniques.	This illiquidity,	in	certain	markets,	continued	through	2015.	When	or	if	liquidity	returns to	these	markets,	the	valuations	will	revert	to	using	the	related	observable	inputs	in verifying	internally	calculated	values.

Citi	is	required	to	exercise	subjective	judgments	relating	to	the	applicability and	functionality	of	internal	valuation

models,	the	significance	of	inputs	or	value	drivers	to	the	valuation	of	an instrument,	and	the	degree	of	illiquidity	and	subsequent	lack	of	observability	in certain	markets.	These	judgments	have	the	potential	to	impact	the	Company's financial	performance	for	instruments	where	the	changes	in	fair	value	are recognized	in	either	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income	or	in	Accumulated	other comprehensive	income	(loss)	(AOCI).

Moreover,	for	certain	investments,	decreases	in	fair	value	are	only	recognized in	earnings	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income	if	such	decreases	are	judged	to be	an	other-than-temporary	impairment	(OTTI).	Adjudicating	the	temporary	nature of	fair	value	impairments	is	also	inherently	judgmental.

The	fair	value	of	financial	instruments	incorporates	the	effects	of	Citi's	own credit	risk	and	the	market	view	of	counterparty	credit	risk,	the	quantification	of which	is	also	complex	and	judgmental.	For	additional	information	on	Citi's	fair value	analysis,	see	Notes	1,	6,	25	and	26	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Allowance	for	Credit	Losses

Management	provides	reserves	for	an	estimate	of	probable	losses	inherent	in	the funded	loan	portfolio	and	in	unfunded	loan	commitments	and	standby	letters	of credit	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	in	the	Allowance	for	loan	losses	and	in Other	liabilities,	respectively.

Estimates	of	these	probable	losses	are	based	upon	(i)	Citigroup's	internal system	of	credit-risk	ratings,	which	are	analogous	to	the	risk	ratings	of	the	major credit	rating	agencies;	and	(ii)	historical	default	and	loss	data,	including	rating agency	information	regarding	default	rates	from	1983	to	2014,	and	internal	data dating	to	the	early	1970s	on	severity	of	losses	in	the	event	of	default.	Adjustments may	be	made	to	this	data,	including	(i)	statistically	calculated	estimates	to	cover	the historical	fluctuation	of	the	default	rates	over	the	credit	cycle,	the	historical variability	of	loss	severity	among	defaulted	loans,	and	the	degree	to	which	there	are large	obligor	concentrations	in	the	global	portfolio;	and	(ii)	adjustments	made	for specifically	known	items,	such	as	current	environmental	factors	and	credit	trends. In	addition,	representatives	from	both	the	risk	management	and	finance	staffs who	cover	business	areas	with	delinquency-managed	portfolios	containing	smaller balance	homogeneous	loans	present	their	recommended	reserve	balances	based upon	leading	credit	indicators,	including	loan	delinquencies	and	changes	in portfolio	size,	as	well	as	economic	trends,	including	housing	prices,	unemployment and	GDP.	This	methodology	is	applied	separately	for	each	individual	product within	each	geographic	region	in	which	these	portfolios	exist.

This	evaluation	process	is	subject	to	numerous	estimates	and	judgments.	The frequency	of	default,	risk	ratings,	loss	recovery	rates,	the	size	and	diversity	of individual	large	credits,	and	the	ability	of	borrowers	with	foreign	currency obligations	to	obtain	the	foreign	currency	necessary	for	orderly	debt	servicing, among	other	things,	are	all	taken	into	account	during	this	review.	Changes	in	these estimates	could

have	a	direct	impact	on	Citi's	credit	costs	and	the	allowance	in	any	period. For	a	further	description	of	the	loan	loss	reserve	and	related	accounts,	see Notes	1	and	16	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Goodwill

Citi	tests	goodwill	for	impairment	annually	on	July	1	(the	annual	test)	and	between annual	tests	(the	interim	test)	if	an	event	occurs	or	circumstances	change	that would	more-likely-than-not	reduce	the	fair	value	of	a	reporting	unit	below	its carrying	amount,	such	as	a	significant	adverse	change	in	the	business	climate,	a decision	to	sell	or	dispose	of	all	or	a	significant	portion	of	a	reporting	unit,	or	a significant	decline	in	Citi's	stock	price.	During	2015,	interim	tests	were	performed, which	resulted	in	$31	million	of	total	goodwill	impairment	recorded	in	Operating expenses	as	a	result	of	reorganization	and	disposal	of	a	significant	portion	of	a reporting	unit	described	in	Note	17	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements. As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citigroup	consists	of	the	following	business segments:	Global	Consumer	Banking,	Institutional	Clients	Group,

Corporate/Other	and	Citi	Holdings.	Goodwill	impairment	testing	is	performed	at the	level	below	the	business	segment	(referred	to	as	a	reporting	unit).	Goodwill	is allocated	to	Citi's	11	reporting	units	at	the	date	the	goodwill	is	recorded.	Once goodwill	has	been	allocated	to	the	reporting	units,	it	generally	no	longer	retains	its identification	with	a	particular	acquisition,	but	instead	becomes	identified	with	the reporting	unit	as	a	whole.	As	a	result,	all	of	the	fair	value	of	each	reporting	unit	is available	to	support	the	allocated	goodwill.

The	carrying	value	used	in	the	impairment	test	for	the	11	reporting	units	and Corporate/Other	(together	the	"components")	is	generally	derived	by	allocating Citigroup's	total	stockholders'	equity	to	each	component	as	follows:	First, Citigroup's	total	Tangible	Common	Equity	(TCE)	is	allocated	to	each	component based	on	its	Basel	III	risk-weighted	assets	and	adding	back	any	specifically identified	Basel	III	capital	deductions	for	each	component.	Second,	once	total Citigroup's	TCE	is	allocated	to	each	component,	the	reported	goodwill	and intangibles	associated	with	each	reporting	unit	are	added	to	their	respective carrying	amounts.	Lastly,	any	remaining	stockholders'	equity	is	allocated	to	each component	based	on	its	relative	allocated	TCE.	Thus,	the	combined	equity allocated	to	each	component	is	equal	to	Citigroup's	total	stockholders'	equity. Goodwill	impairment	testing	involves	management	judgment,	requiring	an assessment	of	whether	the	carrying	value	of	the	reporting	unit	can	be	supported	by the	fair	value	of	the	individual	reporting	unit	using	widely	accepted	valuation techniques,	such	as	the	market	approach	(earnings	multiples	and/or	transaction multiples)	and/or	the	income	approach	(discounted	cash	flow	(DCF)	method).	In applying	these	methodologies,	Citi	utilizes	a	number	of	factors,	including	actual operating	results,	future	business	plans,	economic	projections,	and	market	data.	Citi prepares	a	formal	three-year	plan	for	its	businesses	on	an	annual	basis.	These projections	incorporate	certain	external	economic	projections

developed	at	the	point	in	time	the	plan	is	developed.	For	the	purpose	of	performing any	impairment	test,	the	most	recent	three-year	forecast	available	is	updated	by Citi	to	reflect	current	economic	conditions	as	of	the	testing	date.	Citi	uses	the updated	long-range	financial	forecasts	as	a	basis	for	its	annual	goodwill impairment	test.	Management	may	engage	an	independent	valuation	specialist	to assist	in	Citi's	valuation	process.

Similar	to	the	prior	year,	Citigroup	engaged	an	independent	valuation specialist	in	2015	to	assist	in	Citi's	valuation	for	most	of	the	reporting	units employing	both	the	market	approach	and	DCF	method.	Citi	believes	that	the	DCF method,	using	management	projections	for	the	selected	reporting	units	and	an appropriate	risk-adjusted	discount	rate,	is	most	reflective	of	a	market	participant's view	of	fair	values	given	current	market	conditions.	For	reporting	units	where	both methods	were	utilized	in	2015,	the	resulting	fair	values	were	relatively	consistent and	appropriate	weighting	was	given	to	outputs	from	both	methods.

The	DCF	method	used	at	the	time	of	each	impairment	test	used	discount	rates that	Citi	believes	adequately	reflected	the	risk	and	uncertainty	in	the	financial markets	in	the	internally	generated	cash	flow	projections.	The	DCF	method employs	a	capital	asset	pricing	model	in	estimating	the	discount	rate.	Citi	continues to	value	the	remaining	reporting	units	where	it	believes	the	risk	of	impairment	to be	low,	using	primarily	the	market	approach.

Since	none	of	the	Company's	reporting	units	are	publicly	traded,	individual reporting	unit	fair-value	determinations	cannot	be	directly	correlated	to	Citigroup's common	stock	price.	The	sum	of	the	fair	values	of	the	reporting	units	at	July	1, 2015	exceeded	the	overall	market	capitalization	of	Citi	as	of	July	1,	2015. However,	Citi	believes	that	it	is	not	meaningful	to	reconcile	the	sum	of	the	fair values	of	the	Company's	reporting	units	to	its	market	capitalization	due	to	several factors.	The	market	capitalization	of	Citigroup	reflects	the	execution	risk	in	a transaction	involving	Citigroup	due	to	its	size.	However,	the	individual	reporting units'	fair	values	are	not	subject	to	the	same	level	of	execution	risk	or	a	business model	that	is	perceived	to	be	as	complex.

See	Note	17	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	additional	information	on goodwill,	including	the	changes	in	the	goodwill	balance	year-over-year	and	the reporting	unit	goodwill	balances	as	of	December	31,	2015.

# Income	Taxes

Citi	is	subject	to	the	income	tax	laws	of	the	U.S.,	its	states	and	local	municipalities and	the	foreign	jurisdictions	in	which	Citi	operates.	These	tax	laws	are	complex and	are	subject	to	differing	interpretations	by	the	taxpayer	and	the	relevant governmental	taxing	authorities.	Disputes	over	interpretations	of	the	tax	laws	may be	subject	to	review	and	adjudication	by	the	court	systems	of	the	various	tax jurisdictions	or	may	be	settled	with	the	taxing	authority	upon	audit.

In	establishing	a	provision	for	income	tax	expense,	Citi	must	make	judgments and	interpretations	about	the	application	of	these	inherently	complex	tax	laws.	Citi must	also	make

estimates	about	when	in	the	future	certain	items	will	affect	taxable	income	in	the various	tax	jurisdictions,	both	domestic	and	foreign.	Deferred	taxes	are	recorded for	the	future	consequences	of	events	that	have	been	recognized	in	the	financial statements	or	tax	returns,	based	upon	enacted	tax	laws	and	rates.	Deferred	tax assets	(DTAs)	are	recognized	subject	to	management's	judgment	that	realization	is more-likely-than-not.

At	December	31,	2015,	Citi	had	recorded	net	DTAs	of	$47.8	billion.	In	the	fourth quarter	of	2015,	Citi's	DTAs	increased	$600	million,	driven	by	movements	in AOCI,	partially	offset	by	earnings.	On	a	full-year	basis,	Citi's	DTAs	decreased $1.5	billion	from	$49.3	billion	at	December	31,	2014.	The	decrease	in	total	DTAs year-over-year	was	primarily	due	to	the	earnings	in	Citicorp	and	Citi	Holdings partially	offset	by	an	increase	in	AOCI.

Foreign	tax	credits	(FTCs)	comprised	approximately	$15.9	billion	of	Citi's DTAs	as	of	December	31,	2015,	compared	to	approximately	$17.6	billion	as	of December	31,	2014.	The	decrease	in	FTCs	year-over-year	was	due	to	the generation	of	U.S.	taxable	income	and	represented	$1.7	billion	of	the	$1.5	billion decrease	in	Citi's	overall	DTAs	noted	above,	partially	offset	by	the	increase	in	the AOCI-related	DTAs.	The	FTCs	carry-forward	periods	represent	the	most	time- sensitive	component	of	Citi's	DTAs.	Accordingly,	in	2016,	Citi	will	continue	to prioritize	reducing	the	FTC	carry-forward	component	of	the	DTAs.	Secondarily, Citi's	actions	will	focus	on	reducing	other	DTA	components	and,	thereby,	reduce the	total	DTAs.	Citi's	DTAs	will	decline	primarily	as	additional	domestic	GAAP taxable	income	is	generated.

While	Citi's	net	total	DTAs	decreased	year-over-year,	the	time	remaining	for utilization	has	shortened,	given	the	passage	of	time,	particularly	with	respect	to	the FTCs	component	of	the	DTAs.	Although	realization	is	not	assured,	Citi	believes that	the	realization	of	the	recognized	net	DTAs	of	$47.8	billion	at	December	31, 2015	is	more-likely-than-not	based	upon	management's	expectations	as	to	future taxable	income	in	the	jurisdictions	in	which	the	DTAs	arise	as	well	as	available	tax planning	strategies	(as	defined	in	ASC	740,	Income	Taxes)	that	would	be implemented,	if	necessary,	to	prevent	a	carry-forward	from	expiring.

Citi	has	concluded	that	it	has	the	necessary	positive	evidence	to	support	the full	realization	of	its	DTAs.	Specifically,	Citi	forecasts	sufficient	U.S.	taxable income	in	the	carry-forward	periods,	exclusive	of	ASC	740	tax	planning	strategies. Citi's	forecasted	taxable	income,	which	will	continue	to	be	subject	to	overall market	and	global	economic	conditions,	incorporates	geographic	business	forecasts and	taxable	income	adjustments	to	those	forecasts	(e.g.,	U.S.	tax	exempt	income, loan	loss	reserves	deductible	for	U.S.	tax	reporting	in	subsequent	years),	and actions	intended	to	optimize	its	U.S.	taxable	earnings.	In	general,	Citi	would	need to	generate	approximately	$59	billion	of	U.S.	taxable	income	during	the	FTCs carry-forward	periods	to	prevent	Citi's	FTCs	from	expiring.

In	addition	to	its	forecasted	U.S.	taxable	income,	Citi	has	tax	planning strategies	available	to	it	under	ASC	740	that

would	be	implemented,	if	necessary,	to	prevent	a	carry-forward	from	expiring. These	strategies	include:	(i)	repatriating	low-taxed	foreign	source	earnings	for which	an	assertion	that	the	earnings	have	been	indefinitely	reinvested	has	not	been made;	(ii)	accelerating	U.S.	taxable	income	into,	or	deferring	U.S.	tax	deductions out	of,	the	latter	years	of	the	carry-forward	period	(e.g.,	selling	appreciated	assets, electing	straight-line	depreciation);	(iii)	accelerating	deductible	temporary differences	outside	the	U.S.;	and	(iv)	selling	certain	assets	that	produce	tax-exempt income,	while	purchasing	assets	that	produce	fully	taxable	income.	In	addition,	the sale	or	restructuring	of	certain	businesses	can	produce	significant	U.S.	taxable income	within	the	relevant	carry-forward	periods.

Based	upon	the	foregoing	discussion,	Citi	believes	the	U.S.	federal	and	New York	state	and	city	net	operating	loss	carry-forward	period	of	20	years	provides enough	time	to	fully	utilize	the	DTAs	pertaining	to	the	existing	net	operating	loss carry-forwards	and	any	net	operating	loss	that	would	be	created	by	the	reversal	of the	future	net	deductions	that	have	not	yet	been	taken	on	a	tax	return.

With	respect	to	the	FTCs	component	of	the	DTAs,	the	carry-forward	period	is 10	years.	Citi	believes	that	it	will	generate	sufficient	U.S.	taxable	income	within the	10-year	carry-forward	period	to	be	able	to	fully	utilize	the	FTCs,	in	addition	to any	FTCs	produced	in	such	period,	which	must	be	used	prior	to	any	carry-forward utilization.

For	additional	information	on	Citi's	income	taxes,	including	its	income	tax provision,	tax	assets	and	liabilities,	and	a	tabular	summary	of	Citi's	net	DTAs balance	as	of	December	31,	2015	(including	the	FTCs	and	applicable	expiration dates	of	the	FTCs),	see	Note	9	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Litigation	Accruals

See	the	discussion	in	Note	28	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for information	regarding	Citi's	policies	on	establishing	accruals	for	litigation	and regulatory	contingencies.

# Accounting	Changes	and	Future	Application	of	Accounting	Standards

See	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	a	discussion	of "Accounting	Changes"	and	the	"Future	Application	of	Accounting	Standards."

# DISCLOSURE	CONTROLS	AND	PROCEDURES

Citi's	disclosure	controls	and	procedures	are	designed	to	ensure	that	information required	to	be	disclosed	under	the	Securities	Exchange	Act	of	1934,	as	amended,	is recorded,	processed,	summarized	and	reported	within	the	time	periods	specified	in the	SEC's	rules	and	forms,	including	without	limitation	that	information	required to	be	disclosed	by	Citi	in	its	SEC	filings	is	accumulated	and	communicated	to management,	including	the	Chief	Executive	Officer	(CEO)	and	Chief	Financial Officer	(CFO)	as	appropriate	to	allow	for	timely	decisions	regarding	required disclosure.

Citi's	Disclosure	Committee	assists	the	CEO	and	CFO	in	their	responsibilities to	design,	establish,	maintain	and	evaluate	the	effectiveness	of	Citi's	disclosure controls	and	procedures.	The	Disclosure	Committee	is	responsible	for,	among other	things,	the	oversight,	maintenance	and	implementation	of	the	disclosure controls	and	procedures,	subject	to	the	supervision	and	oversight	of	the	CEO	and CFO.

Citi's	management,	with	the	participation	of	its	CEO	and	CFO,	has	evaluated the	effectiveness	of	Citigroup's	disclosure	controls	and	procedures	(as	defined	in Rule	13a-15(e)	under	the	Securities	Exchange	Act	of	1934)	as	of	December	31, 2015	and,	based	on	that	evaluation,	the	CEO	and	CFO	have	concluded	that	at	that date	Citigroup's	disclosure	controls	and	procedures	were	effective.

# MANAGEMENT'S	ANNUAL	REPORT	ON	INTERNAL	CONTROL	OVER	FINANCIAL	REPORTING

Citi's	management	is	responsible	for	establishing	and	maintaining	adequate internal	control	over	financial	reporting.	Citi's	internal	control	over	financial reporting	is	designed	to	provide	reasonable	assurance	regarding	the	reliability	of financial	reporting	and	the	preparation	of	financial	statements	for	external	reporting purposes	in	accordance	with	U.S.	generally	accepted	accounting	principles.	Citi's internal	control	over	financial	reporting	includes	those	policies	and	procedures	that (i)	pertain	to	the	maintenance	of	records	that	in	reasonable	detail	accurately	and fairly	reflect	the	transactions	and	dispositions	of	Citi's	assets;	(ii)	provide reasonable	assurance	that	transactions	are	recorded	as	necessary	to	permit preparation	of	financial	statements	in	accordance	with	generally	accepted accounting	principles,	and	that	Citi's	receipts	and	expenditures	are	made	only	in accordance	with	authorizations	of	Citi's	management	and	directors;	and	(iii) provide	reasonable	assurance	regarding	prevention	or	timely	detection	of unauthorized	acquisition,	use	or	disposition	of	Citi's	assets	that	could	have	a material	effect	on	its	financial	statements.

Because	of	its	inherent	limitations,	internal	control	over	financial	reporting may	not	prevent	or	detect	all	misstatements.	Also,	projections	of	any	evaluation	of effectiveness	to	future	periods	are	subject	to	the	risk	that	controls	may	become inadequate	because	of	changes	in	conditions,	or	that	the	degree	of	compliance	with the	policies	or	procedures	may	deteriorate.	In	addition,	given	Citi's	large	size, complex	operations	and	global	footprint,	lapses	or	deficiencies	in	internal	controls may	occur	from	time	to	time.

Citi	management	assessed	the	effectiveness	of	Citigroup's	internal	control over	financial	reporting	as	of	December	31,	2015	based	on	the	criteria	set	forth	by the	Committee	of	Sponsoring	Organizations	of	the	Treadway	Commission	(COSO) in	Internal	Control-Integrated	Framework	(2013).	Based	on	this	assessment, management	believes	that,	as	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi's	internal	control	over financial	reporting	was	effective.	In	addition,	there	were	no	changes	in	Citi's internal	control	over	financial	reporting	during	the	fiscal	quarter	ended	December 31,	2015	that	materially	affected,	or	are	reasonably	likely	to	materially	affect, Citi's	internal	control	over	financial	reporting.

The	effectiveness	of	Citi's	internal	control	over	financial	reporting	as	of December	31,	2015	has	been	audited	by	KPMG	LLP,	Citi's	independent	registered public	accounting	firm,	as	stated	in	their	report	below,	which	expressed	an unqualified	opinion	on	the	effectiveness	of	Citi's	internal	control	over	financial reporting	as	of	December	31,	2015.

# FORWARD-LOOKING	STATEMENTS

Certain	statements	in	this	Form	10-K,	including	but	not	limited	to	statements included	within	the	Management's	Discussion	and	Analysis	of	Financial	Condition and	Results	of	Operations,	are	"forward-looking	statements"	within	the	meaning	of the	U.S.	Private	Securities	Litigation	Reform	Act	of	1995.	In	addition,	Citigroup also	may	make	forward-looking	statements	in	its	other	documents	filed	or furnished	with	the	SEC,	and	its	management	may	make	forward-looking statements	orally	to	analysts,	investors,	representatives	of	the	media	and	others. Generally,	forward-looking	statements	are	not	based	on	historical	facts	but instead	represent	Citigroup's	and	its	management's	beliefs	regarding	future	events. Such	statements	may	be	identified	by	words	such	as	believe,	expect,	anticipate, intend,	estimate,	may	increase,	may	fluctuate,	and	similar	expressions	or	future	or conditional	verbs	such	as	will,	should,	would	and	could.

Such	statements	are	based	on	management's	current	expectations	and	are subject	to	risks,	uncertainties	and	changes	in	circumstances.	Actual	results	and capital	and	other	financial	conditions	may	differ	materially	from	those	included	in these	statements	due	to	a	variety	of	factors,	including	without	limitation	the precautionary	statements	included	within	each	individual	business's	discussion	and analysis	of	its	results	of	operations	and	the	factors	listed	and	described	under	"Risk Factors"	above.

Any	forward-looking	statements	made	by	or	on	behalf	of	Citigroup	speak	only as	to	the	date	they	are	made,	and	Citi	does	not	undertake	to	update	forward-looking statements	to	reflect	the	impact	of	circumstances	or	events	that	arise	after	the	date the	forward-looking	statements	were	made.

# REPORT	OF	INDEPENDENT	REGISTERED	PUBLIC	ACCOUNTING	FIRM—

# INTERNAL	CONTROL	OVER	FINANCIAL	REPORTING

The	Board	of	Directors	and	Stockholders Citigroup	Inc.:

We	have	audited	Citigroup	Inc.	and	subsidiaries'	(the	"Company"	or	"Citigroup") internal	control	over	financial	reporting	as	of	December	31,	2015,	based	on	criteria established	in	Internal	Control-Integrated	Framework	(2013)	issued	by	the Committee	of	Sponsoring	Organizations	of	the	Treadway	Commission	(COSO). The	Company's	management	is	responsible	for	maintaining	effective	internal control	over	financial	reporting	and	for	its	assessment	of	the	effectiveness	of internal	control	over	financial	reporting,	included	in	the	accompanying management's	annual	report	on	internal	control	over	financial	reporting.	Our responsibility	is	to	express	an	opinion	on	the	Company's	internal	control	over financial	reporting	based	on	our	audit.

We	conducted	our	audit	in	accordance	with	the	standards	of	the	Public Company	Accounting	Oversight	Board	(United	States).	Those	standards	require that	we	plan	and	perform	the	audit	to	obtain	reasonable	assurance	about	whether effective	internal	control	over	financial	reporting	was	maintained	in	all	material respects.	Our	audit	included	obtaining	an	understanding	of	internal	control	over financial	reporting,	assessing	the	risk	that	a	material	weakness	exists,	and	testing and	evaluating	the	design	and	operating	effectiveness	of	internal	control	based	on the	assessed	risk.	Our	audit	also	included	performing	such	other	procedures	as	we considered	necessary	in	the	circumstances.	We	believe	that	our	audit	provides	a reasonable	basis	for	our	opinion.

A	company's	internal	control	over	financial	reporting	is	a	process	designed	to provide	reasonable	assurance	regarding	the	reliability	of	financial	reporting	and	the preparation	of	financial	statements	for	external	purposes	in	accordance	with generally	accepted	accounting	principles.	A	company's internal	control	over	financial	reporting	includes	those	policies	and	procedures	that (1)	pertain	to	the	maintenance	of	records	that,	in	reasonable	detail,	accurately	and fairly	reflect	the	transactions	and	dispositions	of	the	assets	of	the	company;	(2) provide	reasonable	assurance	that	transactions	are	recorded	as	necessary	to	permit preparation	of	financial	statements	in	accordance	with	generally	accepted accounting	principles,	and	that	receipts	and	expenditures	of	the	company	are	being made	only	in	accordance	with	authorizations	of	management	and	directors	of	the company;	and	(3)	provide	reasonable	assurance	regarding	prevention	or	timely detection	of	unauthorized	acquisition,	use,	or	disposition	of	the	company's	assets that	could	have	a	material	effect	on	the	financial	statements.

Because	of	its	inherent	limitations,	internal	control	over	financial	reporting may	not	prevent	or	detect	misstatements.	Also,	projections	of	any	evaluation	of effectiveness	to	future	periods	are	subject	to	the	risk	that	controls	may	become inadequate	because	of	changes	in	conditions,	or	that	the	degree	of	compliance	with the	policies	or	procedures	may	deteriorate.

In	our	opinion,	Citigroup	maintained,	in	all	material	respects,	effective	internal control	over	financial	reporting	as	of	December	31,	2015,	based	on	criteria established	in	Internal	Control-Integrated	Framework	(2013)	issued	by	the Committee	of	Sponsoring	Organizations	of	the	Treadway	Commission.

We	also	have	audited,	in	accordance	with	the	standards	of	the	Public	Company Accounting	Oversight	Board	(United	States),	the	consolidated	balance	sheet	of Citigroup	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	and	the	related	consolidated statements	of	income,	comprehensive	income,	changes	in	stockholders'	equity	and cash	flows	for	each	of	the	years	in	the	three-year	period	ended	December	31,	2015, and	our	report	dated	February	26,	2016	expressed	an	unqualified	opinion	on	those consolidated	financial	statements.

# /s/	KPMG	LLP

New	York,	New	York

# CONSOLIDATED	FINANCIAL	STATEMENTS

We	have	audited	the	accompanying	consolidated	balance	sheet	of	Citigroup	Inc. and	subsidiaries	(the	"Company"	or	"Citigroup")	as	of	December	31,	2015	and 2014,	and	the	related	consolidated	statements	of	income,	comprehensive	income, changes	in	stockholders'	equity	and	cash	flows	for	each	of	the	years	in	the	three- year	period	ended	December	31,	2015.	These	consolidated	financial	statements	are the	responsibility	of	the	Company's	management.	Our	responsibility	is	to	express an	opinion	on	these	consolidated	financial	statements	based	on	our	audits. We	conducted	our	audits	in	accordance	with	the	standards	of	the	Public Company	Accounting	Oversight	Board	(United	States).	Those	standards	require that	we	plan	and	perform	the	audit	to	obtain	reasonable	assurance	about	whether the	financial	statements	are	free	of	material	misstatement.	An	audit	includes examining,	on	a	test	basis,	evidence	supporting	the	amounts	and	disclosures	in	the financial	statements.	An	audit	also	includes	assessing	the	accounting	principles used	and	significant	estimates	made	by	management,	as	well	as	evaluating	the overall	financial	statement	presentation.	We	believe	that	our	audits	provide	a reasonable	basis	for	our	opinion.

In	our	opinion,	the	consolidated	financial	statements	referred	to	above	present fairly,	in	all	material	respects,	the	financial	position	of	Citigroup	as	of	December 31,	2015	and	2014,	and	the	results	of	its	operations	and	its	cash	flows	for	each	of the	years	in	the	three-year	period	ended	December	31,	2015,	in	conformity	with U.S.	generally	accepted	accounting	principles.

We	also	have	audited,	in	accordance	with	the	standards	of	the	Public	Company Accounting	Oversight	Board	(United	States),	Citigroup's	internal	control	over financial	reporting	as	of	December	31,	2015,	based	on	criteria	established	in Internal	Control-Integrated	Framework	(2013)	issued	by	the	Committee	of

Sponsoring	Organizations	of	the	Treadway	Commission	(COSO),	and	our	report dated	February	26,	2016	expressed	an	unqualified	opinion	on	the	effectiveness	of the	Company's	internal	control	over	financial	reporting.

# FINANCIAL	STATEMENTS	AND	NOTES	TABLE	OF	CONTENTS

| CONSOLIDATED	FINANCIAL	STATEMENTS |  |
| :--- | :--- |
| Consolidated\tStatement\tof\tIncome—\nFor\tthe\tYears\tEnded\tDecember\t31,\t2015,\t2014\tand\t2013 | 129 |
| Consolidated\tStatement\tof\tComprehensive\tIncome—\nFor\tthe\tYears\tEnded\tDecember\t31,\t2015,\t2014\tand\t2013 | 131 |
| Consolidated\tBalance\tSheet—December\t31,\t2015\tand\t2014 | 132 |
| Consolidated\tStatement\tof\tChanges\tin\tStockholders'\tEquity—For\tthe\tYears\nEnded\tDecember\t31,\t2015,\t2014\tand\t2013 | 134 |
| Consolidated\tStatement\tof\tCash\tFlows—\nFor\tthe\tYears\tEnded\tDecember\t31,\t2015,\t2014\tand\t2013 | 136 |
| NOTES\tTO\tCONSOLIDATED\tFINANCIAL\tSTATEMENTS |  |
| Note\t1—Summary\tof\tSignificant\tAccounting\tPolicies | 138 |
| Note\t2—Discontinued\tOperations\tand\tSignificant\tDisposals | 150 |
| Note\t3—Business\tSegments | 152 |
| Note\t4—Interest\tRevenue\tand\tExpense | 153 |
| Note\t5—Commissions\tand\tFees | 154 |
| Note\t6—Principal\tTransactions | 155 |
| Note\t7—Incentive\tPlans | 156 |
| Note\t8—Retirement\tBenefits | 160 |
| Note\t9—Income\tTaxes | 176 |
| Note\t10—Earnings\tper\tShare | 181 |
| Note\t11—Federal\tFunds,\tSecurities\tBorrowed,\tLoaned\tand\nSubject\tto\tRepurchase\tAgreements | 182 |
| Note\t12—Brokerage\tReceivables\tand\tBrokerage\tPayables | 185 |
| Note\t13—Trading\tAccount\tAssets\tand\tLiabilities | 185 |
| Note\t14—Investments | 186 |
| Note\t15—Loans | 198 |

| Note	16—Allowance	for	Credit	Losses | 211 |
| :--- | :--- |
| Note\t17—Goodwill\tand\tIntangible\tAssets | 214 |
| Note\t18—Debt | 217 |
| Note\t19—Regulatory\tCapital | 219 |
| Note\t20—Changes\tin\tAccumulated\tOther\tComprehensive\nIncome\t(Loss) | 220 |
| Note\t21—Preferred\tStock | 223 |
| Note\t22—Securitizations\tand\tVariable\tInterest\tEntities | 225 |
| Note\t23—Derivatives\tActivities | 238 |
| Note\t24—Concentrations\tof\tCredit\tRisk | 252 |
| Note\t25—Fair\tValue\tMeasurement | 253 |
| Note\t26—Fair\tValue\tElections | 276 |
| Note\t27—Pledged\tAssets,\tCollateral,\tGuarantees\tand\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommitments | 280 |
| Note\t28—Contingencies | 286 |
| Note\t29—Condensed\tConsolidating\tFinancial\tStatements | 297 |
| Note\t30—Subsequent\tEvent | 307 |
| Note\t31—Selected\tQuarterly\tFinancial\tData\t(Unaudited) | 307 |

# CONSOLIDATED	STATEMENT	OF	INCOME

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	per	share	amounts | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Revenues(1) |  |  |  |
| Interest\trevenue | $58,551 | $61,683 | $62,970 |
| Interest\texpense | 11,921 | 13,690 | 16,177 |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $46,630 | $47,993 | $46,793 |
| Commissions\tand\tfees | $11,848 | $13,032 | $12,941 |
| Principal\ttransactions | 6,008 | 6,698 | 7,302 |
| Administration\tand\tother\tfiduciary\tfees | 3,648 | 4,013 | 4,089 |
| Realized\tgains\ton\tsales\tof\tinvestments,\tnet | 682 | 570 | 748 |
| Other-than-temporary\timpairment\tlosses\ton\tinvestments |  |  |  |
| Gross\timpairment\tlosses | (265) | (432) | (633) |
| Less:\tImpairments\trecognized\tin\tAOCI | — | 8 | 98 |
| Net\timpairment\t(losses)\trecognized\tin\tearnings | $(265) | $(424) | $(535) |
| Insurance\tpremiums | $1,845 | $2,110 | $2,280 |
| Other\trevenue | 5,958 | 3,227 | 3,106 |
| Total\tnon-interest\trevenues | $29,724 | $29,226 | $29,931 |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $76,354 | $77,219 | $76,724 |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims |  |  |  |
| Provision\tfor\tloan\tlosses | $7,108 | $6,828 | $7,604 |
| Policyholder\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | 731 | 801 | 830 |
| Provision\t(release)\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | 74 | (162) | 80 |
| Total\tprovisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | $7,913 | $7,467 | $8,514 |
| Operating\texpenses(1) |  |  |  |
| Compensation\tand\tbenefits | $21,769 | $23,959 | $23,967 |
| Premises\tand\tequipment | 2,878 | 3,178 | 3,165 |
| Technology/communication | 6,581 | 6,436 | 6,136 |
| Advertising\tand\tmarketing | 1,547 | 1,844 | 1,888 |
| Other\toperating | 10,840 | 19,634 | 13,252 |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $43,615 | $55,051 | $48,408 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\tincome\ttaxes | $24,826 | $14,701 | $19,802 |
| Provision\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | 7,440 | 7,197 | 6,186 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $17,386 | $7,504 | $13,616 |
| Discontinued\toperations |  |  |  |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations | $(83) | $10 | $(242) |
| Gain\ton\tsale | — | — | 268 |
| Provision\t(benefit)\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | (29) | 12 | (244) |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | $(54) | $(2) | $270 |
| Net\tincome\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $17,332 | $7,502 | $13,886 |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | 90 | 192 | 227 |
| Citigroup's\tnet\tincome | $17,242 | $7,310 | $13,659 |
| Basic\tearnings\tper\tshare(2) |  |  |  |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $5.43 | $2.21 | $4.26 |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | (0.02) | — | 0.09 |
| Net\tincome | $5.41 | $2.21 | $4.35 |
| Weighted\taverage\tcommon\tshares\toutstanding | 3,004.0 | 3,031.6 | 3,035.8 |

| Income	from	continuing	operations | $5.42 | $2.20 | $4.25 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | (0.02) | — | 0.09 |
| Net\tincome | $5.40 | $2.20 | $4.34 |
| Adjusted\tweighted\taverage\tcommon\tshares\toutstanding | 3,007.7 | 3,037.0 | 3,041.6 |

(1) Certain	prior-period	revenue	and	expense	lines	and	totals	were	reclassified	to	conform	to	the	current	period's	presentation.	See	Note 3	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(2) Due	to	rounding,	earnings	per	share	on	continuing	operations	and	discontinued	operations	may	not	sum	to	earnings	per	share	on	net	income.

The	Notes	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	are	an	integral	part	of	these	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# CONSOLIDATED	STATEMENT	OF	COMPREHENSIVE	INCOME

# Citigroup	Inc.	and	Subsidiaries

|  | Years	ended	December	31, | Years	ended	December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Net\tincome\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $17,332 | $7,502 | $13,886 |
| Add:\tCitigroup's\tother\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) |  |  |  |
| Net\tchange\tin\tunrealized\tgains\tand\tlosses\ton\tinvestment\tsecurities,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | $(964) | $1,697 | $(2,237) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tcash\tflow\thedges,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | 292 | 336 | 1,048 |
| Benefit\tplans\tliability\tadjustment,\tnet\tof\ttaxes(1) | 43 | (1,170) | 1,281 |
| Net\tchange\tin\tforeign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tadjustment,\tnet\tof\ttaxes\tand\thedges | (5,499) | (4,946) | (2,329) |
| Citigroup's\ttotal\tother\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) | $(6,128) | $(4,083) | $(2,237) |
| Total\tcomprehensive\tincome\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $11,204 | $3,419 | $11,649 |
| Less:\tNet\tincome\tattributable\tto\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 90 | 192 | 227 |
| Citigroup's\tcomprehensive\tincome | $11,114 | $3,227 | $11,422 |

(1)				Reflects	adjustments	based	on	the	actuarial	valuations	of	the	Company's	pension	and	postretirement	plans,	including	changes	in	the	mortality	assumptions	at	December	31,	2014,	and	amortization	of amounts	previously	recognized	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss).	See	Note	8	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# CONSOLIDATED	BALANCE	SHEET

|  | December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| Assets |  |  |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\t(including\tsegregated\tcash\tand\tother\tdeposits) | $20,900 | $32,108 |
| Deposits\twith\tbanks | 112,197 | 128,089 |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell\t(including\t$137,964\tand\t$144,191\tas\tof\nDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 219,675 | 242,570 |
| Brokerage\treceivables | 27,683 | 28,419 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets\t(including\t$92,123\tand\t$106,217\tpledged\tto\tcreditors\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\nrespectively) | 249,956 | 296,786 |
| Investments: |  |  |
| \t\tAvailable\tfor\tsale\t(including\t$10,698\tand\t$13,808\tpledged\tto\tcreditors\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\nrespectively) | 299,136 | 300,143 |
| Held\tto\tmaturity\t(including\t$3,630\tand\t$2,974\tpledged\tto\tcreditors\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively) | 36,215 | 23,921 |
| Non-marketable\tequity\tsecurities\t(including\t$2,088\tand\t$2,758\tat\tfair\tvalue\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\nrespectively) | 7,604 | 9,379 |
| Total\tinvestments | $342,955 | $333,443 |
| Loans: |  |  |
| Consumer\t(including\t$34\tand\t$43\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 329,783 | 369,970 |
| Corporate\t(including\t$4,971\tand\t$5,858\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 287,834 | 274,665 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | $617,617 | $644,635 |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses | (12,626) | (15,994) |
| Total\tloans,\tnet | $604,991 | $628,641 |
| Goodwill | 22,349 | 23,592 |
| Intangible\tassets\t(other\tthan\tMSRs) | 3,721 | 4,566 |
| Mortgage\tservicing\trights\t(MSRs) | 1,781 | 1,845 |
| Other\tassets\t(including\t$6,121\tand\t$7,762\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 125,002 | 122,122 |
| Total\tassets | $1,731,210 | $1,842,181 |

The	following	table	presents	certain	assets	of	consolidated	variable	interest	entities	(VIEs),	which	are	included	in	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	above.	The	assets	in the	table	below	include	those	assets	that	can	only	be	used	to	settle	obligations	of	consolidated	VIEs,	presented	on	the	following	page,	and	are	in	excess	of	those	obligations. Additionally,	the	assets	in	the	table	below	include	third-party	assets	of	consolidated	VIEs	only	and	exclude	intercompany	balances	that	eliminate	in	consolidation.

|  | December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| Assets\tof\tconsolidated\tVIEs\tto\tbe\tused\tto\tsettle\tobligations\tof\tconsolidated\tVIEs |  |  |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $153 | $300 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets | 583 | 671 |
| Investments | 5,263 | 8,014 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome |  |  |
| Consumer | 58,772 | 66,383 |
| Corporate | 22,008 | 29,596 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | $80,780 | $95,979 |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses | (2,135) | (2,793) |
| Total\tloans,\tnet | $78,645 | $93,186 |
| Other\tassets | 150 | 619 |
| Total\tassets\tof\tconsolidated\tVIEs\tto\tbe\tused\tto\tsettle\tobligations\tof\tconsolidated\tVIEs | $84,794 | $102,790 |

Statement	continues	on	the	next	page.

# (Continued)

|  | December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars,\texcept\tshares\tand\tper\tshare\tamounts | 2015 | 2014 |
| Liabilities |  |  |
| Non-interest-bearing\tdeposits\tin\tU.S.\toffices | $139,249 | $128,958 |
| fair\tvalue) | 280,234 | 284,978 |
| Non-interest-bearing\tdeposits\tin\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. | 71,577 | 70,925 |
| respectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 416,827 | 414,471 |
| Total\tdeposits | $907,887 | $899,332 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase\t(including\t$36,843\tand\t$36,725\tas\tof\nDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 146,496 | 173,438 |
| Brokerage\tpayables | 53,722 | 52,180 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities | 117,512 | 139,036 |
| Short-term\tborrowings\t(including\t$1,207\tand\t$1,496\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 21,079 | 58,335 |
| Long-term\tdebt\t(including\t$25,293\tand\t$26,180\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 201,275 | 223,080 |
| Other\tliabilities\t(including\t$1,624\tand\t$1,776\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\trespectively,\tat\tfair\tvalue) | 60,147 | 85,084 |
| Total\tliabilities | $1,508,118 | $1,630,485 |
| Stockholders'\tequity |  |  |
| December\t31,\t2014,\tat\taggregate\tliquidation\tvalue | $16,718 | $10,468 |
| 3,082,037,568\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2014 | 31 | 31 |
| Additional\tpaid-in\tcapital | 108,288 | 107,979 |
| Retained\tearnings | 133,841 | 117,852 |
| Treasury\tstock,\tat\tcost:\tDecember\t31,\t2015—146,203,311\tshares\tand\tDecember\t31,\t2014—58,119,993\tshares | (7,677) | (2,929) |
| Accumulated\tother\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) | (29,344) | (23,216) |
| Total\tCitigroup\tstockholders'\tequity | $221,857 | $210,185 |
| Noncontrolling\tinterest | 1,235 | 1,511 |
| Total\tequity | $223,092 | $211,696 |
| Total\tliabilities\tand\tequity | $1,731,210 | $1,842,181 |

The	following	table	presents	certain	liabilities	of	consolidated	VIEs,	which	are	included	in	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	above.	The	liabilities	in	the	table	below include	third-party	liabilities	of	consolidated	VIEs	only	and	exclude	intercompany	balances	that	eliminate	in	consolidation.	The	liabilities	also	exclude	amounts	where creditors	or	beneficial	interest	holders	have	recourse	to	the	general	credit	of	Citigroup.

|  | December	31, | December	31, |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| Liabilities\tof\tconsolidated\tVIEs\tfor\twhich\tcreditors\tor\tbeneficial\tinterest\tholders\tdo\tnot\thave\trecourse\tto\tthe\tgeneral\tcredit\tof\nCitigroup |  |  |
| Short-term\tborrowings | $11,965 | $20,254 |
| Long-term\tdebt | 31,273 | 40,078 |
| Other\tliabilities | 2,099 | 901 |
| Total\tliabilities\tof\tconsolidated\tVIEs\tfor\twhich\tcreditors\tor\tbeneficial\tinterest\tholders\tdo\tnot\thave\trecourse\tto\tthe\tgeneral\ncredit\tof\tCitigroup | $45,337 | $61,233 |

# CONSOLIDATED	STATEMENT	OF	CHANGES	IN	STOCKHOLDERS'	EQUITY

|  |  | Amounts |  |  | Shares |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars,\texcept\tshares\tin\tthousands | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Preferred\tstock\tat\taggregate\tliquidation\tvalue |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $10,468 | $6,738 | $2,562 | 419 | 270 | 102 |
| Issuance\tof\tnew\tpreferred\tstock | 6,250 | 3,730 | 4,270 | 250 | 149 | 171 |
| Redemption\tof\tpreferred\tstock | — | — | (94) | — | — | (3) |
| Balance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $16,718 | $10,468 | $6,738 | 669 | 419 | 270 |
| Common\tstock\tand\tadditional\tpaid-in\tcapital |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $108,010 | $107,224 | $106,421 | 3,082,038 | 3,062,099 | 3,043,153 |
| Employee\tbenefit\tplans | 357 | 798 | 878 | 17,438 | 19,928 | 18,930 |
| Preferred\tstock\tissuance\texpense | (23) | (31) | (78) | — | — | — |
| Other | (25) | 19 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 16 |
| Balance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $108,319 | $108,010 | $107,224 | 3,099,482 | 3,082,038 | 3,062,099 |
| Retained\tearnings |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $117,852 | $110,821 | $97,809 |  |  |  |
| Adjustment\tto\topening\tbalance,\tnet\tof\ttaxes(1) | — | — | (332) |  |  |  |
| Adjusted\tbalance,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $117,852 | $110,821 | $97,477 |  |  |  |
| Citigroup's\tnet\tincome | 17,242 | 7,310 | 13,659 |  |  |  |
| Common\tdividends(2) | (484) | (122) | (120) |  |  |  |
| Preferred\tdividends | (769) | (511) | (194) |  |  |  |
| Tax\tbenefit | — | 353 | — |  |  |  |
| Other | — | 1 | (1) |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $133,841 | $117,852 | $110,821 |  |  |  |
| Treasury\tstock,\tat\tcost |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $(2,929) | $(1,658) | $(847) | (58,119) | (32,856) | (14,269) |
| Employee\tbenefit\tplans(3) | 704 | (39) | 26 | 13,318 | (483) | (1,629) |
| Treasury\tstock\tacquired(4) | (5,452) | (1,232) | (837) | (101,402) | (24,780) | (16,958) |
| Balance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $(7,677) | $(2,929) | $(1,658) | (146,203) | (58,119) | (32,856) |
| Citigroup's\taccumulated\tother\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $(23,216) | $(19,133) | $(16,896) |  |  |  |
| Citigroup's\ttotal\tother\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) | (6,128) | (4,083) | (2,237) |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $(29,344) | $(23,216) | $(19,133) |  |  |  |
| Total\tCitigroup\tcommon\tstockholders'\tequity | $205,139 | $199,717 | $197,254 | 2,953,279 | 3,023,919 | 3,029,243 |
| Total\tCitigroup\tstockholders'\tequity | $221,857 | $210,185 | $203,992 |  |  |  |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $1,511 | $1,794 | $1,948 |  |  |  |
| Initial\torigination\tof\ta\tnoncontrolling\tinterest | — | — | 6 |  |  |  |
| Transactions\tbetween\tnoncontrolling-interest\tshareholders\tand\tthe\trelated\nconsolidated\tsubsidiary | — | — | (2) |  |  |  |
| Transactions\tbetween\tCitigroup\tand\tthe\tnoncontrolling-interest\tshareholders | (164) | (96) | (118) |  |  |  |
| Net\tincome\tattributable\tto\tnoncontrolling-interest\tshareholders | 90 | 192 | 227 |  |  |  |
| Dividends\tpaid\tto\tnoncontrolling-interest\tshareholders | (78) | (91) | (63) |  |  |  |
| Other\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss)\tattributable\tto\n\t\t\tnoncontrolling-interest\tshareholders | (83) | (106) | (17) |  |  |  |
| Other | (41) | (182) | (187) |  |  |  |
| Net\tchange\tin\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $(276) | $(283) | $(154) |  |  |  |
| Balance,\tend\tof\tperiod | $1,235 | $1,511 | $1,794 |  |  |  |
| Total\tequity | $223,092 | $211,696 | $205,786 |  |  |  |

(1) Citi	adopted	ASU	2014-01	Investments-Equity	Method	and	Joint	Ventures	(Topic	323):	Accounting	for	Investments	in	Affordable	Housing ,	in	the	first	quarter	of	2015	on	a	retrospective	basis.	This adjustment	to	opening	Retained	earnings	represents	the	impact	to	periods	prior	to	January	1,	2013	and	is	shown	as	an	adjustment	to	the	opening	balance	since	2013	is	the	earliest	period	presented	in this	statement.	See	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	additional	information.

(2) Common	dividends	declared	were	$0.01	per	share	in	the	first	quarter	and	$0.05	both	in	the	second,	third	and	fourth	quarters	of	2015	and	$0.01	per	share	in	each	quarter	of	2014.

(3) Includes	treasury	stock	related	to	(i)	certain	activity	on	employee	stock	option	program	exercises	where	the	employee	delivers	existing	shares	to	cover	the	option	exercise,	or	(ii)	under	Citi's	employee restricted	or	deferred	stock	programs	where	shares	are	withheld	to	satisfy	tax	requirements.

(4) For	the	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013,	primarily	consists	of	open	market	purchases	under	Citi's	Board	of	Directors-approved	common	stock	repurchase	program.

# CONSOLIDATED	STATEMENT	OF	CASH	FLOWS

|  |  | Years	ended	December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\toperating\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |
| Net\tincome\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $17,332 | $7,502 | $13,886 |
| Net\tincome\tattributable\tto\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | 90 | 192 | 227 |
| Citigroup's\tnet\tincome | $17,242 | $7,310 | $13,659 |
| Loss\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | (54) | (2) | (90) |
| Gain\ton\tsale,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | — | — | 360 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations—excluding\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $17,296 | $7,312 | $13,389 |
| Adjustments\tto\treconcile\tnet\tincome\tto\tnet\tcash\tprovided\tby\toperating\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |
| Gains\ton\tsignificant\tdisposals(1) | (3,210) | (452) | — |
| Amortization\tof\tdeferred\tpolicy\tacquisition\tcosts\tand\tpresent\tvalue\tof\tfuture\tprofits | 191 | 210 | 194 |
| Additions\tto\tdeferred\tpolicy\tacquisition\tcosts | (62) | (64) | (54) |
| Depreciation\tand\tamortization | 3,506 | 3,589 | 3,303 |
| Deferred\ttax\tprovision | 2,794 | 3,347 | 2,699 |
| Provision\tfor\tloan\tlosses | 7,108 | 6,828 | 7,604 |
| Realized\tgains\tfrom\tsales\tof\tinvestments | (682) | (570) | (748) |
| Net\timpairment\tlosses\ton\tinvestments,\tgoodwill\tand\tintangible\tassets | 318 | 426 | 535 |
| Change\tin\ttrading\taccount\tassets | 46,830 | (10,858) | 35,001 |
| Change\tin\ttrading\taccount\tliabilities | (21,524) | 30,274 | (6,787) |
| Change\tin\tbrokerage\treceivables\tnet\tof\tbrokerage\tpayables | 2,278 | (4,272) | (6,490) |
| Change\tin\tloans\theld-for-sale\t(HFS) | (7,207) | (1,144) | 4,321 |
| Change\tin\tother\tassets | (32) | (1,690) | 13,028 |
| Change\tin\tother\tliabilities | (1,135) | 7,973 | (7,880) |
| Other,\tnet | (6,732) | 5,434 | 5,129 |
| Total\tadjustments | $22,441 | $39,031 | $49,855 |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\toperating\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $39,737 | $46,343 | $63,244 |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\tinvesting\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |
| \t\t\tChange\tin\tdeposits\twith\tbanks | $15,488 | $40,916 | $(66,871) |
| \t\t\tChange\tin\tfederal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | 22,895 | 14,467 | 4,274 |
| \t\t\tChange\tin\tloans | 1,353 | 1,170 | (30,198) |
| \t\t\tProceeds\tfrom\tsales\tand\tsecuritizations\tof\tloans | 9,610 | 4,752 | 9,123 |
| \t\t\tPurchases\tof\tinvestments | (242,362) | (258,992) | (220,823) |
| \t\t\tProceeds\tfrom\tsales\tof\tinvestments | 141,470 | 135,824 | 131,100 |
| \t\t\tProceeds\tfrom\tmaturities\tof\tinvestments | 82,047 | 94,117 | 84,831 |
| \t\t\tProceeds\tfrom\tsignificant\tdisposals(1) | 5,932 | 346 | — |
| \t\t\tPayments\tdue\tto\ttransfers\tof\tnet\tliabilities\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals(1)(2) | (18,929) | (1,255) | — |
| \t\t\tCapital\texpenditures\ton\tpremises\tand\tequipment\tand\tcapitalized\tsoftware | (3,198) | (3,386) | (3,490) |
| \t\t\tProceeds\tfrom\tsales\tof\tpremises\tand\tequipment,\tsubsidiaries\tand\taffiliates,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tand\trepossessed\tassets | 577 | 623 | 716 |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\tinvesting\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $14,883 | $28,582 | $(91,338) |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\tfinancing\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |
| \t\t\tDividends\tpaid | $(1,253) | $(633) | $(314) |
| \t\t\tIssuance\tof\tpreferred\tstock | 6,227 | 3,699 | 4,192 |
| \t\t\tRedemption\tof\tpreferred\tstock | — | — | (94) |
| \t\t\tTreasury\tstock\tacquired | (5,452) | (1,232) | (837) |
| \t\t\tStock\ttendered\tfor\tpayment\tof\twithholding\ttaxes | (428) | (508) | (452) |
| \t\t\tChange\tin\tfederal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase | (26,942) | (30,074) | (7,724) |

| Issuance	of	long-term	debt | 44,619 | 66,836 | 54,405 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| \t\t\tPayments\tand\tredemptions\tof\tlong-term\tdebt | (52,843) | (58,923) | (63,994) |
| \t\t\tChange\tin\tdeposits | 8,555 | (48,336) | 37,713 |
| \t\t\tChange\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings | (37,256) | (1,099) | 199 |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\tfinancing\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $(64,773) | $(70,270) | $23,094 |
| Effect\tof\texchange\trate\tchanges\ton\tcash\tand\tcash\tequivalents | $(1,055) | $(2,432) | $(1,558) |
| Discontinued\toperations |  |  |  |
| Net\tcash\tused\tin\tdiscontinued\toperations | $— | $— | $(10) |
| Change\tin\tcash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $(11,208) | $2,223 | $(6,568) |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | 32,108 | 29,885 | 36,453 |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\tat\tend\tof\tperiod | $20,900 | $32,108 | $29,885 |
| Supplemental\tdisclosure\tof\tcash\tflow\tinformation\tfor\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |
| Cash\tpaid\tduring\tthe\tyear\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | $4,978 | $4,632 | $4,495 |
| Cash\tpaid\tduring\tthe\tyear\tfor\tinterest | 12,031 | 14,001 | 15,655 |
| Non-cash\tinvesting\tactivities |  |  |  |
| Change\tin\tloans\tdue\tto\tconsolidation/deconsolidation\tof\tVIEs | $— | $(374) | $6,718 |
| Decrease\tin\tnet\tloans\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\treclassified\tto\tHFS | (9,063) | — | — |
| Decrease\tin\tinvestments\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\treclassified\tto\tHFS | (1,402) | — | — |
| Decrease\tin\tgoodwill\tand\tintangible\tassets\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\treclassified\tto\tHFS | (223) | — | — |
| Decrease\tin\tdeposits\twith\tbanks\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\treclassified\tto\tHFS | (404) | — | — |
| Transfers\tto\tloans\tHFS\tfrom\tloans | 28,600 | 15,100 | 17,300 |
| Transfers\tto\tOREO\tand\tother\trepossessed\tassets | 276 | 321 | 325 |
| Non-cash\tfinancing\tactivities |  |  |  |
| Decrease\tin\tlong-term\tdebt\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\treclassified\tto\tHFS | $(4,673) | $— | $— |
| Decrease\tin\tdeposits\tassociated\twith\treclassification\tto\tHFS | — | (20,605) | — |
| Increase\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings\tdue\tto\tconsolidation\tof\tVIEs | — | 500 | 6,718 |
| Decrease\tin\tlong-term\tdebt\tdue\tto\tdeconsolidation\tof\tVIEs | — | (864) | — |

(1)	See	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	the	adoption	of	ASU	No.	2014-08	in	the	second	quarter	of	2014	and	Note	2	for	further	information	on	significant	disposals.

(2)	The	payments	associated	with	significant	disposals	result	primarily	from	the	sale	of	deposit	liabilities.

# NOTES	TO	CONSOLIDATED	FINANCIAL	STATEMENTS

# 1.	SUMMARY	OF	SIGNIFICANT	ACCOUNTING	POLICIES

Throughout	these	Notes,	"Citigroup,"	"Citi"	and	the	"Company"	refer	to	Citigroup Inc.	and	its	consolidated	subsidiaries.

Certain	reclassifications	have	been	made	to	the	prior	periods'	financial statements	and	notes	to	conform	to	the	current	period's	presentation.

# Principles	of	Consolidation

The	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	include	the	accounts	of	Citigroup	and	its subsidiaries	prepared	in	accordance	with	U.S.	Generally	Accepted	Accounting Principles	(GAAP).	The	Company	consolidates	subsidiaries	in	which	it	holds, directly	or	indirectly,	more	than	50%	of	the	voting	rights	or	where	it	exercises control.	Entities	where	the	Company	holds	20%	to	50%	of	the	voting	rights	and/or has	the	ability	to	exercise	significant	influence,	other	than	investments	of designated	venture	capital	subsidiaries	or	investments	accounted	for	at	fair	value under	the	fair	value	option,	are	accounted	for	under	the	equity	method,	and	the	pro rata	share	of	their	income	(loss)	is	included	in	Other	revenue.	Income	from investments	in	less	than	20%	owned	companies	is	recognized	when	dividends	are received.	As	discussed	in	more	detail	in	Note	22	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements,	Citigroup	also	consolidates	entities	deemed	to	be	variable	interest entities	when	Citigroup	is	determined	to	be	the	primary	beneficiary.	Gains	and losses	on	the	disposition	of	branches,	subsidiaries,	affiliates,	buildings,	and	other investments	are	included	in	Other	revenue.

# Citibank

Citibank,	N.A.	(Citibank)	is	a	commercial	bank	and	wholly	owned	subsidiary	of Citigroup.	Citibank's	principal	offerings	include:	consumer	finance,	mortgage lending	and	retail	banking	(including	commercial	banking)	products	and	services; investment	banking,	cash	management	and	trade	finance;	and	private	banking products	and	services.

# Variable	Interest	Entities

An	entity	is	referred	to	as	a	variable	interest	entity	(VIE)	if	it	meets	the	criteria outlined	in	Accounting	Standards	Codification	(ASC)	Topic	810,	Consolidation, which	are:	(i)	the	entity	has	equity	that	is	insufficient	to	permit	the	entity	to	finance its	activities	without	additional	subordinated	financial	support	from	other	parties; or	(ii)	the	entity	has	equity	investors	that	cannot	make	significant	decisions	about the	entity's	operations	or	that	do	not	absorb	their	proportionate	share	of	the	entity's expected	losses	or	expected	returns.

The	Company	consolidates	a	VIE	when	it	has	both	the	power	to	direct	the activities	that	most	significantly	impact	the	VIE's	economic	performance	and	a right	to	receive	benefits	or	the	obligation	to	absorb	losses	of	the	entity	that	could	be potentially	significant	to	the	VIE	(that	is,	Citi	is	the	primary	beneficiary).

In	addition	to	variable	interests	held	in	consolidated	VIEs,	the	Company	has variable	interests	in	other	VIEs	that	are	not	consolidated	because	the	Company	is not	the	primary	beneficiary.	These	include	multi-seller	finance	companies,	certain collateralized	loan	obligations	(CLOs),	many	structured	finance	transactions	and various	investment	funds.	However,	these	VIEs	and	all	other	unconsolidated	VIEs are	monitored	by	the	Company	to	assess	whether	any	events	have	occurred	to cause	its	primary	beneficiary	status	to	change.	These	events	include:

•purchases	or	sales	of	variable	interests	by	Citigroup	or	an	unrelated	third party,	which	cause	Citigroup's	overall	variable	interest	ownership	to	change; •changes	in	contractual	arrangements	that	reallocate	expected	losses	and residual	returns	among	the	variable	interest	holders;

•changes	in	the	party	that	has	power	to	direct	the	activities	of	a	VIE	that	most significantly	impact	the	entity's	economic	performance;	and •providing	financial	support	to	an	entity	that	results	in	an	implicit	variable interest.

All	other	entities	not	deemed	to	be	VIEs	with	which	the	Company	has involvement	are	evaluated	for	consolidation	under	other	subtopics	of	ASC	810.

# Foreign	Currency	Translation

Assets	and	liabilities	of	Citi's	foreign	operations	are	translated	from	their respective	functional	currencies	into	U.S.	dollars	using	period-end	spot	foreign- exchange	rates.	The	effects	of	those	translation	adjustments	are	reported	in Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss),	a	component	of	stockholders' equity,	along	with	any	related	hedge	and	tax	effects,	until	realized	upon	sale	or substantial	liquidation	of	the	foreign	operation.	Revenues	and	expenses	of	Citi's foreign	operations	are	translated	monthly	from	their	respective	functional currencies	into	U.S.	dollars	at	amounts	that	approximate	weighted	average exchange	rates.

For	transactions	whose	terms	are	denominated	in	a	currency	other	than	the functional	currency,	including	transactions	denominated	in	the	local	currencies	of foreign	operations	with	the	U.S.	dollar	as	their	functional	currency,	the	effects	of changes	in	exchange	rates	are	primarily	included	in	Principal	transactions,	along with	the	related	effects	of	any	economic	hedges.	Instruments	used	to	hedge	foreign currency	exposures	include	foreign	currency	forward,	option	and	swap	contracts and	in	certain	instances,	designated	issues	of	non-U.S.	dollar	debt.	Foreign operations	in	countries	with	highly	inflationary	economies	designate	the	U.S.	dollar as	their	functional	currency,	with	the	effects	of	changes	in	exchange	rates	primarily included	in	Other	revenue.

# Investment	Securities

Investments	include	fixed	income	and	equity	securities.	Fixed	income	instruments include	bonds,	notes	and	redeemable	preferred	stocks,	as	well	as	certain	loan- backed	and	structured	securities	that	are	subject	to	prepayment	risk.	Equity securities	include	common	and	nonredeemable	preferred	stock. Investment	securities	are	classified	and	accounted	for	as	follows:

•Fixed	income	securities	classified	as	"held-to-maturity"	are	securities	that	the Company	has	both	the	ability	and	the	intent	to	hold	until	maturity	and	are carried	at	amortized	cost.	Interest	income	on	such	securities	is	included	in Interest	revenue.

•Fixed	income	securities	and	marketable	equity	securities	classified	as "available-for-sale"	are	carried	at	fair	value	with	changes	in	fair	value	reported

in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss),	a	component	of

Stockholders'	equity,	net	of	applicable	income	taxes	and	hedges.	Realized gains	and	losses	on	sales	are	included	in	income	primarily	on	a	specific identification	cost	basis.	Interest	and	dividend	income	on	such	securities	is included	in	Interest	revenue.

•Certain	investments	in	non-marketable	equity	securities	and	certain investments	that	would	otherwise	have	been	accounted	for	using	the	equity method	are	carried	at	fair	value,	since	the	Company	has	elected	to	apply	fair value	accounting.	Changes	in	fair	value	of	such	investments	are	recorded	in earnings.

•Certain	non-marketable	equity	securities	are	carried	at	cost	and	are periodically	assessed	for	other-than-temporary	impairment,	as	described	in Note	14	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

For	investments	in	fixed	income	securities	classified	as	held-to-maturity	or available-for-sale,	the	accrual	of	interest	income	is	suspended	for	investments	that are	in	default	or	for	which	it	is	likely	that	future	interest	payments	will	not	be	made as	scheduled.

Investment	securities	are	subject	to	evaluation	for	other-than-temporary impairment	as	described	in	Note	14	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements. The	Company	uses	a	number	of	valuation	techniques	for	investments	carried at	fair	value,	which	are	described	in	Note	25	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements.	Realized	gains	and	losses	on	sales	of	investments	are	included	in earnings.

# Trading	Account	Assets	and	Liabilities

Trading	account	assets	include	debt	and	marketable	equity	securities,	derivatives in	a	receivable	position,	residual	interests	in	securitizations	and	physical commodities	inventory.	In	addition,	as	described	in	Note	26	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements,	certain	assets	that	Citigroup	has	elected	to	carry	at	fair	value under	the	fair	value	option,	such	as	loans	and	purchased	guarantees,	are	also included	in	Trading	account	assets.

Trading	account	liabilities	include	securities	sold,	not	yet	purchased	(short positions)	and	derivatives	in	a	net	payable	position,	as	well	as	certain	liabilities	that Citigroup	has	elected	to	carry	at	fair	value	(as	described	in	Note	26	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements).

Other	than	physical	commodities	inventory,	all	trading	account	assets	and liabilities	are	carried	at	fair	value.	Revenues	generated	from	trading	assets	and trading	liabilities	are	generally	reported	in	Principal	transactions	and	include realized	gains	and	losses	as	well	as	unrealized	gains	and	losses	resulting	from changes	in	the	fair	value	of	such	instruments.	Interest	income	on	trading	assets	is recorded	in	Interest	revenue	reduced	by	interest	expense	on	trading	liabilities.

Physical	commodities	inventory	is	carried	at	the	lower	of	cost	or	market	with related	losses	reported	in	Principal	transactions.	Realized	gains	and	losses	on	sales of	commodities	inventory	are	included	in	Principal	transactions.	Investments	in unallocated	precious	metals	accounts	(gold,	silver,	platinum	and	palladium)	are accounted	for	as	hybrid	instruments	containing	a	debt	host	contract	and	an embedded	non-financial	derivative	instrument	indexed	to	the	price	of	the	relevant precious	metal.	The	embedded	derivative	instrument	is	separated	from	the	debt host	contract	and	accounted	for	at	fair	value.	The	debt	host	contract	is	accounted for	at	fair	value	under	the	fair	value	option,	as	described	in	Note	26	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

Derivatives	used	for	trading	purposes	include	interest	rate,	currency,	equity, credit,	and	commodity	swap	agreements,	options,	caps	and	floors,	warrants,	and financial	and	commodity	futures	and	forward	contracts.	Derivative	asset	and liability	positions	are	presented	net	by	counterparty	on	the	Consolidated	Balance Sheet	when	a	valid	master	netting	agreement	exists	and	the	other	conditions	set	out in	ASC	210-20,	Balance	Sheet—Offsetting,	are	met.	See	Note	23	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

The	Company	uses	a	number	of	techniques	to	determine	the	fair	value	of trading	assets	and	liabilities,	which	are	described	in	Note	25	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements.

# Securities	Borrowed	and	Securities	Loaned

Securities	borrowing	and	lending	transactions	do	not	constitute	a	sale	of	the underlying	securities	for	accounting	purposes	and	are	treated	as	collateralized financing	transactions.	Such	transactions	are	recorded	at	the	amount	of	proceeds advanced	or	received	plus	accrued	interest.	As	described	in	Note	26	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements,	the	Company	has	elected	to	apply	fair	value accounting	to	a	number	of	securities	borrowing	and	lending	transactions.	Fees	paid or	received	for	all	securities	lending	and	borrowing	transactions	are	recorded	in Interest	expense	or	Interest	revenue	at	the	contractually	specified	rate. The	Company	monitors	the	fair	value	of	securities	borrowed	or	loaned	on	a daily	basis	and	obtains	or	posts	additional	collateral	in	order	to	maintain contractual	margin	protection.

As	described	in	Note	25	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements,	the Company	uses	a	discounted	cash	flow	technique	to	determine	the	fair	value	of securities	lending	and	borrowing	transactions.

# Repurchase	and	Resale	Agreements

Securities	sold	under	agreements	to	repurchase	(repos)	and	securities	purchased under	agreements	to	resell	(reverse	repos)	do	not	constitute	a	sale	(or	purchase)	of the	underlying	securities	for	accounting	purposes	and	are	treated	as	collateralized financing	transactions.	As	described	in	Note	26	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements,	the	Company	has	elected	to	apply	fair	value	accounting	to	the	majority of	such	transactions,	with	changes	in	fair	value	reported	in	earnings.	Any transactions	for	which	fair	value	accounting	has	not	been	elected	are	recorded	at the	amount	of	cash	advanced	or	received	plus	accrued	interest.	Irrespective	of whether	the	Company	has	elected	fair	value	accounting,	interest	paid	or	received on	all	repo	and	reverse	repo	transactions	is	recorded	in	Interest	expense	or	Interest revenue	at	the	contractually	specified	rate.

Where	the	conditions	of	ASC	210-20-45-11,	Balance	Sheet-Offsetting: Repurchase	and	Reverse	Repurchase	Agreements,	are	met,	repos	and	reverse	repos are	presented	net	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

The	Company's	policy	is	to	take	possession	of	securities	purchased	under reverse	repurchase	agreements.	The	Company	monitors	the	fair	value	of	securities subject	to	repurchase	or	resale	on	a	daily	basis	and	obtains	or	posts	additional collateral	in	order	to	maintain	contractual	margin	protection.

As	described	in	Note	25	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements,	the Company	uses	a	discounted	cash	flow	technique	to	determine	the	fair	value	of	repo and	reverse	repo	transactions.

Loans	are	reported	at	their	outstanding	principal	balances	net	of	any	unearned income	and	unamortized	deferred	fees	and	costs	except	that	credit	card	receivable balances	also	include	accrued	interest	and	fees.	Loan	origination	fees	and	certain direct	origination	costs	are	generally	deferred	and

recognized	as	adjustments	to	income	over	the	lives	of	the	related	loans. As	described	in	Note	26	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements,	Citi	has elected	fair	value	accounting	for	certain	loans.	Such	loans	are	carried	at	fair	value with	changes	in	fair	value	reported	in	earnings.	Interest	income	on	such	loans	is recorded	in	Interest	revenue	at	the	contractually	specified	rate.

Loans	for	which	the	fair	value	option	has	not	been	elected	are	classified	upon origination	or	acquisition	as	either	held-for-investment	or	held-for-sale.	This classification	is	based	on	management's	initial	intent	and	ability	with	regard	to those	loans.

Loans	that	are	held-for-investment	are	classified	as	Loans,	net	of	unearned income	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet,	and	the	related	cash	flows	are	included within	the	cash	flows	from	investing	activities	category	in	the	Consolidated Statement	of	Cash	Flows	on	the	line	Change	in	loans.	However,	when	the	initial intent	for	holding	a	loan	has	changed	from	held-for-investment	to	held-for-sale,	the loan	is	reclassified	to	held-for-sale,	but	the	related	cash	flows	continue	to	be reported	in	cash	flows	from	investing	activities	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of Cash	Flows	on	the	line	Proceeds	from	sales	and	securitizations	of	loans.

# Consumer	Loans

Consumer	loans	represent	loans	and	leases	managed	primarily	by	the	Global Consumer	Banking	(GCB)	businesses	and	Citi	Holdings.

# Consumer	Non-accrual	and	Re-aging	Policies

As	a	general	rule,	interest	accrual	ceases	for	installment	and	real	estate	(both	open- and	closed-end)	loans	when	payments	are	90	days	contractually	past	due.	For	credit cards	and	other	unsecured	revolving	loans,	however,	Citi	generally	accrues	interest until	payments	are	180	days	past	due.	As	a	result	of	OCC	guidance,	home	equity loans	in	regulated	bank	entities	are	classified	as	non-accrual	if	the	related residential	first	mortgage	is	90	days	or	more	past	due.	Also	as	a	result	of	OCC guidance,	mortgage	loans	in	regulated	bank	entities	discharged	through	Chapter	7 bankruptcy,	other	than	FHA-insured	loans,	are	classified	as	non-accrual. Commercial	market	loans	are	placed	on	a	cash	(non-accrual)	basis	when	it	is determined,	based	on	actual	experience	and	a	forward-looking	assessment	of	the collectability	of	the	loan	in	full,	that	the	payment	of	interest	or	principal	is	doubtful or	when	interest	or	principal	is	90	days	past	due.

Loans	that	have	been	modified	to	grant	a	concession	to	a	borrower	in	financial difficulty	may	not	be	accruing	interest	at	the	time	of	the	modification.	The	policy for	returning	such	modified	loans	to	accrual	status	varies	by	product	and/or	region. In	most	cases,	a	minimum	number	of	payments	(ranging	from	one	to	six)	is required,	while	in	other	cases	the	loan	is	never	returned	to	accrual	status.	For regulated	bank	entities,	such	modified	loans	are	returned	to	accrual	status	if	a credit	evaluation	at	the	time	of,	or	subsequent	to,	the	modification	indicates	the borrower	is	able	to	meet	the	restructured	terms,	and	the	borrower	is	current	and	has demonstrated	a	reasonable	period	of

sustained	payment	performance	(minimum	six	months	of	consecutive	payments). For	U.S.	consumer	loans,	generally	one	of	the	conditions	to	qualify	for modification	is	that	a	minimum	number	of	payments	(typically	ranging	from	one	to three)	must	be	made.	Upon	modification,	the	loan	is	re-aged	to	current	status. However,	re-aging	practices	for	certain	open-ended	consumer	loans,	such	as	credit cards,	are	governed	by	Federal	Financial	Institutions	Examination	Council (FFIEC)	guidelines.	For	open-ended	consumer	loans	subject	to	FFIEC	guidelines, one	of	the	conditions	for	the	loan	to	be	re-aged	to	current	status	is	that	at	least	three consecutive	minimum	monthly	payments,	or	the	equivalent	amount,	must	be received.	In	addition,	under	FFIEC	guidelines,	the	number	of	times	that	such	a	loan can	be	re-aged	is	subject	to	limitations	(generally	once	in	12	months	and	twice	in five	years).	Furthermore,	Federal	Housing	Administration	(FHA)	and	Department of	Veterans	Affairs	(VA)	loans	may	only	be	modified	under	those	respective agencies'	guidelines	and	payments	are	not	always	required	in	order	to	re-age	a modified	loan	to	current.

# Consumer	Charge-Off	Policies

Citi's	charge-off	policies	follow	the	general	guidelines	below:

•Unsecured	installment	loans	are	charged	off	at	120	days	contractually	past due.

•Unsecured	revolving	loans	and	credit	card	loans	are	charged	off	at	180	days contractually	past	due.

•Loans	secured	with	non-real	estate	collateral	are	written	down	to	the	estimated value	of	the	collateral,	less	costs	to	sell,	at	120	days	contractually	past	due. •Real	estate-secured	loans	are	written	down	to	the	estimated	value	of	the property,	less	costs	to	sell,	at	180	days	contractually	past	due. •Real	estate-secured	loans	are	charged	off	no	later	than	180	days	contractually past	due	if	a	decision	has	been	made	not	to	foreclose	on	the	loans. •Non-bank	real	estate-secured	loans	are	charged	off	at	the	earlier	of	180	days contractually	past	due,	if	there	have	been	no	payments	within	the	last	six months,	or	360	days	contractually	past	due,	if	a	decision	has	been	made	not	to foreclose	on	the	loans.

•Non-bank	loans	secured	by	real	estate	are	written	down	to	the	estimated	value of	the	property,	less	costs	to	sell,	at	the	earlier	of	the	receipt	of	title,	the initiation	of	foreclosure	(a	process	that	must	commence	when	payments	are 120	days	contractually	past	due),	when	the	loan	is	180	days	contractually	past due	if	there	have	been	no	payments	within	the	past	six	months	or	360	days contractually	past	due.

•Non-bank	unsecured	personal	loans	are	charged	off	at	the	earlier	of	180	days contractually	past	due	if	there	have	been	no	payments	within	the	last	six months,	or	360	days	contractually	past	due.

•Unsecured	loans	in	bankruptcy	are	charged	off	within	60	days	of	notification of	filing	by	the	bankruptcy	court

or	in	accordance	with	Citi's	charge-off	policy,	whichever	occurs	earlier. •Consistent	with	OCC	guidance,	real	estate-secured	loans	that	were	discharged through	Chapter	7	bankruptcy,	other	than	FHA-insured	loans,	are	written down	to	the	estimated	value	of	the	property,	less	costs	to	sell.	Other	real estate-secured	loans	in	bankruptcy	are	written	down	to	the	estimated	value	of the	property,	less	costs	to	sell,	at	the	later	of	60	days	after	notification	or	60 days	contractually	past	due.

•Non-bank	loans	secured	by	real	estate	that	are	discharged	through	Chapter	7 bankruptcy	are	written	down	to	the	estimated	value	of	the	property,	less	costs to	sell,	at	60	days	contractually	past	due.

•Non-bank	unsecured	personal	loans	in	bankruptcy	are	charged	off	when	they are	30	days	contractually	past	due.

•Commercial	market	loans	are	written	down	to	the	extent	that	principal	is judged	to	be	uncollectable.

# Corporate	Loans

Corporate	loans	represent	loans	and	leases	managed	by	Institutional	Clients	Group (ICG).	Corporate	loans	are	identified	as	impaired	and	placed	on	a	cash	(non- accrual)	basis	when	it	is	determined,	based	on	actual	experience	and	a	forward- looking	assessment	of	the	collectability	of	the	loan	in	full,	that	the	payment	of interest	or	principal	is	doubtful	or	when	interest	or	principal	is	90	days	past	due, except	when	the	loan	is	well	collateralized	and	in	the	process	of	collection.	Any interest	accrued	on	impaired	corporate	loans	and	leases	is	reversed	at	90	days	and charged	against	current	earnings,	and	interest	is	thereafter	included	in	earnings	only to	the	extent	actually	received	in	cash.	When	there	is	doubt	regarding	the	ultimate collectability	of	principal,	all	cash	receipts	are	thereafter	applied	to	reduce	the recorded	investment	in	the	loan.

Impaired	corporate	loans	and	leases	are	written	down	to	the	extent	that principal	is	deemed	to	be	uncollectable.	Impaired	collateral-dependent	loans	and leases,	where	repayment	is	expected	to	be	provided	solely	by	the	sale	of	the underlying	collateral	and	there	are	no	other	available	and	reliable	sources	of repayment,	are	written	down	to	the	lower	of	cost	or	collateral	value.	Cash-basis loans	are	returned	to	accrual	status	when	all	contractual	principal	and	interest amounts	are	reasonably	assured	of	repayment	and	there	is	a	sustained	period	of repayment	performance	in	accordance	with	the	contractual	terms.

# Loans	Held-for-Sale

Corporate	and	consumer	loans	that	have	been	identified	for	sale	are	classified	as loans	held-for-sale	and	included	in	Other	assets.	The	practice	of	Citi's	U.S.	prime mortgage	business	has	been	to	sell	substantially	all	of	its	conforming	loans.	As such,	U.S.	prime	mortgage	conforming	loans	are	classified	as	held-for-sale	and	the fair	value	option	is	elected	at	origination,	with	changes	in	fair	value	recorded	in Other	revenue.	With	the	exception	of	those	loans	for	which	the	fair	value	option has	been	elected,	held-for-sale	loans	are	accounted	for	at	the	lower	of	cost	or market	value,	with	any

write-downs	or	subsequent	recoveries	charged	to	Other	revenue.	The	related	cash flows	are	classified	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Cash	Flows	in	the	cash	flows from	operating	activities	category	on	the	line	Change	in	loans	held-for-sale.

Allowance	for	loan	losses	represents	management's	best	estimate	of	probable losses	inherent	in	the	portfolio,	including	probable	losses	related	to	large individually	evaluated	impaired	loans	and	troubled	debt	restructurings.	Attribution of	the	allowance	is	made	for	analytical	purposes	only,	and	the	entire	allowance	is available	to	absorb	probable	loan	losses	inherent	in	the	overall	portfolio.	Additions to	the	allowance	are	made	through	the	Provision	for	loan	losses.	Loan	losses	are deducted	from	the	allowance	and	subsequent	recoveries	are	added.	Assets	received in	exchange	for	loan	claims	in	a	restructuring	are	initially	recorded	at	fair	value, with	any	gain	or	loss	reflected	as	a	recovery	or	charge-off	to	the	provision.

For	consumer	loans,	each	portfolio	of	non-modified	smaller-balance,	homogeneous loans	is	independently	evaluated	for	impairment	by	product	type	(e.g.,	residential mortgage,	credit	card,	etc.)	in	accordance	with	ASC	450,	Contingencies.	The allowance	for	loan	losses	attributed	to	these	loans	is	established	via	a	process	that estimates	the	probable	losses	inherent	in	the	specific	portfolio.	This	process includes	migration	analysis,	in	which	historical	delinquency	and	credit	loss experience	is	applied	to	the	current	aging	of	the	portfolio,	together	with	analyses that	reflect	current	and	anticipated	economic	conditions,	including	changes	in housing	prices	and	unemployment	trends.	Citi's	allowance	for	loan	losses	under ASC	450	only	considers	contractual	principal	amounts	due,	except	for	credit	card loans	where	estimated	loss	amounts	related	to	accrued	interest	receivable	are	also included.

Management	also	considers	overall	portfolio	indicators,	including	historical credit	losses,	delinquent,	non-performing	and	classified	loans,	trends	in	volumes and	terms	of	loans,	an	evaluation	of	overall	credit	quality,	the	credit	process, including	lending	policies	and	procedures,	and	economic,	geographical,	product and	other	environmental	factors.

Separate	valuation	allowances	are	determined	for	impaired	smaller-balance homogeneous	loans	whose	terms	have	been	modified	in	a	troubled	debt restructuring	(TDR).	Long-term	modification	programs,	and	short-term	(less	than 12	months)	modifications	that	provide	concessions	(such	as	interest	rate reductions)	to	borrowers	in	financial	difficulty,	are	reported	as	TDRs.	In	addition, loan	modifications	that	involve	a	trial	period	are	reported	as	TDRs	at	the	start	of the	trial	period.	The	allowance	for	loan	losses	for	TDRs	is	determined	in accordance	with	ASC	310-10-35,	Receivables—Subsequent	Measurement (formerly	SFAS	114)	considering	all	available	evidence,	including,	as	appropriate, the	present	value	of	the	expected	future	cash	flows	discounted	at	the	loan's	original contractual	effective	rate,	the	secondary	market	value	of	the	loan	and	the	fair	value of

collateral	less	disposal	costs.	These	expected	cash	flows	incorporate	modification program	default	rate	assumptions.	The	original	contractual	effective	rate	for	credit card	loans	is	the	pre-modification	rate,	which	may	include	interest	rate	increases under	the	original	contractual	agreement	with	the	borrower.

Valuation	allowances	for	commercial	market	loans,	which	are	classifiably managed	Consumer	loans,	are	determined	in	the	same	manner	as	for	Corporate loans	and	are	described	in	more	detail	in	the	following	section.	Generally,	an	asset- specific	component	is	calculated	under	ASC	310-10-35	on	an	individual	basis	for larger-balance,	non-homogeneous	loans	that	are	considered	impaired	and	the allowance	for	the	remainder	of	the	classifiably	managed	Consumer	loan	portfolio is	calculated	under	ASC	450	using	a	statistical	methodology	that	may	be supplemented	by	management	adjustment.

In	the	corporate	portfolios,	the	Allowance	for	loan	losses	includes	an	asset-specific component	and	a	statistically	based	component.	The	asset-specific	component	is calculated	under	ASC	310-10-35,	on	an	individual	basis	for	larger-balance,	non- homogeneous	loans,	which	are	considered	impaired.	An	asset-specific	allowance	is established	when	the	discounted	cash	flows,	collateral	value	(less	disposal	costs)	or observable	market	price	of	the	impaired	loan	are	lower	than	its	carrying	value.	This allowance	considers	the	borrower's	overall	financial	condition,	resources,	and payment	record,	the	prospects	for	support	from	any	financially	responsible guarantors	(discussed	further	below)	and,	if	appropriate,	the	realizable	value	of	any collateral.	The	asset-specific	component	of	the	allowance	for	smaller	balance impaired	loans	is	calculated	on	a	pool	basis	considering	historical	loss	experience. The	allowance	for	the	remainder	of	the	loan	portfolio	is	determined	under ASC	450	using	a	statistical	methodology,	supplemented	by	management	judgment. The	statistical	analysis	considers	the	portfolio's	size,	remaining	tenor	and	credit quality	as	measured	by	internal	risk	ratings	assigned	to	individual	credit	facilities, which	reflect	probability	of	default	and	loss	given	default.	The	statistical	analysis considers	historical	default	rates	and	historical	loss	severity	in	the	event	of	default, including	historical	average	levels	and	historical	variability.	The	result	is	an estimated	range	for	inherent	losses.	The	best	estimate	within	the	range	is	then determined	by	management's	quantitative	and	qualitative	assessment	of	current conditions,	including	general	economic	conditions,	specific	industry	and geographic	trends,	and	internal	factors	including	portfolio	concentrations,	trends	in internal	credit	quality	indicators,	and	current	and	past	underwriting	standards. For	both	the	asset-specific	and	the	statistically	based	components	of	the Allowance	for	loan	losses,	management	may	incorporate	guarantor	support.	The financial	wherewithal	of	the	guarantor	is	evaluated,	as	applicable,	based	on	net worth,	cash	flow	statements	and	personal	or	company	financial	statements	which are	updated	and	reviewed	at	least	annually.	Citi	seeks	performance	on

guarantee	arrangements	in	the	normal	course	of	business.	Seeking	performance entails	obtaining	satisfactory	cooperation	from	the	guarantor	or	borrower	in	the specific	situation.	This	regular	cooperation	is	indicative	of	pursuit	and	successful enforcement	of	the	guarantee;	the	exposure	is	reduced	without	the	expense	and burden	of	pursuing	a	legal	remedy.	A	guarantor's	reputation	and	willingness	to work	with	Citigroup	is	evaluated	based	on	the	historical	experience	with	the guarantor	and	the	knowledge	of	the	marketplace.	In	the	rare	event	that	the guarantor	is	unwilling	or	unable	to	perform	or	facilitate	borrower	cooperation,	Citi pursues	a	legal	remedy;	however,	enforcing	a	guarantee	via	legal	action	against	the guarantor	is	not	the	primary	means	of	resolving	a	troubled	loan	situation	and	rarely occurs.	If	Citi	does	not	pursue	a	legal	remedy,	it	is	because	Citi	does	not	believe that	the	guarantor	has	the	financial	wherewithal	to	perform	regardless	of	legal action	or	because	there	are	legal	limitations	on	simultaneously	pursuing	guarantors and	foreclosure.	A	guarantor's	reputation	does	not	impact	Citi's	decision	or	ability to	seek	performance	under	the	guarantee.

In	cases	where	a	guarantee	is	a	factor	in	the	assessment	of	loan	losses,	it	is included	via	adjustment	to	the	loan's	internal	risk	rating,	which	in	turn	is	the	basis for	the	adjustment	to	the	statistically	based	component	of	the	Allowance	for	loan losses.	To	date,	it	is	only	in	rare	circumstances	that	an	impaired	commercial	loan	or commercial	real	estate	loan	is	carried	at	a	value	in	excess	of	the	appraised	value due	to	a	guarantee.

When	Citi's	monitoring	of	the	loan	indicates	that	the	guarantor's	wherewithal to	pay	is	uncertain	or	has	deteriorated,	there	is	either	no	change	in	the	risk	rating, because	the	guarantor's	credit	support	was	never	initially	factored	in,	or	the	risk rating	is	adjusted	to	reflect	that	uncertainty	or	deterioration.	Accordingly,	a guarantor's	ultimate	failure	to	perform	or	a	lack	of	legal	enforcement	of	the guarantee	does	not	materially	impact	the	allowance	for	loan	losses,	as	there	is typically	no	further	significant	adjustment	of	the	loan's	risk	rating	at	that	time. Where	Citi	is	not	seeking	performance	under	the	guarantee	contract,	it	provides	for loan	losses	as	if	the	loans	were	non-performing	and	not	guaranteed.

# Reserve	Estimates	and	Policies

Management	provides	reserves	for	an	estimate	of	probable	losses	inherent	in	the funded	loan	portfolio	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	in	the	form	of	an allowance	for	loan	losses.	These	reserves	are	established	in	accordance	with Citigroup's	credit	reserve	policies,	as	approved	by	the	Audit	Committee	of	the Citigroup	Board	of	Directors.	Citi's	Chief	Risk	Officer	and	Chief	Financial	Officer review	the	adequacy	of	the	credit	loss	reserves	each	quarter	with	representatives from	the	risk	management	and	finance	staffs	for	each	applicable	business	area. Applicable	business	areas	include	those	having	classifiably	managed	portfolios, where	internal	credit-risk	ratings	are	assigned	(primarily	ICG	and	GCB)	or modified	Consumer	loans,	where	concessions	were	granted	due	to	the	borrowers' financial	difficulties.

The	above-mentioned	representatives	for	these	business	areas	present recommended	reserve	balances	for	their	funded

and	unfunded	lending	portfolios	along	with	supporting	quantitative	and	qualitative data	discussed	below:

Estimated	probable	losses	for	non-performing,	non-homogeneous	exposures	within a	business	line's	classifiably	managed	portfolio	and	impaired	smaller-balance homogeneous	loans	whose	terms	have	been	modified	due	to	the	borrowers' financial	difficulties,	where	it	was	determined	that	a	concession	was	granted	to	the borrower.	Consideration	may	be	given	to	the	following,	as	appropriate,	when determining	this	estimate:	(i)	the	present	value	of	expected	future	cash	flows discounted	at	the	loan's	original	effective	rate;	(ii)	the	borrower's	overall	financial condition,	resources	and	payment	record;	and	(iii)	the	prospects	for	support	from financially	responsible	guarantors	or	the	realizable	value	of	any	collateral.	In	the determination	of	the	allowance	for	loan	losses	for	TDRs,	management	considers	a combination	of	historical	re-default	rates,	the	current	economic	environment	and the	nature	of	the	modification	program	when	forecasting	expected	cash	flows. When	impairment	is	measured	based	on	the	present	value	of	expected	future	cash flows,	the	entire	change	in	present	value	is	recorded	in	the	Provision	for	loan losses.

Statistically	calculated	losses	inherent	in	the	classifiably	managed	portfolio	for performing	and	de	minimis	non-performing	exposures.	The	calculation	is	based	on: (i)	Citi's	internal	system	of	credit-risk	ratings,	which	are	analogous	to	the	risk ratings	of	the	major	rating	agencies;	and	(ii)	historical	default	and	loss	data, including	rating	agency	information	regarding	default	rates	from	1983	to	2014	and internal	data	dating	to	the	early	1970s	on	severity	of	losses	in	the	event	of	default. Adjustments	may	be	made	to	this	data.	Such	adjustments	include:	(i)	statistically calculated	estimates	to	cover	the	historical	fluctuation	of	the	default	rates	over	the credit	cycle,	the	historical	variability	of	loss	severity	among	defaulted	loans,	and the	degree	to	which	there	are	large	obligor	concentrations	in	the	global	portfolio; and	(ii)	adjustments	made	for	specific	known	items,	such	as	current	environmental factors	and	credit	trends.

In	addition,	representatives	from	each	of	the	risk	management	and	finance staffs	that	cover	business	areas	with	delinquency-managed	portfolios	containing smaller-balance	homogeneous	loans	present	their	recommended	reserve	balances based	on	leading	credit	indicators,	including	loan	delinquencies	and	changes	in portfolio	size	as	well	as	economic	trends,	including	current	and	future	housing prices,	unemployment,	length	of	time	in	foreclosure,	costs	to	sell	and	GDP.	This methodology	is	applied	separately	for	each	individual	product	within	each geographic	region	in	which	these	portfolios	exist.

have	a	direct	impact	on	the	credit	costs	in	any	period	and	could	result	in	a	change in	the	allowance.

# Allowance	for	Unfunded	Lending	Commitments

A	similar	approach	to	the	allowance	for	loan	losses	is	used	for	calculating	a	reserve for	the	expected	losses	related	to	unfunded	lending	commitments	and	standby letters	of	credit.	This	reserve	is	classified	on	the	balance	sheet	in	Other	liabilities. Changes	to	the	allowance	for	unfunded	lending	commitments	are	recorded	in	the Provision	for	unfunded	lending	commitments.

# Mortgage	Servicing	Rights

Mortgage	servicing	rights	(MSRs)	are	recognized	as	intangible	assets	when purchased	or	when	the	Company	sells	or	securitizes	loans	acquired	through purchase	or	origination	and	retains	the	right	to	service	the	loans.	Mortgage servicing	rights	are	accounted	for	at	fair	value,	with	changes	in	value	recorded	in Other	revenue	in	the	Company's	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

Additional	information	on	the	Company's	MSRs	can	be	found	in	Note	22	to the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

Goodwill	represents	the	excess	of	acquisition	cost	over	the	fair	value	of	net	tangible and	intangible	assets	acquired.	Goodwill	is	subject	to	annual	impairment	testing and	between	annual	tests	if	an	event	occurs	or	circumstances	change	that	would more-likely-than-not	reduce	the	fair	value	of	a	reporting	unit	below	its	carrying amount.

Under	ASC	350,	Intangibles—Goodwill	and	Other,	the	Company	has	an option	to	assess	qualitative	factors	to	determine	if	it	is	necessary	to	perform	the goodwill	impairment	test.	If,	after	assessing	the	totality	of	events	or	circumstances, the	Company	determines	that	it	is	not	more-likely-than-not	that	the	fair	value	of	a reporting	unit	is	less	than	its	carrying	amount,	no	further	testing	is	necessary.	If, however,	the	Company	determines	that	it	is	more-likely-than	not	that	the	fair	value of	a	reporting	unit	is	less	than	its	carrying	amount,	then	the	Company	must perform	the	first	step	of	the	two-step	goodwill	impairment	test.

The	Company	has	an	unconditional	option	to	bypass	the	qualitative assessment	for	any	reporting	unit	in	any	reporting	period	and	proceed	directly	to the	first	step	of	the	goodwill	impairment	test.	Furthermore,	on	any	business dispositions,	goodwill	is	allocated	to	the	disposed	business	based	on	the	ratio	of	the fair	value	of	the	disposed	business	to	the	fair	value	of	the	reporting	unit.

The	first	step	requires	a	comparison	of	the	fair	value	of	the	individual	reporting unit	to	its	carrying	value,	including	goodwill.	If	the	fair	value	of	the	reporting	unit is	in	excess	of	the	carrying	value,	the	related	goodwill	is	considered	not	to	be impaired	and	no	further	analysis	is	necessary.	If	the	carrying	value	of	the	reporting unit	exceeds	the	fair	value,	this	is	an	indication	of	potential	impairment	and	a second	step	of	testing	is	performed	to	measure	the	amount	of	impairment,	if	any, for	that	reporting	unit.

If	required,	the	second	step	involves	calculating	the	implied	fair	value	of goodwill	for	each	of	the	affected

reporting	units.	The	implied	fair	value	of	goodwill	is	determined	in	the	same manner	as	the	amount	of	goodwill	recognized	in	a	business	combination,	which	is the	excess	of	the	fair	value	of	the	reporting	unit	determined	in	step	one	over	the	fair value	of	the	net	assets	and	identifiable	intangibles	as	if	the	reporting	unit	were being	acquired.	If	the	amount	of	the	goodwill	allocated	to	the	reporting	unit exceeds	the	implied	fair	value	of	the	goodwill	in	the	pro	forma	purchase	price allocation,	an	impairment	charge	is	recorded	for	the	excess.	A	recognized impairment	charge	cannot	exceed	the	amount	of	goodwill	allocated	to	a	reporting unit	and	cannot	subsequently	be	reversed	even	if	the	fair	value	of	the	reporting	unit recovers.

Additional	information	on	Citi's	goodwill	impairment	testing	can	be	found	in Note	17	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Intangible	Assets

Intangible	assets,	including	core	deposit	intangibles,	present	value	of	future	profits, purchased	credit	card	relationships,	other	customer	relationships,	and	other intangible	assets,	but	excluding	MSRs,	are	amortized	over	their	estimated	useful lives.	Intangible	assets	deemed	to	have	indefinite	useful	lives,	primarily	certain asset	management	contracts	and	trade	names,	are	not	amortized	and	are	subject	to annual	impairment	tests.	An	impairment	exists	if	the	carrying	value	of	the indefinite-lived	intangible	asset	exceeds	its	fair	value.	For	other	intangible	assets subject	to	amortization,	an	impairment	is	recognized	if	the	carrying	amount	is	not recoverable	and	exceeds	the	fair	value	of	the	intangible	asset.

Similar	to	the	goodwill	impairment	analysis,	in	performing	the	annual impairment	analysis	for	indefinite-lived	intangible	assets,	Citi	may	and	has	elected to	bypass	the	optional	qualitative	assessment,	choosing	instead	to	perform	a quantitative	analysis.

# Other	Assets	and	Other	Liabilities

Other	assets	include,	among	other	items,	loans	held-for-sale,	deferred	tax	assets, equity	method	investments,	interest	and	fees	receivable,	premises	and	equipment (including	purchased	and	developed	software),	repossessed	assets,	and	other receivables.	Other	liabilities	include,	among	other	items,	accrued	expenses	and other	payables,	deferred	tax	liabilities,	and	reserves	for	legal	claims,	taxes, unfunded	lending	commitments,	repositioning	reserves,	and	other	matters.

# Other	Real	Estate	Owned	and	Repossessed	Assets

Real	estate	or	other	assets	received	through	foreclosure	or	repossession	are generally	reported	in	Other	assets,	net	of	a	valuation	allowance	for	selling	costs and	subsequent	declines	in	fair	value.

# Securitizations

The	Company	primarily	securitizes	credit	card	receivables	and	mortgages.	Other types	of	securitized	assets	include	corporate	debt	instruments	(in	cash	and synthetic	form).

There	are	two	key	accounting	determinations	that	must	be	made	relating	to securitizations.	Citi	first	makes	a	determination	as	to	whether	the	securitization entity	must	be	consolidated.	Second,	it	determines	whether	the	transfer	of	financial assets	to	the	entity	is	considered	a	sale	under	GAAP.	If	the	securitization	entity	is	a VIE,	the	Company	consolidates	the	VIE	if	it	is	the	primary	beneficiary	(as discussed	in	"Variable	Interest	Entities"	above).	For	all	other	securitization	entities determined	not	to	be	VIEs	in	which	Citigroup	participates,	consolidation	is	based on	which	party	has	voting	control	of	the	entity,	giving	consideration	to	removal	and liquidation	rights	in	certain	partnership	structures.	Only	securitization	entities controlled	by	Citigroup	are	consolidated.

Interests	in	the	securitized	and	sold	assets	may	be	retained	in	the	form	of subordinated	or	senior	interest-only	strips,	subordinated	tranches,	spread	accounts and	servicing	rights.	In	credit	card	securitizations,	the	Company	retains	a	seller's interest	in	the	credit	card	receivables	transferred	to	the	trusts,	which	is	not	in securitized	form.	In	the	case	of	consolidated	securitization	entities,	including	the credit	card	trusts,	these	retained	interests	are	not	reported	on	Citi's	Consolidated Balance	Sheet.	The	securitized	loans	remain	on the	balance	sheet.	Substantially	all	of	the	Consumer	loans	sold	or	securitized through	non-consolidated	trusts	by	Citigroup	are	U.S.	prime	residential	mortgage loans.	Retained	interests	in	non-consolidated	mortgage	securitization	trusts	are classified	as	Trading	account	assets,	except	for	MSRs,	which	are	included	in Mortgage	servicing	rights	on	Citigroup's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

Short-term	borrowings	and	Long-term	debt	are	accounted	for	at	amortized	cost, except	where	the	Company	has	elected	to	report	the	debt	instruments,	including certain	structured	notes	at	fair	value,	or	the	debt	is	in	a	fair	value	hedging relationship.

# Transfers	of	Financial	Assets

For	a	transfer	of	financial	assets	to	be	considered	a	sale:	(i)	the	assets	must	have been	legally	isolated	from	the	Company,	even	in	bankruptcy	or	other	receivership; (ii)	the	purchaser	must	have	the	right	to	pledge	or	sell	the	assets	transferred	or,	if the	purchaser	is	an	entity	whose	sole	purpose	is	to	engage	in	securitization	and asset-backed	financing	activities	through	the	issuance	of	beneficial	interests	and that	entity	is	constrained	from	pledging	the	assets	it	receives,	each	beneficial interest	holder	must	have	the	right	to	sell	or	pledge	their	beneficial	interests;	and (iii)	the	Company	may	not	have	an	option	or	obligation	to	reacquire	the	assets. If	these	sale	requirements	are	met,	the	assets	are	removed	from	the	Company's Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.	If	the	conditions	for	sale	are	not	met,	the	transfer	is considered	to	be	a	secured	borrowing,	the	assets	remain	on

the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	and	the	sale	proceeds	are	recognized	as	the Company's	liability.	A	legal	opinion	on	a	sale	generally	is	obtained	for	complex transactions	or	where	the	Company	has	continuing	involvement	with	assets transferred	or	with	the	securitization	entity.	For	a	transfer	to	be	eligible	for	sale accounting,	those	opinions	must	state	that	the	asset	transfer	would	be	considered	a sale	and	that	the	assets	transferred	would	not	be	consolidated	with	the	Company's other	assets	in	the	event	of	the	Company's	insolvency.

For	a	transfer	of	a	portion	of	a	financial	asset	to	be	considered	a	sale,	the portion	transferred	must	meet	the	definition	of	a	participating	interest.	A participating	interest	must	represent	a	pro	rata	ownership	in	an	entire	financial asset;	all	cash	flows	must	be	divided	proportionately,	with	the	same	priority	of payment;	no	participating	interest	in	the	transferred	asset	may	be	subordinated	to the	interest	of	another	participating	interest	holder;	and	no	party	may	have	the	right to	pledge	or	exchange	the	entire	financial	asset	unless	all	participating	interest holders	agree.	Otherwise,	the	transfer	is	accounted	for	as	a	secured	borrowing. See	Note	22	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	further	discussion.

# Risk	Management	Activities—Derivatives	Used	for	Hedging	Purposes

The	Company	manages	its	exposures	to	market	rate	movements	outside	its	trading activities	by	modifying	the	asset	and	liability	mix,	either	directly	or	through	the	use of	derivative	financial	products,	including	interest-rate	swaps,	futures,	forwards, and	purchased	options,	as	well	as	foreign-exchange	contracts.	These	end-user derivatives	are	carried	at	fair	value	in	Other	assets,	Other	liabilities,	Trading account	assets	and	Trading	account	liabilities.

To	qualify	as	an	accounting	hedge	under	the	hedge	accounting	rules	(versus	an economic	hedge	where	hedge	accounting	is	not	sought),	a	derivative	must	be highly	effective	in	offsetting	the	risk	designated	as	being	hedged.	The	hedge relationship	must	be	formally	documented	at	inception,	detailing	the	particular	risk management	objective	and	strategy	for	the	hedge.	This	includes	the	item	and	risk being	hedged,	the	derivative	being	used	and	how	effectiveness	will	be	assessed	and ineffectiveness	measured.	The	effectiveness	of	these	hedging	relationships	is evaluated	both	on	a	retrospective	and	prospective	basis,	typically	using	quantitative measures	of	correlation	with	hedge	ineffectiveness	measured	and	recorded	in current	earnings.

If	a	hedge	relationship	is	not	highly	effective,	it	no	longer	qualifies	as	an accounting	hedge	and	hedge	accounting	may	not	be	applied.	Any	gains	or	losses attributable	to	the	derivatives,	as	well	as	subsequent	changes	in	fair	value,	are recognized	in	Other	revenue	or	Principal	transactions	with	no	offset	to	the	hedged item,	similar	to	trading	derivatives.

The	foregoing	criteria	are	applied	on	a	decentralized	basis,	consistent	with	the level	at	which	market	risk	is	managed,	but	are	subject	to	various	limits	and controls.	The	underlying	asset,	liability	or	forecasted	transaction	may	be	an individual	item	or	a	portfolio	of	similar	items.

For	fair	value	hedges,	in	which	derivatives	hedge	the	fair	value	of	assets	or liabilities,	changes	in	the	fair	value	of	derivatives	are	reflected	in	Other	revenue, together	with	changes	in	the	fair	value	of	the	hedged	item	related	to	the	hedged risk.	These	amounts	are	expected	to,	and	generally	do,	offset	each	other.	Any	net amount,	representing	hedge	ineffectiveness,	is	reflected	in	current	earnings. Citigroup's	fair	value	hedges	are	primarily	hedges	of	fixed-rate	long-term	debt	and available-for-sale	securities.

For	cash	flow	hedges,	in	which	derivatives	hedge	the	variability	of	cash	flows related	to	floating-	and	fixed-rate	assets,	liabilities	or	forecasted	transactions,	the accounting	treatment	depends	on	the	effectiveness	of	the	hedge.	To	the	extent	these derivatives	are	effective	in	offsetting	the	variability	of	the	hedged	cash	flows,	the effective	portion	of	the	changes	in	the	derivatives'	fair	values	will	not	be	included in	current	earnings,	but	is	reported	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income (loss).	These	changes	in	fair	value	will	be	included	in	earnings	of	future	periods when	the	hedged	cash	flows	impact	earnings.	To	the	extent	these	derivatives	are not	effective,	changes	in	their	fair	values	are	immediately	included	in	Other revenue.	Citigroup's	cash	flow	hedges	primarily	include	hedges	of	floating-rate debt	and	floating-rate	assets,	including	loans	and	securities purchased	under	agreements	to	resell,	as	well	as	rollovers	of	short-term	fixed-rate liabilities	and	floating-rate	liabilities	and	forecasted	debt	issuances.

For	net	investment	hedges	in	which	derivatives	hedge	the	foreign	currency exposure	of	a	net	investment	in	a	foreign	operation,	the	accounting	treatment	will similarly	depend	on	the	effectiveness	of	the	hedge.	The	effective	portion	of	the change	in	fair	value	of	the	derivative,	including	any	forward	premium	or	discount, is	reflected	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	as	part	of	the foreign	currency	translation	adjustment.

For	those	accounting	hedge	relationships	that	are	terminated	or	when	hedge designations	are	removed,	the	hedge	accounting	treatment	described	in	the paragraphs	above	is	no	longer	applied.	Instead,	the	end-user	derivative	is terminated	or	transferred	to	the	trading	account.	For	fair	value	hedges,	any	changes in	the	fair	value	of	the	hedged	item	remain	as	part	of	the	basis	of	the	asset	or liability	and	are	ultimately	reflected	as	an	element	of	the	yield.	For	cash	flow hedges,	any	changes	in	fair	value	of	the	end-user	derivative	remain	in	Accumulated other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	and	are	included	in	earnings	of	future	periods when	the	hedged	cash	flows	impact	earnings.	However,	if	it	becomes	probable	that some	or	all	of	the	hedged	forecasted	transactions	will	not	occur,	any	amounts	that remain	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	related	to	these transactions	are	immediately	reflected	in	Other	revenue.

End-user	derivatives	that	are	economic	hedges,	rather	than	qualifying	for hedge	accounting,	are	also	carried	at	fair	value,	with	changes	in	value	included	in Principal	transactions	or	Other	revenue.	Citigroup	often	uses	economic	hedges when	qualifying	for	hedge	accounting	would	be	too	complex	or	operationally burdensome.	Examples	are	hedges	of	the	credit	risk	component	of

commercial	loans	and	loan	commitments.	Citigroup	periodically	evaluates	its hedging	strategies	in	other	areas	and	may	designate	either	a	qualifying	hedge	or	an economic	hedge,	after	considering	the	relative	costs	and	benefits.	Economic hedges	are	also	employed	when	the	hedged	item	itself	is	marked	to	market	through current	earnings,	such	as	hedges	of	commitments	to	originate	one-to-four-family mortgage	loans	to	be	held	for	sale	and	MSRs.	See	Note	23	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements	for	a	further	discussion	of	the	Company's	hedging	and derivative	activities.

# Employee	Benefits	Expense

Employee	benefits	expense	includes	current	service	costs	of	pension	and	other postretirement	benefit	plans	(which	are	accrued	on	a	current	basis),	contributions and	unrestricted	awards	under	other	employee	plans,	the	amortization	of	restricted stock	awards	and	costs	of	other	employee	benefits.

For	its	most	significant	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans	(Significant Plans),	Citigroup	measures	and	discloses	plan	obligations,	plan	assets	and	periodic plan	expense	quarterly,	instead	of	annually.	The	effect	of	remeasuring	the Significant	Plan	obligations	and	assets	by	updating	plan	actuarial	assumptions	on	a quarterly	basis	is	reflected	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	and periodic	plan	expense.	All	other	plans	(All	Other	Plans)	are	remeasured	annually. See	Note	8	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Stock-Based	Compensation

The	Company	recognizes	compensation	expense	related	to	stock	and	option	awards over	the	requisite	service	period,	generally	based	on	the	instruments'	grant-date fair	value,	reduced	by	expected	forfeitures.	Compensation	cost	related	to	awards granted	to	employees	who	meet	certain	age	plus	years-of-service	requirements (retirement-eligible	employees)	is	accrued	in	the	year	prior	to	the	grant	date,	in	the same	manner	as	the	accrual	for	cash	incentive	compensation.	Certain	stock	awards with	performance	conditions	or	certain	clawback	provisions	are	subject	to	variable accounting,	pursuant	to	which	the	associated	compensation	expense	fluctuates	with changes	in	Citigroup's	stock	price.	See	Note	7	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements.

The	Company	is	subject	to	the	income	tax	laws	of	the	U.S.	and	its	states	and municipalities,	and	the	foreign	jurisdictions	in	which	it	operates.	These	tax	laws	are complex	and	subject	to	different	interpretations	by	the	taxpayer	and	the	relevant governmental	taxing	authorities.	In	establishing	a	provision	for	income	tax expense,	the	Company	must	make	judgments	and	interpretations	about	the application	of	these	inherently	complex	tax	laws.	The	Company	must	also	make estimates	about	when	in	the	future	certain	items	will	affect	taxable	income	in	the various	tax	jurisdictions,	both	domestic	and	foreign.

Disputes	over	interpretations	of	the	tax	laws	may	be	subject	to	review	and adjudication	by	the	court	systems	of

the	various	tax	jurisdictions	or	may	be	settled	with	the	taxing	authority	upon examination	or	audit.	The	Company	treats	interest	and	penalties	on	income	taxes	as a	component	of	Income	tax	expense.

Deferred	taxes	are	recorded	for	the	future	consequences	of	events	that	have been	recognized	for	financial	statements	or	tax	returns,	based	upon	enacted	tax laws	and	rates.	Deferred	tax	assets	are	recognized	subject	to	management's judgment	that	realization	is	more-likely-than-not.	FASB	Interpretation	No.	48, "Accounting	for	Uncertainty	in	Income	Taxes"	(FIN	48)	(now	incorporated	into ASC	740,	Income	Taxes),	sets	out	a	consistent	framework	to	determine	the appropriate	level	of	tax	reserves	to	maintain	for	uncertain	tax	positions.	This interpretation	uses	a	two-step	approach	wherein	a	tax	benefit	is	recognized	if	a position	is	more-likely-than-not	to	be	sustained.	The	amount	of	the	benefit	is	then measured	to	be	the	highest	tax	benefit	that	is	greater	than	50%	likely	to	be	realized. ASC	740	also	sets	out	disclosure	requirements	to	enhance	transparency	of	an entity's	tax	reserves.

See	Note	9	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	a	further	description of	the	Company's	tax	provision	and	related	income	tax	assets	and	liabilities.

# Commissions,	Underwriting	and	Principal	Transactions

Commissions	revenues	are	recognized	in	income	when	earned.	Underwriting revenues	are	recognized	in	income	typically	at	the	closing	of	the	transaction. Principal	transactions	revenues	are	recognized	in	income	on	a	trade-date	basis.	See Note	5	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	a	description	of	the Company's	revenue	recognition	policies	for	commissions	and	fees,	and	Note	6	to the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	details	of	principal	transactions	revenue.

# Earnings	per	Share

Earnings	per	share	(EPS)	is	computed	after	deducting	preferred	stock	dividends. The	Company	has	granted	restricted	and	deferred	share	awards	with	dividend rights	that	are	considered	to	be	participating	securities,	which	are	akin	to	a	second class	of	common	stock.	Accordingly,	a	portion	of	Citigroup's	earnings	is	allocated to	those	participating	securities	in	the	EPS	calculation.

Basic	earnings	per	share	is	computed	by	dividing	income	available	to common	stockholders	after	the	allocation	of	dividends	and	undistributed	earnings to	the	participating	securities	by	the	weighted	average	number	of	common	shares outstanding	for	the	period.	Diluted	earnings	per	share	reflects	the	potential	dilution that	could	occur	if	securities	or	other	contracts	to	issue	common	stock	were exercised.	It	is	computed	after	giving	consideration	to	the	weighted	average dilutive	effect	of	the	Company's	stock	options	and	warrants	and	convertible securities	and	after	the	allocation	of	earnings	to	the	participating	securities.

# Use	of	Estimates

Management	must	make	estimates	and	assumptions	that	affect	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements	and	the	related	Notes	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements.	Such

estimates	are	used	in	connection	with	certain	fair	value	measurements.	See	Note	25 to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	further	discussions	on	estimates	used in	the	determination	of	fair	value.	Moreover,	estimates	are	significant	in determining	the	amounts	of	other-than-temporary	impairments,	impairments	of goodwill	and	other	intangible	assets,	provisions	for	probable	losses	that	may	arise from	credit-related	exposures	and	probable	and	estimable	losses	related	to	litigation and	regulatory	proceedings,	and	tax	reserves.	While	management	makes	its	best judgment,	actual	amounts	or	results	could	differ	from	those	estimates.	Current market	conditions	increase	the	risk	and	complexity	of	the	judgments	in	these estimates.

# Cash	Flows

Cash	equivalents	are	defined	as	those	amounts	included	in	Cash	and	due	from banks.	Cash	flows	from	risk	management	activities	are	classified	in	the	same category	as	the	related	assets	and	liabilities.

# Related	Party	Transactions

The	Company	has	related	party	transactions	with	certain	of	its	subsidiaries	and affiliates.	These	transactions,	which	are	primarily	short-term	in	nature,	include cash	accounts,	collateralized	financing	transactions,	margin	accounts,	derivative transactions,	charges	for	operational	support	and	the	borrowing	and	lending	of funds,	and	are	entered	into	in	the	ordinary	course	of	business.

# ACCOUNTING	CHANGES

# Debt	Issuance	Costs

In	April	2015,	the	FASB	issued	Accounting	Standards	Update	(ASU)	2015-03,

Interest—Imputation	of	Interest	(Subtopic	835-30):	Simplifying	the	Presentation	of Debt	Issuance	Costs,	to	conform	the	presentation	of	debt	issuance	costs	to	that	of debt	discounts	and	premiums.	Thus,	the	ASU	requires	that	debt	issuance	costs related	to	a	recognized	debt	liability	be	presented	in	the	balance	sheet	as	a	direct deduction	from	the	carrying	amount	of	that	debt	liability.	The	guidance	is	effective beginning	on	January	1,	2016;	however,	Citi	elected	to	early	adopt	the	ASU	on July	1,	2015	which	resulted	in	an	approximately	$150	million	reclassification	from Other	assets	to	Long-term	debt.	The	retrospective	application	was	deemed immaterial	and,	as	such,	prior	periods	were	not	restated.

# Accounting	for	Investments	in	Tax	Credit	Partnerships

In	January	2014,	the	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2014-01,	Investments—Equity	Method and	Joint	Ventures	(Topic	323):	Accounting	for	Investments	in	Qualified

Affordable	Housing	Projects.	Any	transition	adjustment	is	reflected	as	an adjustment	to	retained	earnings	in	the	earliest	period	presented	(retrospective application).

The	ASU	is	applicable	to	Citi's	portfolio	of	low	income	housing	tax	credit (LIHTC)	partnership	interests.	The	new	standard	widens	the	scope	of	investments eligible	to	elect	to	apply	a	new	alternative	method,	the	proportional	amortization method,	under	which	the	cost	of	the	investment

is	amortized	to	tax	expense	in	proportion	to	the	amount	of	tax	credits	and	other	tax benefits	received.	Citi	qualifies	to	elect	the	proportional	amortization	method under	the	ASU	for	its	entire	LIHTC	portfolio.	These	investments	were	previously accounted	for	under	the	equity	method,	which	resulted	in	losses	(due	to amortization	of	the	investment)	being	recognized	in	Other	revenue	and	tax	credits and	benefits	being	recognized	in	the	Income	tax	expense	line.	In	contrast,	the proportional	amortization	method	combines	the	amortization	of	the	investment	and receipt	of	the	tax	credits/benefits	into	one	line,	Income	tax	expense. Citi	adopted	ASU	2014-01	in	the	first	quarter	of	2015. The	adoption	of	this	ASU	was	applied	retrospectively	and	cumulatively	reduced Retained	earnings	by	approximately	$349	million,	Other	assets	by	approximately $178	million,	and	deferred	tax	assets	by	approximately	$171	million.

# Accounting	for	Repurchase-to-Maturity	Transactions

In	June	2014,	the	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2014-11,	Transfers	and	Servicing	(Topic 860):	Repurchase-to-Maturity	Transactions,	Repurchase	Financings,	and Disclosures.	The	ASU	changes	the	accounting	for	repurchase-to-maturity transactions	and	linked	repurchase	financings	to	secured	borrowing	accounting, which	is	consistent	with	the	accounting	for	other	repurchase	agreements.	The	ASU also	requires	disclosures	about	transfers	accounted	for	as	sales	in	transactions	that are	economically	similar	to	repurchase	agreements	(see	Note	23	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements)	and	about	the	types	of	collateral	pledged	in repurchase	agreements	and	similar	transactions	accounted	for	as	secured borrowings	(see	Note	11	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements).	The	ASU's provisions	became	effective	for	Citi	in	the	first	quarter	of	2015,	with	the	exception of	the	collateral	disclosures	which	became	effective	in	the	second	quarter	of	2015. The	effect	of	adopting	the	ASU	is	required	to	be	reflected	as	a	cumulative	effect adjustment	to	retained	earnings	as	of	the	beginning	of	the	period	of	adoption. Adoption	of	the	ASU	did	not	have	a	material	effect	on	the	Company's	financial statements.

# Disclosures	for	Investments	in	Certain	Entities	That	Calculate	Net	Asset

# Value	(NAV)	per	Share

In	May	2015,	the	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2015-07,	Fair	Value	Measurement	(Topic 820):	Disclosures	for	Investments	in	Certain	Entities	That	Calculate	Net	Asset Value	per	Share	(or	Its	Equivalent),	which	is	intended	to	reduce	diversity	in practice	related	to	the	categorization	of	investments	measured	at	NAV	within	the fair	value	hierarchy.	The	ASU	removes	the	current	requirement	to	categorize investments	for	which	fair	value	is	measured	using	the	NAV	per	share	practical expedient	within	the	fair	value	hierarchy.	Citi	elected	to	early	adopt	the	ASU	in	the second	quarter	of	2015.	The	adoption	of	the	ASU	was	applied	retrospectively	and reduced	Level	3	assets	by	$1.0	billion	and	$1.1	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015 and	December	31,	2014,	respectively.

# Discontinued	Operations	and	Significant	Disposals

The	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2014-08,	Presentation	of	Financial	Statements	(Topic 810)	and	Property,	Plant,	and	Equipment	(Topic	360),	Reporting	Discontinued Operations	and	Disclosures	of	Disposals	of	Components	of	an	Entity	(ASU	2014- 08)	in	April	2014.	ASU	2014-08	changes	the	criteria	for	reporting	discontinued operations	while	enhancing	disclosures.	Under	the	ASU,	only	disposals representing	a	strategic	shift	having	a	major	effect	on	an	entity's	operations	and financial	results,	such	as	a	disposal	of	a	major	geographic	area,	a	major	line	of business	or	a	major	equity	method	investment,	may	be	presented	as	discontinued operations.	Additionally,	the	ASU	requires	expanded	disclosures	about discontinued	operations	that	will	provide	more	information	about	the	assets, liabilities,	income	and	expenses	of	discontinued	operations.

The	Company	early-adopted	the	ASU	in	the	second	quarter	of	2014	on	a prospective	basis	for	all	disposals	(or	classifications	as	held-for-sale)	of components	of	an	entity	that	occurred	on	or	after	April	1,	2014.	As	a	result	of	the adoption	of	the	ASU,	fewer	disposals	will	now	qualify	for	reporting	as discontinued	operations;	however,	disclosure	of	the	pretax	income	attributable	to	a disposal	of	a	significant	part	of	an	organization	that	does	not	qualify	for discontinued	operations	reporting	is	required.	The	impact	of	adopting	the	ASU	was not	material.

# Classification	of	Certain	Government-Guaranteed	Mortgage	Loans	upon Foreclosure

In	August	2014,	the	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2014-14,	Receivables-Troubled	Debt Restructuring	by	Creditors	(Subtopic	310-40):	Classification	of	Certain Government-Guaranteed	Mortgage	Loans	upon	Foreclosure,	which	requires	that	a mortgage	loan	be	derecognized	and	a	separate	other	receivable	be	recognized	upon foreclosure	if	the	following	conditions	are	met:	(i)	the	loan	has	a	government guarantee	that	is	not	separable	from	the	loan	before	foreclosure;	(ii)	at	the	time	of foreclosure,	the	creditor	has	the	intent	to	convey	the	real	estate	property	to	the guarantor	and	make	a	claim	on	the	guarantee,	and	the	creditor	has	the	ability	to recover	under	that	claim;	and	(iii)	at	the	time	of	foreclosure,	any	amount	of	the claim	that	is	determined	on	the	basis	of	the	fair	value	of	the	real	estate	is	fixed. Upon	foreclosure,	the	separate	other	receivable	is	measured	based	on	the	amount of	the	loan	balance	(principal	and	interest)	expected	to	be	recovered	from	the guarantor.

Citi	early	adopted	the	ASU	on	a	modified	retrospective	basis	in	the	fourth quarter	of	2014,	which	resulted	in	reclassifying	approximately	$130	million	of foreclosed	assets	from	Other	Real	Estate	Owned	to	a	separate	other	receivable	that is	included	in	Other	assets.	Given	the	modified	retrospective	approach	to	adoption, prior	periods	have	not	been	restated.

# FUTURE	APPLICATION	OF	ACCOUNTING	STANDARDS

# Recognition	and	Measurement	of	Financial	Assets	and	Financial	Liabilities

In	January	2016,	the	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2016-01,	Financial	Instruments— Overall	(Subtopic	825-10):	Recognition	and	Measurement	of	Financial	Assets	and Financial	Liabilities,	which	addresses	certain	aspects	of	recognition,	measurement, presentation,	and	disclosure	of	financial	instruments.

This	ASU	will	require	entities	to	present	separately	in	OCI	the	portion	of	the total	change	in	the	fair	value	of	a	liability	resulting	from	a	change	in	the instrument-specific	credit	risk	(DVA)	when	the	entity	has	elected	to	measure	the liability	at	fair	value	in	accordance	with	the	fair	value	option	for	financial instruments.	It	will	also	require	equity	investments	(except	those	accounted	for under	the	equity	method	of	accounting	or	those	that	result	in	consolidation	of	the investee)	to	be	measured	at	fair	value	with	changes	in	fair	value	recognized	in	net income,	thus	eliminating	eligibility	for	the	current	available-for-sale	category. However,	Federal	Reserve	Bank	and	Federal	Home	Loan	Bank	stock	as	well	as exchange	seats	will	continue	to	be	presented	at	cost.	As	a	practical	expedient,	an entity	may	choose	to	measure	equity	investments	that	do	not	have	readily determinable	fair	values	at	cost	minus	impairment,	if	any,	plus	or	minus	changes resulting	from	observable	price	changes	in	orderly	transactions	for	the	identical	or a	similar	investment	of	the	same	issuer.

The	guidance	is	effective	beginning	on	January	1,	2018;	however,	early adoption	is	permitted	only	for	the	amendment	in	the	ASU	related	to	presentation	of DVA	for	financial	liabilities	measured	under	the	fair	value	option.	Citi	expects	to early	adopt	this	amendment	as	of	January	1,	2016.	The	impact	of	adopting	this amendment	is	not	expected	to	be	material	to	Citi's	balance	sheet	at	January	1, 2016;	however,	in	subsequent	periods	the	changes	in	DVA	are	dependent	on changes	in	Citi's	credit	spreads	and	could	be	material	in	any	given	period.

# Consolidation

In	February	2015,	the	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2015-02,	Consolidation	(Topic	810): Amendments	to	the	Consolidation	Analysis,	which	intended	to	improve	certain areas	of	consolidation	guidance	for	legal	entities	such	as	limited	partnerships, limited	liability	companies,	and	securitization	structures.	The	ASU	reduced	the number	of	consolidation	models	and	became	effective	on	January	1,	2016. Adoption	of	ASU	2015-02	did	not	have	a	material	impact	on	the	Company's Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Revenue	Recognition

In	May	2014,	the	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2014-09,	Revenue	from	Contracts	with Customers,	which	requires	an	entity	to	recognize	the	amount	of	revenue	to	which	it expects	to	be	entitled	for	the	transfer	of	promised	goods	or	services	to	customers. The	ASU	will	replace	most	existing	revenue

recognition	guidance	in	GAAP	when	it	becomes	effective	on	January	1,	2018. Early	application	is	permitted	for	annual	periods	beginning	after	December	15, 2016;	however,	the	Company	does	not	expect	to	early	adopt.	The	ASU	is	not applicable	to	financial	instruments	and,	therefore,	is	not	expected	to	impact	a majority	of	the	Company's	revenue,	including	net	interest	income.	The	Company	is evaluating	the	effect	that	ASU	2014-09	will	have	on	its	consolidated	financial statements	and	related	disclosures.

# Accounting	for	Financial	Instruments—Credit	Losses

In	December	2012,	the	FASB	issued	a	proposed	ASU,	Financial	Instruments— Credit	Losses.	This	proposed	ASU,	or	exposure	draft,	was	issued	for	public comment	in	order	to	allow	stakeholders	the	opportunity	to	review	the	proposal	and provide	comments	to	the	FASB	and	does	not	constitute	accounting	guidance	until	a final	ASU	is	issued.

The	exposure	draft	contains	proposed	guidance	developed	by	the	FASB	with the	goal	of	improving	financial	reporting	about	expected	credit	losses	on	loans, securities	and	other	financial	assets	held	by	financial	institutions	and	other organizations.	The	exposure	draft	proposes	a	new	accounting	model	intended	to require	earlier	recognition	of	credit	losses,	while	also	providing	additional transparency	about	credit	risk.

The	FASB's	proposed	model	would	utilize	an	"expected	credit	loss" measurement	objective	for	the	recognition	of	credit	losses	for	loans,	held-to- maturity	securities	and	other	receivables	at	the	time	the	financial	asset	is	originated or	acquired	and	adjusted	each	period	for	changes	in	expected	credit	losses.	For available-for-sale	securities	where	fair	value	is	less	than	cost,	credit-related impairment	would	be	recognized	in	an	allowance	for	credit	losses	and	adjusted each	period	for	changes	in	credit	risk.	This	would	replace	the	multiple	existing impairment	models	in	GAAP,	which	generally	require	that	a	loss	be	incurred before	it	is	recognized.

The	FASB's	proposed	model	represents	a	significant	departure	from	existing GAAP,	and	may	result	in	material	changes	to	the	Company's	accounting	for financial	instruments.	The	impact	of	the	FASB's	final	ASU	on	the	Company's financial	statements	will	be	assessed	when	it	is	issued.	The	Company	expects	that the	final	ASU	will	be	effective	for	Citi	as	of	January	1,	2019.

# Lease	Accounting

In	February	2016,	the	FASB	issued	ASU	No.	2016-02,	Leases	(Topic	842),	which is	intended	to	increase	transparency	and	comparability	of	accounting	for	lease transactions.	The	ASU	will	require	all	leases	to	be	recognized	on	the	balance	sheet as	lease	assets	and	lease	liabilities	and	will	require	both	quantitative	and	qualitative disclosures	regarding	key	information	about	leasing	arrangements.	Lessor accounting	is	largely	unchanged.	The	guidance	is	effective	beginning	January	1, 2019	with	an	option	to	early	adopt.	The	Company	is	evaluating	whether	to	early adopt	and	the	effect	that	ASU	2016-02	will	have	on	its	consolidated	financial statements,	regulatory	capital	and	related	disclosures.

# Discontinued	Operations

The	following	Discontinued	operations	are	recorded	within	the	Corporate/Other segment.

# Sale	of	Brazil	Credicard	Business

Citi	sold	its	non-Citibank-branded	cards	and	consumer	finance	business	in	Brazil (Credicard)	in	2013	and	reported	it	as	Discontinued	operations.	Residual	costs	and resolution	of	certain	contingencies	from	the	disposal	resulted	in	income	from Discontinued	operations,	net	of	taxes,	of	$6	million	and	$52	million	for	2015	and 2014,	respectively.

# Sale	of	Certain	Citi	Capital	Advisors	Business

Citi	sold	its	liquid	strategies	business	within	Citi	Capital	Advisors	(CCA)	pursuant to	two	separate	transactions	in	2013	and	reported	them	as	Discontinued	operations. Residual	costs	from	the	disposals	resulted	in	income	and	losses	from	Discontinued operations,	net	of	taxes,	of	$1	million	and	$4	million	for	2015	and	2014, respectively.

# Sale	of	Egg	Banking	plc	Credit	Card	Business

Citi	completed	the	sale	of	the	Egg	Banking	plc	(Egg)	credit	card	business	in	2011 and	reported	it	as	Discontinued	operations.	Residual	costs	from	the	disposal resulted	in	losses	from	Discontinued	operations,	net	of	taxes,	of	$61	million	and $30	million	for	2015	and	2014,	respectively.

# Audit	of	Citi	German	Consumer	Tax	Group

Citi	completed	the	sale	of	its	German	retail	banking	operations	in	2008	and reported	them	as	Discontinued	operations.	During	2014,	residual	costs	from	the disposal	resulted	in	a	tax	expense	of	$20	million.

# Combined	Results	for	Discontinued	Operations

The	following	is	summarized	financial	information	for	Credicard,	CCA,	Egg	and previous	Discontinued	operations	for	which	Citi	continues	to	have	minimal residual	costs	associated	with	the	sales:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense(1) | $— | $74 | $1,086 |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations | $(83) | $10 | $(242) |
| Gain\ton\tsale | — | — | 268 |
| Provision\t(benefit)\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | (29) | 12 | (244) |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\nof\ttaxes | $(54) | $(2) | $270 |

# (1)	Total	revenues	include	gain	or	loss	on	sale,	if	applicable.

Cash	flows	for	the	Discontinued	operations	were	not	material	for	all	periods presented.

# Significant	Disposals

The	following	sales	completed	during	2015	and	2014	were	identified	as	significant disposals.	The	major	classes	of	assets	and	liabilities	derecognized	from	the Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	at	closing	and	the	income	(loss)	before	taxes	related	to each	business	until	the	disposal	date	are	presented	below.

# Sale	of	OneMain	Financial	Business

On	November	15,	2015,	Citi	sold	its	OneMain	Financial	business,	which	was	part of	Citi	Holdings,	including	1,100	retail	branches,	5,500	employees,	and approximately	1.3	million	customer	accounts.	One	Main	Financial	had approximately	$10.2	billion	of	assets,	including	$7.8	billion	of	loans	(net	of allowance),	and	$1.4	billion	of	available-for-sale	securities.	The	total	amount	of liabilities	sold	was	$8.4	billion,	including	$6.2	billion	of	long-term	debt,	and	$1.1 billion	of	short-term	borrowings.	The	transaction	generated	a	pre-tax	gain	on	sale of	$2.6	billion,	recorded	in	Other	revenue	($1.6	billion	after-tax).	However,	when combined	with	the	loss	on	redemption	of	certain	long-term	debt	supporting remaining	Citi	Holdings'	assets,	the	resulting	net	after-tax	gain	was	$0.8	billion.

Income	before	taxes,	excluding	the	pretax	gain	on	sale	and	loss	on	redemption of	debt,	is	as	follows:

# Sale	of	Japan	Cards	Business

On	December	14,	2015,	Citi	sold	its	Japan	cards	business,	which	was	part	of	Citi Holdings,	including	$1,350	million	of	consumer	loans	(net	of	allowance), approximately	720,000	customer	accounts	and	840	employees.	The	transaction generated	a	pretax	gain	on	sale	of	$180	million,	recorded	in	Other	revenue	($155 million	after-tax).	Income	(loss)	before	taxes,	excluding	the	pretax	gain	on	sale,	is as	follows:

# Sale	of	Japan	Retail	Banking	Business

On	November	1,	2015,	Citi	sold	its	Japan	retail	banking	business,	which	was	part of	Citi	Holdings,	including	$563	million	of	consumer	loans	(net	of	allowance),	$20 billion	of	deposits,	approximately	725,000	customer	accounts,	1,600	employees and	32	branches.	The	transaction	generated	a	pretax	gain	on	sale	of	$446	million, recorded	in	Other	revenue	($276	million	after-tax).	Income	(loss)	before	taxes (benefits),	excluding	the	pretax	gain	on	sale,	is	as	follows:

# Sale	of	Spain	Consumer	Operations

On	September	22,	2014,	Citi	sold	its	consumer	operations	in	Spain,	which	were part	of	Citi	Holdings,	including	$1.7	billion	of	consumer	loans	(net	of	allowance), $3.4	billion	of	assets	under	management,	$2.2	billion	of	customer	deposits,	45 branches,	48	ATMs	and	938	employees,	with	the	buyer	assuming	the	related current	pension	commitments	at	closing.	The	transaction	generated	a	pretax	gain on	sale	of	$243	million,	recorded	in	Other	revenue	($131	million	after-tax).	Income before	taxes,	excluding	the	pretax	gain	on	sale,	is	as	follows:

# Sale	of	Greece	Consumer	Operations

On	September	30,	2014,	Citi	sold	its	consumer	operations	in	Greece,	which	were part	of	Citi	Holdings,	including	$353	million	of	consumer	loans	(net	of	allowance), $1.1	billion	of	assets	under	management,	$1.2	billion	of	customer	deposits,	20 branches,	85	ATMs	and	719	employees,	with	the	buyer	assuming	certain	limited pension	obligations	related	to	Diners'	Club's	employees	at	closing.	The	transaction generated	a	pretax	gain	on	sale	of	$209	million,	recorded	in	Other	revenue	($91 million	after-tax).	Income	(loss)	before	taxes,	excluding	the	pretax	gain	on	sale,	is as	follows:

# 3.	BUSINESS	SEGMENTS

Citigroup's	activities	are	conducted	through	the	GCB,	ICG,	Corporate/Other	and Citi	Holdings	business	segments.

GCB	includes	a	global,	full-service	consumer	franchise	delivering	a	wide array	of	banking,	including	commercial	banking,	credit	card	lending	and investment	services	through	a	network	of	local	branches,	offices	and	electronic delivery	systems	and	is	composed	of	four	GCB	businesses:	North	America,	EMEA,

# Latin	America	and	Asia.

ICG	is	composed	of	Banking	and	Markets	and	securities	services	and	provides corporate,	institutional,	public	sector	and	high-net-worth	clients	in	approximately 100	countries	with	a	broad	range	of	banking	and	financial	products	and	services. Corporate/Other	includes	certain	unallocated	costs	of	global	functions,	other corporate	expenses	and	net	treasury	results,	unallocated	corporate	expenses,	offsets to	certain	line-item	reclassifications	and	eliminations,	the	results	of	discontinued operations	and	unallocated	taxes.

Citi	Holdings	is	composed	of	businesses	and	portfolios	of	assets	that	Citigroup has	determined	are	not	central	to	its	core	Citicorp	businesses.

The	accounting	policies	of	these	reportable	segments	are	the	same	as	those disclosed	in	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

The	prior-period	balances	reflect	reclassifications	to	conform	the	presentation for	all	periods	to	the	current	period's	presentation.	Effective	January	1,	2015, financial	data	was	reclassified	from	Citicorp	to	Citi	Holdings	for	the	consumer businesses	in	11	markets	and	the	consumer	finance	business	in	Korea	in	GCB	and certain	businesses	in	ICG	that	Citi	had	plans	to	exit,	changes	in	Citi's	charge-out	of certain	assets	and	non-interest	revenues	from	the	Corporate/Other	segment	to Citi's	businesses,	changes	in	charge-outs	of	certain	administrative,	operations	and technology	costs	among	Citi's	businesses,	the	re-attribution	of	regional	results within	ICG	and	certain	other	immaterial	reclassifications.	Citi's	consolidated results	remained	unchanged	for	all	periods	presented	as	a	result	of	the	changes discussed	above.

In	addition,	as	discussed	in	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements, Citi	adopted	ASU	2014-01	in	the	first	quarter	of	2015.	The	ASU	is	applicable	to Citi's	portfolio	of	low	income	housing	tax	credit	partnership	interests.	Citi's disclosures	reflect	the	retrospective	application	of	the	ASU	and	impacts	Citi's consolidated	assets,	revenues,	provision	for	income	taxes	and	net	income	for	all periods	presented.

The	following	table	presents	certain	information	regarding	the	Company's continuing	operations	by	segment:

| identifiable	assets	in	billions | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Global\tConsumer\tBanking | $33,862 | $36,017 | $36,305 | $3,393 | $3,414 | $3,361 | $6,382 | $6,819 | $6,576 | $394 | $406 |
| Institutional\tClients\tGroup | 33,748 | 33,052 | 33,322 | 4,383 | 4,070 | 4,174 | 9,451 | 9,534 | 9,425 | 1,211 | 1,257 |
| Corporate/Other | 907 | 301 | 322 | (1,339) | (344) | (216) | 495 | (5,375) | (514) | 52 | 50 |
| Total\tCiticorp | $68,517 | $69,370 | $69,949 | $6,437 | $7,140 | $7,319 | $16,328 | $10,978 | $15,487 | $1,657 | $1,713 |
| Citi\tHoldings | 7,837 | 7,849 | 6,775 | 1,003 | 57 | (1,133) | 1,058 | (3,474) | (1,871) | 74 | 129 |
| Total | $76,354 | $77,219 | $76,724 | $7,440 | $7,197 | $6,186 | $17,386 | $7,504 | $13,616 | $1,731 | $1,842 |

(2) Includes	pretax	provisions	for	credit	losses	and	for	benefits	and	claims	in	the	 GCB	results	of	$5.8	billion,	$5.8	billion	and	$6.6	billion;	in	the	ICG	results	of	$929	million,	$57	million	and	$78	million; and	in	Citi	Holdings	results	of	$1.2	billion,	$1.6	billion	and	$1.9	billion	in	2015,	2014	and	2013,	respectively.

# 4.		INTEREST	REVENUE	AND	EXPENSE

Interest	revenue	and	Interest	expense	consisted	of	the	following:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Interest\trevenue |  |  |  |
| Loan\tinterest,\tincluding\tfees | $40,510 | $44,776 | $45,580 |
| Deposits\twith\tbanks | 727 | 959 | 1,026 |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | 2,516 | 2,366 | 2,566 |
| Investments,\tincluding\tdividends | 7,017 | 7,195 | 6,919 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets(1) | 5,942 | 5,880 | 6,277 |
| Other\tinterest(2) | 1,839 | 507 | 602 |
| Total\tinterest\trevenue | $58,551 | $61,683 | $62,970 |
| Interest\texpense |  |  |  |
| Deposits(3) | $5,052 | $5,692 | $6,236 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase | 1,614 | 1,895 | 2,339 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities(1) | 216 | 168 | 169 |
| Short-term\tborrowings | 522 | 580 | 597 |
| Long-term\tdebt | 4,517 | 5,355 | 6,836 |
| Total\tinterest\texpense | $11,921 | $13,690 | $16,177 |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $46,630 | $47,993 | $46,793 |
| Provision\tfor\tloan\tlosses | 7,108 | 6,828 | 7,604 |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue\tafter\tprovision\tfor\tloan\tlosses | $39,522 | $41,165 | $39,189 |

(1) Interest	expense	on	Trading	account	liabilities	of	ICG	is	reported	as	a	reduction	of	interest	revenue	from	 Trading	account	assets.

(2) During	2015,	interest	earned	related	to	assets	of	significant	disposals	(primarily	OneMain	Financial)	were	reclassified	into	 Other	interest.

# 5.		COMMISSIONS	AND	FEES

The	primary	components	of	Commissions	and	fees	revenue	are	investment	banking fees,	trading-related	fees,	credit	card	and	bank	card	fees	and	fees	related	to	trade and	securities	services	in	ICG.

Investment	banking	fees	are	substantially	composed	of	underwriting	and advisory	revenues	and	are	recognized	when	Citigroup's	performance	under	the terms	of	a	contractual	arrangement	is	completed,	which	is	typically	at	the	closing of	the	transaction.	Underwriting	revenue	is	recorded	in	Commissions	and	fees,	net of	both	reimbursable	and	non-reimbursable	expenses,	consistent	with	the	AICPA Audit	and	Accounting	Guide	for	Brokers	and	Dealers	in	Securities	(codified	in ASC	940-605-05-1).	Expenses	associated	with	advisory	transactions	are	recorded in	Other	operating	expenses,	net	of	client	reimbursements.	Out-of-pocket	expenses are	deferred	and	recognized	at	the	time	the	related	revenue	is	recognized.	In general,	expenses	incurred	related	to	investment	banking	transactions	that	fail	to close	(are	not	consummated)	are	recorded	gross	in	Other	operating	expenses.

Trading-related	fees	primarily	include	commissions	and	fees	from	the following:	executing	transactions	for	clients	on	exchanges	and	over-the-counter markets;	sale	of	mutual	funds,	insurance	and	other	annuity	products;	and	assisting clients	in	clearing	transactions,	providing	brokerage	services	and	other	such activities.	Trading-related	fees	are	recognized	when	earned	in	Commissions	and fees.	Gains	or	losses,	if	any,	on	these	transactions	are	included	in	Principal transactions	(see	Note	6	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements).

Credit	card	and	bank	card	fees	are	primarily	composed	of	interchange	revenue and	certain	card	fees,	including	annual	fees,	reduced	by	reward	program	costs	and certain	partner	payments.	Interchange	revenue	and	fees	are	recognized	when earned.	Annual	card	fees	are	deferred	and	amortized	on	a	straight-line	basis	over	a 12-month	period.	Reward	costs	are	recognized	when	points	are	earned	by	the customers.	The	following	table	presents	Commissions	and	fees	revenue:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Investment\tbanking | $3,423 | $3,687 | $3,315 |
| Trading-related | 2,345 | 2,503 | 2,563 |
| Credit\tcards\tand\tbank\tcards | 1,786 | 2,227 | 2,472 |
| Trade\tand\tsecurities\tservices | 1,735 | 1,871 | 1,847 |
| Other\tconsumer(1) | 685 | 885 | 911 |
| Corporate\tfinance(2) | 493 | 531 | 516 |
| Checking-related | 497 | 531 | 551 |
| Loan\tservicing | 404 | 380 | 500 |
| Other | 480 | 417 | 266 |
| Total\tcommissions\tand\tfees | $11,848 | $13,032 | $12,941 |

(1) Primarily	consists	of	fees	for	investment	fund	administration	and	management,	third-party	collections,	commercial	demand	deposit	accounts	and	certain	credit	card	services.

(2) Consists	primarily	of	fees	earned	from	structuring	and	underwriting	loan	syndications.

# 6.	PRINCIPAL	TRANSACTIONS

Principal	transactions	revenue	consists	of	realized	and	unrealized	gains	and	losses from	trading	activities.	Trading	activities	include	revenues	from	fixed	income, equities,	credit	and	commodities	products	and	foreign	exchange	transactions	which are	managed	on	a	portfolio	basis	characterized	by	primary	risk.	Not	included	in	the table	below	is	the	impact	of	net	interest	revenue	related	to	trading	activities,	which is	an	integral	part	of	trading	activities'	profitability.	See	Note	4	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements	for	information	about

net	interest	revenue	related	to	trading	activities.	Principal	transactions	include	CVA (credit	valuation	adjustments	on	derivatives),	FVA	(funding	valuation	adjustments) on	over-the-counter	derivatives	and	DVA	(debt	valuation	adjustments	on	issued liabilities	for	which	the	fair	value	option	has	been	elected).	These	adjustments	are discussed	further	in	Note	25	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements. The	following	table	presents	principal	transactions	revenue:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Global\tConsumer\tBanking | $636 | $699 | $762 |
| Institutional\tClients\tGroup | 5,823 | 5,905 | 6,489 |
| Corporate/Other | (444) | (380) | (75) |
| Subtotal\tCiticorp | $6,015 | $6,224 | $7,176 |
| Citi\tHoldings | (7) | 474 | 126 |
| Total\tCitigroup | $6,008 | $6,698 | $7,302 |
| Interest\trate\trisks(1) | $3,798 | $3,657 | $4,055 |
| Foreign\texchange\trisks(2) | 1,532 | 2,008 | 2,307 |
| Equity\trisks(3) | (303) | (260) | 319 |
| Commodity\tand\tother\trisks(4) | 750 | 590 | 277 |
| Credit\tproducts\tand\trisks(5) | 231 | 703 | 344 |
| Total | $6,008 | $6,698 | $7,302 |

(1) Includes	revenues	from	government	securities	and	corporate	debt,	municipal	securities,	mortgage	securities	and	other	debt	instruments.	Also	includes	spot	and	forward	trading	of	currencies	and exchange-traded	and	over-the-counter	(OTC)	currency	options,	options	on	fixed	income	securities,	interest	rate	swaps,	currency	swaps,	swap	options,	caps	and	floors,	financial	futures,	OTC	options and	forward	contracts	on	fixed	income	securities.

(2) Includes	revenues	from	foreign	exchange	spot,	forward,	option	and	swap	contracts,	as	well	as	FX	translation	gains	and	losses.

(3) Includes	revenues	from	common,	preferred	and	convertible	preferred	stock,	convertible	corporate	debt,	equity-linked	notes	and	exchange-traded	and	OTC	equity	options	and	warrants.

(4) Primarily	includes	revenues	from	crude	oil,	refined	oil	products,	natural	gas	and	other	commodities	trades.

(5) Includes	revenues	from	structured	credit	products.

# 7.	INCENTIVE	PLANS

# Discretionary	Annual	Incentive	Awards

Citigroup	grants	immediate	cash	bonus	payments,	deferred	cash	awards,	stock payments	and	restricted	and	deferred	stock	awards	as	part	of	its	discretionary annual	incentive	award	program	involving	a	large	segment	of	Citigroup's employees	worldwide.	Most	of	the	shares	of	common	stock	issued	by	Citigroup	as part	of	its	equity	compensation	programs	are	to	settle	the	vesting	of	the	stock components	of	these	awards.

Discretionary	annual	incentive	awards	are	generally	awarded	in	the	first quarter	of	the	year	based	upon	the	previous	year's	performance.	Awards	valued	at less	than	U.S.	$100,000	(or	the	local	currency	equivalent)	are	generally	paid entirely	in	the	form	of	an	immediate	cash	bonus.	Pursuant	to	Citigroup	policy and/or	regulatory	requirements,	certain	employees	and	officers	are	subject	to mandatory	deferrals	of	incentive	pay	and	generally	receive	25%	to	60%	of	their awards	in	a	combination	of	restricted	or	deferred	stock	and	deferred	cash. Discretionary	annual	incentive	awards	to	many	employees	in	the	EU	are	subject	to deferral	requirements	regardless	of	the	total	award	value,	with	50%	of	the immediate	incentive	delivered	in	the	form	of	a	stock	payment	or	stock	unit	award subject	to	a	restriction	on	sale	or	transfer	or	hold	back	(generally,	for	six	months). Deferred	annual	incentive	awards	may	be	delivered	as	two	awards—a restricted	or	deferred	stock	award	under	Citi's	Capital	Accumulation	Program (CAP)	and	a	deferred	cash	award.	The	applicable	mix	of	CAP	and	deferred	cash awards	may	vary	based	on	the	employee's	minimum	deferral	requirement	and	the country	of	employment.	In	some	cases,	the	entire	deferral	will	be	in	the	form	of either	a	CAP	or	deferred	cash	award.

Subject	to	certain	exceptions	(principally,	for	retirement-eligible	employees), continuous	employment	within	Citigroup	is	required	to	vest	in	CAP	and	deferred cash	awards.	Post-employment	vesting	by	retirement-eligible	employees	and participants	who	meet	other	conditions	is	generally	conditioned	upon	their refraining	from	competition	with	Citigroup	during	the	remaining	vesting	period, unless	the	employment	relationship	has	been	terminated	by	Citigroup	under	certain conditions.

Generally,	the	CAP	and	deferred	cash	awards	vest	in	equal	annual	installments over	three-	or	four-year	periods.	Vested	CAP	awards	are	delivered	in	shares	of common	stock.	Deferred	cash	awards	are	payable	in	cash	and	earn	a	fixed	notional rate	of	interest	that	is	paid	only	if	and	when	the	underlying	principal	award	amount vests.	Generally,	in	the	EU,	vested	CAP	shares	are	subject	to	a	restriction	on	sale	or transfer	after	vesting,	and	vested	deferred	cash	awards	are	subject	to	hold	back (generally,	for	six	months	in	each	case).

Unvested	CAP	and	deferred	cash	awards	made	in	January	2011	or	later	are subject	to	one	or	more	clawback	provisions	that	apply	in	certain	circumstances, including	in	the	case	of	employee	risk-limit	violations	or	other	misconduct,	or where	the	awards	were	based	on	earnings	that	were	misstated.	CAP	awards	made to	certain	employees	in	February	2013	and	later,	and	deferred	cash	awards	made	to certain	employees	in	January	2012,	are	subject	to	a	formulaic	performance-based

vesting	condition	pursuant	to	which	amounts	otherwise	scheduled	to	vest	will	be reduced	based	on	the	amount	of	any	pretax	loss	in	the	participant's	business	in	the calendar	year	preceding	the	scheduled	vesting	date.	For	CAP	awards	made	in February	2013	and	later,	a	minimum	reduction	of	20%	applies	for	the	first	dollar	of loss. In	addition,	deferred	cash	awards	made	to	certain	employees	in	February	2013 and	later	are	subject	to	a	discretionary	performance-based	vesting	condition	under which	an	amount	otherwise	scheduled	to	vest	may	be	reduced	in	the	event	of	a "material	adverse	outcome"	for	which	a	participant	has	"significant	responsibility." Deferred	cash	awards	made	to	these	employees	in	February	2014	and	later	are subject	to	an	additional	clawback	provision	pursuant	to	which	unvested	awards may	be	canceled	if	the	employee	engaged	in	misconduct	or	exercised	materially imprudent	judgment,	or	failed	to	supervise	or	escalate	the	behavior	of	other employees	who	did.

Certain	CAP	and	other	stock-based	awards,	including	those	to	participants	in the	EU	that	are	subject	to	certain	discretionary	clawback	provisions,	are	subject	to variable	accounting,	pursuant	to	which	the	associated	value	of	the	award	fluctuates with	changes	in	Citigroup's	common	stock	price	until	the	date	that	the	award	is settled,	either	in	cash	or	shares.	For	these	awards,	the	total	amount	that	will	be recognized	as	expense	cannot	be	determined	in	full	until	the	settlement	date.

# Sign-on	and	Long-Term	Retention	Awards

Stock	awards	and	deferred	cash	awards	may	be	made	at	various	times	during	the year	as	sign-on	awards	to	induce	new	hires	to	join	Citi	or	to	high-potential employees	as	long-term	retention	awards.

Vesting	periods	and	other	terms	and	conditions	pertaining	to	these	awards	tend to	vary	by	grant.	Generally,	recipients	must	remain	employed	through	the	vesting dates	to	vest	in	the	awards,	except	in	cases	of	death,	disability	or	involuntary termination	other	than	for	"gross	misconduct."	These	awards	do	not	usually provide	for	post-employment	vesting	by	retirement-eligible	participants.

# Outstanding	(Unvested)	Stock	Awards

A	summary	of	the	status	of	unvested	stock	awards	granted	as	discretionary	annual incentive	or	sign-on	and	long-term	retention	awards	is	presented	below:

| Unvested	stock	awards | Shares | Weighted-<br>average	grant<br>date	fair<br>value	per	share |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Unvested\tat\tJanuary\t1,\t2015 | 50,004,393 | $42.52 |
| Granted(1) | 17,815,456 | 50.33 |
| Canceled | (2,005,875) | 44.71 |
| Vested(2) | (23,953,683) | 42.53 |
| Unvested\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | 41,860,291 | $45.73 |

(2) The	weighted-average	fair	value	of	the	shares	vesting	during	2015	was	approximately	$48.09 per	share.

Total	unrecognized	compensation	cost	related	to	unvested	stock	awards, excluding	the	impact	of	forfeiture	estimates,	was	$634	million	at	December	31, 2015.	The	cost	is	expected	to	be	recognized	over	a	weighted-average	period	of	1.5 years.	However,	the	value	of	the	portion	of	these	awards	that	is	subject	to	variable accounting	will	fluctuate	with	changes	in	Citigroup's	common	stock	price.

# Performance	Share	Units

Certain	executive	officers	were	awarded	a	target	number	of	performance	share units	(PSUs)	on	February	19,	2013,	for	performance	in	2012,	and	to	a	broader group	of	executives	on	February	18,	2014	and	February	18,	2015,	for	performance in	2013	and	2014,	respectively.	PSUs	will	be	earned	only	to	the	extent	that Citigroup	attains	specified	performance	goals	relating	to	Citigroup's	return	on assets	and	relative	total	shareholder	return	against	peers	over	the	three-year	period beginning	with	the	year	of	award.	The	actual	dollar	amounts	ultimately	earned could	vary	from	zero,	if	performance	goals	are	not	met,	to	as	much	as	150%	of target,	if	performance	goals	are	meaningfully	exceeded.	The	value	of	each	PSU	is equal	to	the	value	of	one	share	of	Citi	common	stock.

PSUs	were	granted	on	February	16,	2016,	for	performance	in	2015.	The	2016 PSUs	are	earned	over	a	three-year	performance	period	based	on	Citigroup's	relative total	shareholder	return	as	compared	to	peers.	The	actual	dollar	amounts	ultimately earned	could	vary	from	zero,	if	performance	goals	are	not	met,	to	as	much	as	150% of	target,	if	performance	goals	are	meaningfully	exceeded.	The	value	of	each	PSU is	equal	to	the	value	of	one	share	of	Citi	common	stock.

PSUs	are	subject	to	variable	accounting,	pursuant	to	which	the	associated	value	of the	award	will	fluctuate	with	changes	in	Citigroup's	stock	price	and	the	attainment of	the	specified	performance	goals	for	each	award,	until	the	award	is	settled	solely in	cash	after	the	end	of	the	performance	period.	The	value	of	the	award,	subject	to the	performance	goals,	is	estimated	using	a	simulation	model	that	incorporates multiple	valuation	assumptions,	including	the	probability	of	achieving	the	specified performance	goals	of	each	award.	The	risk-free	rate	used	in	the	model	is	based	on the	applicable	U.S.	Treasury	yield	curve.	Other	significant	assumptions	for	the awards	are	as	follows:

A	summary	of	the	performance	share	unit	activity	for	2015	is	presented	below:

| Performance	Share	Units | Units | value	per	unit |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Outstanding,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | 843,793 | $46.28 |
| Granted(1) | 513,464 | 44.07 |
| Canceled | — | — |
| Payments | — | — |
| Outstanding,\tend\tof\tperiod | 1,357,257 | $45.45 |
| (1)\tThe\tweighted-average\tgrant\tdate\tfair\tvalue\tper\tunit\tawarded\tin\t2014\tand\t2013\twas | (1)\tThe\tweighted-average\tgrant\tdate\tfair\tvalue\tper\tunit\tawarded\tin\t2014\tand\t2013\twas | $48.34\tand |

# Stock	Option	Programs

Stock	options	have	not	been	granted	to	Citi's	employees	as	part	of	the	annual incentive	award	programs	since	2009.

All	outstanding	stock	options	are	fully	vested	with	the	related	expense recognized	as	a	charge	to	income	in	prior	periods.	Generally,	the	stock	options outstanding	have	a	six-year	term,	with	some	stock	options	subject	to	various transfer	restrictions.	Cash	received	from	employee	stock	option	exercises	under this	program	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015	was	approximately	$634 million.

# Information	with	respect	to	stock	option	activity	under	Citigroup's	stock	option	programs	follows:

|  |  | 2015 |  |  | 2014 |  |  | 2013 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | Options | Weighted-\naverage\nexercise\nprice | Intrinsic\nvalue\nper\tshare | Options | Weighted-\naverage\nexercise\nprice | Intrinsic\nvalue\nper\tshare | Options | Weighted-\naverage\nexercise\nprice | Intrinsic\nvalue\nper\tshare |
| Outstanding,\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | 26,514,119 | $48.00 | $6.11 | 31,508,106 | $50.72 | $1.39 | 35,020,397 | $51.20 | $— |
| Canceled | (7,901) | 40.80 | — | (28,257) | 40.80 | — | (50,914) | 212.35 | — |
| Expired | (1,646,581) | 40.85 | — | (602,093) | 242.43 | — | (86,964) | 528.40 | — |
| Exercised | (18,203,048) | 41.39 | 13.03 | (4,363,637) | 40.82 | 11.37 | (3,374,413) | 40.81 | 9.54 |
| Outstanding,\tend\tof\tperiod | 6,656,588 | $67.92 | $— | 26,514,119 | $48.00 | $6.11 | 31,508,106 | $50.72 | $1.39 |
| Exercisable,\tend\tof\tperiod | 6,656,588 |  |  | 26,514,119 |  |  | 30,662,588 |  |  |

The	following	table	summarizes	information	about	stock	options	outstanding	under	Citigroup's	stock	option	programs	at	December	31,	2015:

| Range	of	exercise	prices | Number<br>outstanding | contractual	life<br>remaining | Weighted-average<br>exercise	price | Number<br>exercisable | Weighted-average<br>exercise	price |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| $39.00—$49.99 | 5,763,424 | 1.0\tyear | $48.16 | 5,763,424 | $48.16 |
| $50.00—$99.99 | 66,660 | 5.4\tyears | 56.25 | 66,660 | 56.25 |
| $100.00—$199.99 | 502,416 | 3.0\tyears | 147.13 | 502,416 | 147.13 |
| $200.00—$299.99 | 124,088 | 2.1\tyears | 240.28 | 124,088 | 240.28 |
| $300.00—$399.99 | 200,000 | 2.1\tyears | 335.50 | 200,000 | 335.50 |
| Total\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | 6,656,588 | 1.3\tyears $ | 67.92 | 6,656,588 | $67.92 |

# Other	Variable	Incentive	Compensation

Citigroup	has	various	incentive	plans	globally	that	are	used	to	motivate	and	reward performance	primarily	in	the	areas	of	sales,	operational	excellence	and	customer satisfaction.	Participation	in	these	plans	is	generally	limited	to	employees	who	are not	eligible	for	discretionary	annual	incentive	awards.

# Summary

Except	for	awards	subject	to	variable	accounting,	the	total	expense	recognized	for stock	awards	represents	the	grant	date	fair	value	of	such	awards,	which	is	generally recognized	as	a	charge	to	income	ratably	over	the	vesting	period,	other	than	for awards	to	retirement-eligible	employees	and	immediately	vested	awards. Whenever	awards	are	made	or	are	expected	to	be	made	to	retirement-eligible employees,	the	charge	to	income	is	accelerated	based	on	when	the	applicable conditions	to	retirement	eligibility	were	or	will	be	met.	If	the	employee	is retirement	eligible	on	the	grant	date,	or	the	award	is	vested	at	grant	date,	the	entire expense	is	recognized	in	the	year	prior	to	grant.

Recipients	of	Citigroup	stock	awards	generally	do	not	have	any	stockholder rights	until	shares	are	delivered	upon	vesting	or	exercise,	or	after	the	expiration	of applicable	required	holding	periods.	Recipients	of	restricted	or	deferred	stock awards	and	stock	unit	awards,	however,	may	be	entitled	to	receive	dividends	or dividend-equivalent	payments	during	the	vesting	period.	Recipients	of	restricted stock	awards	generally	are	entitled	to	vote	the	shares	in	their	award	during

the	vesting	period.	Once	a	stock	award	vests,	the	shares	are	freely	transferable, unless	they	are	subject	to	a	restriction	on	sale	or	transfer	for	a	specified	period.

All	equity	awards	granted	since	April	19,	2005,	have	been	made	pursuant	to stockholder-approved	stock	incentive	plans	that	are	administered	by	the	Personnel and	Compensation	Committee	of	the	Citigroup	Board	of	Directors,	which	is composed	entirely	of	independent	non-employee	directors.

At	December	31,	2015,	approximately	54.4	million	shares	of	Citigroup common	stock	were	authorized	and	available	for	grant	under	Citigroup's	2014 Stock	Incentive	Plan,	the	only	plan	from	which	equity	awards	are	currently granted.

The	2014	Stock	Incentive	Plan	and	predecessor	plans	permit	the	use	of treasury	stock	or	newly	issued	shares	in	connection	with	awards	granted	under	the plans.	Newly	issued	shares	were	distributed	to	settle	the	vesting	of	the	majority	of annual	deferred	stock	awards	in	2012	to	2015.	Treasury	shares	were	used	to	settle vestings	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016.	The	use	of	treasury	stock	or	newly	issued shares	to	settle	stock	awards	does	not	affect	the	compensation	expense	recorded	in the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income	for	equity	awards.

# Incentive	Compensation	Cost

The	following	table	shows	components	of	compensation	expense,	relating	to certain	of	the	above	incentive	compensation	programs,	recorded	during	2015,	2014 and	2013:

| In	millions	of	dollars<br>Charges	for	estimated	awards	to	retirement-<br>eligible	employees | 2015<br>$541 | 2014<br>$525 | 2013<br>$468 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Amortization\tof\tdeferred\tcash\tawards,\tdeferred\ncash\tstock\tunits\tand\tperformance\tstock\tunits | 325 | 311 | 323 |
| Immediately\tvested\tstock\taward\texpense(1) | 61 | 51 | 54 |
| Amortization\tof\trestricted\tand\tdeferred\tstock\nawards(2) | 461 | 668 | 862 |
| Option\texpense | — | 1 | 10 |
| Other\tvariable\tincentive\tcompensation | 773 | 803 | 1,076 |
| Profit\tsharing\tplan | — | 1 | 78 |
| Total | $2,161 | $2,360 | $2,871 |

(1) Represents	expense	for	immediately	vested	stock	awards	that	generally	were	stock	payments in	lieu	of	cash	compensation.	The	expense	is	generally	accrued	as	cash	incentive compensation	in	the	year	prior	to	grant.

(2) All	periods	include	amortization	expense	for	all	unvested	awards	to	non-retirement-eligible employees.	Amortization	is	recognized	net	of	estimated	forfeitures	of	awards.

# Future	Expenses	Associated	with	Outstanding	(Unvested)	Awards

Citi	expects	to	record	compensation	expense	in	future	periods	as	a	result	of	awards granted	for	performance	in	2015	and	prior	years.	Because	the	awards	contain service	or	other	conditions	that	will	be	satisfied	in	the	future,	the	expense	of	these already-granted	awards	is	recognized	over	those	future	period(s).	Citi's	expected future	expenses,	excluding	the	impact	of	forfeitures,	cancellations,	clawbacks	and repositioning-related	accelerations	that	have	not	yet	occurred,	are	summarized	in the	table	below.	The	portion	of	these	awards	that	is	subject	to	variable	accounting will	cause	the	expense	amount	to	fluctuate	with	changes	in	Citigroup's	common stock	price.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019	and<br>beyond(1) | Total(2) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Awards\tgranted\tin\t2015\tand\tprior: |  |  |  |  |  |
| Deferred\tstock\tawards | $339 | $201 | $88 | $12 | $640 |
| Deferred\tcash\tawards | 215 | 121 | 45 | 4 | 385 |
| Future\texpense\trelated\tto\nawards\talready\tgranted | $554 | $322 | $133 | $16 | $1,025 |
| Future\texpense\trelated\tto\nawards\tgranted\tin\t2016(3) | 297 | 211 | 166 | 113 | 787 |
| Total | $851 | $533 | $299 | $129 | $1,812 |

(2) $1.6	billion	of	which	is	attributable	to	ICG.

(3) Refers	to	awards	granted	on	or	about	February	16,	2016,	as	part	of	Citi's	discretionary annual	incentive	awards	for	services	performed	in	2015.

# 8.	RETIREMENT	BENEFITS

# Pension	and	Postretirement	Plans

The	Company	has	several	non-contributory	defined	benefit	pension	plans	covering certain	U.S.	employees	and	has	various	defined	benefit	pension	and	termination indemnity	plans	covering	employees	outside	the	U.S.

The	U.S.	qualified	defined	benefit	plan	was	frozen	effective	January	1,	2008 for	most	employees.	Accordingly,	no	additional	compensation-based	contributions have	been	credited	to	the	cash	balance	portion	of	the	plan	for	existing	plan participants	after	2007.	However,	certain	employees	covered	under	the	prior	final pay	plan	formula	continue	to	accrue	benefits.	The	Company	also	offers postretirement	health	care	and	life	insurance	benefits	to	certain	eligible	U.S.	retired employees,	as	well	as	to	certain	eligible	employees	outside	the	U.S.

The	Company	also	sponsors	a	number	of	non-contributory,	nonqualified pension	plans.	These	plans,	which	are	unfunded,	provide	supplemental	defined pension	benefits

to	certain	U.S.	employees.	With	the	exception	of	certain	employees	covered	under the	prior	final	pay	plan	formula,	the	benefits	under	these	plans	were	frozen	in	prior years.

The	plan	obligations,	plan	assets	and	periodic	plan	expense	for	the	Company's most	significant	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans	(Significant	Plans)	are measured	and	disclosed	quarterly,	instead	of	annually.	The	Significant	Plans captured	approximately	90%	of	the	Company's	global	pension	and	postretirement plan	obligations	as	of	December	31,	2015.	All	other	plans	(All	Other	Plans)	are measured	annually	with	a	December	31	measurement	date.

# Net	(Benefit)	Expense

The	following	table	summarizes	the	components	of	net	(benefit)	expense recognized	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income	for	the	Company's	pension and	postretirement	plans,	for	Significant	Plans	and	All	Other	Plans,	for	the	periods indicated.

|  |  |  | Pension	plans | Pension	plans |  |  |  | Postretirement	benefit	plans | Postretirement	benefit	plans | Postretirement	benefit	plans |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | U.S.\tplans |  |  | Non-U.S.\tplans |  |  | U.S.\tplans |  |  | Non-U.S.\tplans |  |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Qualified\tplans |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Benefits\tearned\tduring\tthe\tyear | $4 | $6 | $8 | $168 | $178 | $210 | $— | $— | $— | $12 | $15 | $43 |
| Interest\tcost\ton\tbenefit\tobligation | 553 | 541 | 538 | 317 | 376 | 384 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 108 | 120 | 146 |
| Expected\treturn\ton\tplan\tassets | (893) | (878) | (863) | (323) | (384) | (396) | (3) | (1) | (2) | (105) | (121) | (133) |
| Amortization\tof\tunrecognized |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Prior\tservice\t(benefit)\tcost | (3) | (3) | (4) | 2 | 1 | 4 | — | — | (1) | (11) | (12) | — |
| Net\tactuarial\tloss | 139 | 105 | 104 | 73 | 77 | 95 | — | — | — | 43 | 39 | 45 |
| Curtailment\tloss\t(gain)(1) | 14 | — | 21 | — | 14 | 4 | — | — | — | (1) | — | — |
| Settlement\tloss\t(gain)(1) | — | — | — | 44 | 53 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | (1) |
| Special\ttermination\tbenefits(1) | — | — | — | — | 9 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net\tqualified\tplans\t(benefit)\texpense | $(186) | $(229) | $(196) | $281 | $324 | $322 | $30 | $32 | $30 | $46 | $41 | $100 |
| Nonqualified\tplans\texpense | 43 | 45 | 46 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Cumulative\teffect\tof\tchange\tin\taccounting\npolicy(2) | — | — | (23) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3 |
| Total\tnet\t(benefit)\texpense | $(143) | $(184) | $(173) | $281 | $324 | $322 | $30 | $32 | $30 | $46 | $41 | $103 |

(1) Losses	(gains)	due	to	curtailment,	settlement	and	special	termination	benefits	relate	to	repositioning	and	divestiture	actions.

(2) Cumulative	effect	of	adopting	quarterly	measurement	for	Significant	Plans.

The	estimated	net	actuarial	loss	and	prior	service	cost	that	will	be	amortized	from Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	into	net	expense	in	2016	are approximately	$226	million	and	$1	million,	respectively,	for	defined	benefit

pension	plans.	For	postretirement	plans,	the	estimated	2016	net	actuarial	loss	and prior	service	cost	(benefit)	amortizations	are	approximately	$35	million	and	$(11) million,	respectively.

# Contributions

The	Company's	funding	practice	for	U.S.	and	non-U.S.	pension	and	postretirement plans	is	generally	to	fund	to	minimum	funding	requirements	in	accordance	with applicable	local	laws	and	regulations.	The	Company	may	increase	its	contributions above	the	minimum	required	contribution,	if	appropriate.	In	addition,	management has	the	ability	to	change	its	funding	practices.	For	the	U.S.	pension	plans,	there were	no	required	minimum	cash	contributions	for	2015	or	2014.

The	following	table	summarizes	the	actual	Company	contributions	for	the years	ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	as	well	as	estimated	expected	Company contributions

for	2016.	Expected	contributions	are	subject	to	change	since	contribution	decisions are	affected	by	various	factors,	such	as	market	performance	and	regulatory requirements.

# Summary	of	Company	Contributions

|  |  |  | Pension	plans(1) | Pension	plans(1) |  |  |  |  | Postretirement	benefit	plans(1) | Postretirement	benefit	plans(1) | Postretirement	benefit	plans(1) |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | U.S.\tplans(2) |  |  | Non-U.S.\tplans | Non-U.S.\tplans |  | U.S.\tplans |  |  | Non-U.S.\tplans | Non-U.S.\tplans |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 |
| Contributions\tmade\tby\tthe\tCompany | $— | $— | $100 | $78 | $92 | $130 | $— | $174 | $— | $3 | $4 | $6 |
| Benefits\tpaid\tdirectly\tby\tthe\tCompany | 55 | 52 | 58 | 59 | 42 | 100 | — | 61 | 56 | 6 | 5 | 6 |

(1) Amounts	reported	for	2016	are	expected	amounts.

(2) The	U.S.	pension	plans	include	benefits	paid	directly	by	the	Company	for	the	nonqualified	pension	plans.

# Funded	Status	and	Accumulated	Other	Comprehensive	Income

The	following	tables	summarize	the	funded	status	and	amounts	recognized	in	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	for	the	Company's	pension	and	postretirement	plans.

# Net	Amount	Recognized

|  |  | Pension	plans |  |  |  | Postretirement	benefit	plans | Postretirement	benefit	plans |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | U.S.\tplans\n2015 | 2014 | Non-U.S.\tplans\n2015 | 2014 | U.S.\tplans\n2015 | 2014 | Non-U.S.\tplans\n2015 | 2014 |
| Change\tin\tprojected\tbenefit\tobligation |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Qualified\tplans |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Projected\tbenefit\tobligation\tat\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $14,060 | $12,137 | $7,252 | $7,194 | $917 | $780 | $1,527 | $1,411 |
| Benefits\tearned\tduring\tthe\tyear | 4 | 6 | 168 | 178 | — | — | 12 | 15 |
| Interest\tcost\ton\tbenefit\tobligation | 553 | 541 | 317 | 376 | 33 | 33 | 108 | 120 |
| Plan\tamendments | — | — | 6 | 2 | — | — | — | (14) |
| Actuarial\tloss\t(gain)(1) | (649) | 2,077 | (28) | 790 | (55) | 184 | (88) | 262 |
| Benefits\tpaid,\tnet\tof\tparticipants'\tcontributions | (751) | (701) | (294) | (352) | (90) | (91) | (57) | (93) |
| Expected\tgovernment\tsubsidy | — | — | — | — | 12 | 11 | — | — |
| Divestitures | — | — | (147) | (18) | — | — | — | (1) |
| Settlement\t(gain)\tloss(2) | — | — | (61) | (184) | — | — | — | — |
| Curtailment\t(gain)\tloss(2) | 14 | — | (8) | (58) | — | — | — | (3) |
| Special\ttermination\tbenefits(2) | — | — | — | 9 | — | — | — | — |
| Foreign\texchange\timpact\tand\tother | — | — | (671) | (685) | — | — | (211) | (170) |
| Qualified\tplans | $13,231 | $14,060 | $6,534 | $7,252 | $817 | $917 | $1,291 | $1,527 |
| Nonqualified\tplans | 712 | 779 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Projected\tbenefit\tobligation\tat\tyear\tend | $13,943 | $14,839 | $6,534 | $7,252 | $817 | $917 | $1,291 | $1,527 |

(1) 2014	amounts	for	the	U.S.	plans	include	impact	of	the	adoption	of	updated	mortality	tables	(see	"Mortality	Tables"	below).

(2) Curtailment,	settlement	(gains)/losses	and	special	termination	benefits	relate	to	repositioning	and	divestiture	activities.

|  |  | Pension	plans |  |  |  | Postretirement	benefit	plans | Postretirement	benefit	plans |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | U.S.\tplans |  | Non-U.S.\tplans | Non-U.S.\tplans | U.S.\tplans | U.S.\tplans | Non-U.S.\tplans |  |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 |
| Change\tin\tplan\tassets |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Qualified\tplans |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Plan\tassets\tat\tfair\tvalue\tat\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $13,071 | $12,731 | $7,057 | $6,918 | $10 | $32 | $1,384 | $1,472 |
| Actual\treturn\ton\tplan\tassets | (183) | 941 | 56 | 1,108 | (1) | 2 | (5) | 166 |
| Company\tcontributions | — | 100 | 134 | 230 | 235 | 56 | 9 | 12 |
| Plan\tparticipants'\tcontributions | — | — | 5 | 5 | 49 | 51 | — | — |
| Divestitures | — | — | (131) | (11) | — | — | — | — |
| Settlements | — | — | (61) | (184) | — | — | — | — |
| Benefits\tpaid,\tnet\tof\tgovernment\tsubsidy | (751) | (701) | (299) | (357) | (127) | (131) | (57) | (93) |
| Foreign\texchange\timpact\tand\tother | — | — | (657) | (652) | — | — | (198) | (173) |
| Qualified\tplans | $12,137 | $13,071 | $6,104 | $7,057 | $166 | $10 | $1,133 | $1,384 |
| Nonqualified\tplans | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Plan\tassets\tat\tfair\tvalue\tat\tyear\tend | $12,137 | $13,071 | $6,104 | $7,057 | $166 | $10 | $1,133 | $1,384 |
| Funded\tstatus\tof\tthe\tplans |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Qualified\tplans(2) | $(1,094) | $(989) | $(430) | $(195) | $(651) | $(907) | $(158) | $(143) |
| Nonqualified\tplans(1) | (712) | (779) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Funded\tstatus\tof\tthe\tplans\tat\tyear\tend | $(1,806) | $(1,768) | $(430) | $(195) | $(651) | $(907) | $(158) | $(143) |
| Net\tamount\trecognized |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Qualified\tplans |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Benefit\tasset | $— | $— | $726 | $921 | $— | $— | $115 | $196 |
| Benefit\tliability | (1,094) | (989) | (1,156) | (1,116) | (651) | (907) | (273) | (339) |
| Qualified\tplans | $(1,094) | $(989) | $(430) | $(195) | $(651) | $(907) | $(158) | $(143) |
| Nonqualified\tplans | (712) | (779) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net\tamount\trecognized\ton\tthe\tbalance\tsheet | $(1,806) | $(1,768) | $(430) | $(195) | $(651) | $(907) | $(158) | $(143) |
| Amounts\trecognized\tin\tAccumulated\tother\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Qualified\tplans |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Net\ttransition\tobligation | $— | $— | $(1) | $(1) | $— | $— | $— | $— |
| Prior\tservice\tbenefit | — | 3 | 5 | 13 | — | — | 125 | 157 |
| Net\tactuarial\tgain\t(loss) | (6,107) | (5,819) | (1,613) | (1,690) | 3 | (56) | (547) | (658) |
| Qualified\tplans | $(6,107) | $(5,816) | $(1,609) | $(1,678) | $3 | $(56) | $(422) | $(501) |
| Nonqualified\tplans | (266) | (325) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net\tamount\trecognized\tin\tequity\t(pretax) | $(6,373) | $(6,141) | $(1,609) | $(1,678) | $3 | $(56) | $(422) | $(501) |
| Accumulated\tbenefit\tobligation |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Qualified\tplans | $13,226 | $14,050 | $6,049 | $6,699 | $817 | $917 | $1,291 | $1,527 |
| Nonqualified\tplans | 706 | 771 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Accumulated\tbenefit\tobligation\tat\tyear\tend | $13,932 | $14,821 | $6,049 | $6,699 | $817 | $917 | $1,291 | $1,527 |

(1) The	nonqualified	plans	of	the	Company	are	unfunded.

(2) The	U.S.	qualified	pension	plan	is	fully	funded	under	specified	Employee	Retirement	Income	Security	Act	(ERISA)	funding	rules	as	of	January	1,	2016	and	no	minimum	required	funding	is	expected for	2016.

The	following	table	shows	the	change	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	related	to	Company's	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans	(for	Significant Plans	and	All	Other	Plans)	for	the	years	indicated.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Beginning\tof\tyear\tbalance,\tnet\tof\ttax(1)(2) | $(5,159) | $(3,989) | $(5,270) |
| Cumulative\teffect\tof\tchange\tin\taccounting\tpolicy(3) | — | — | (22) |
| Actuarial\tassumptions\tchanges\tand\tplan\texperience(4) | 898 | (3,404) | 2,380 |
| Net\tasset\tgain\t(loss)\tdue\tto\tdifference\tbetween\tactual\tand\texpected\treturns | (1,457) | 833 | (1,084) |
| Net\tamortizations | 236 | 202 | 271 |
| Prior\tservice\t(cost)\tcredit | (6) | 13 | 360 |
| Curtailment/settlement\tgain(5) | 57 | 67 | — |
| Foreign\texchange\timpact\tand\tother | 291 | 459 | 74 |
| Change\tin\tdeferred\ttaxes,\tnet | 24 | 660 | (698) |
| Change,\tnet\tof\ttax | $43 | $(1,170) | $1,281 |
| End\tof\tyear\tbalance,\tnet\tof\ttax(1)(2) | $(5,116) | $(5,159) | $(3,989) |

(1) See	Note	20	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	further	discussion	of	net	 Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	balance.

(2) Includes	net-of-tax	amounts	for	certain	profit	sharing	plans	outside	the	U.S.

(3) Represents	the	cumulative	effect	of	the	change	in	accounting	policy	due	to	adoption	of	quarterly	measurement	for	Significant	Plans.

(5) Curtailment	and	settlement	gains	relate	to	repositioning	and	divestiture	activities.

At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	aggregate	projected	benefit	obligation (PBO),	the	aggregate	accumulated	benefit	obligation	(ABO),	and	the	aggregate	fair value	of	plan	assets	are	presented	for	all	defined	benefit	pension	plans	with	a	PBO in	excess	of	plan	assets	and	for	all	defined	benefit	pension	plans	with	an	ABO	in excess	of	plan	assets	as	follows:

|  | PBO	exceeds	fair	value	of	plan	assets | PBO	exceeds	fair	value	of	plan	assets | PBO	exceeds	fair	value	of	plan	assets |  | ABO	exceeds	fair	value	of	plan	assets | ABO	exceeds	fair	value	of	plan	assets | ABO	exceeds	fair	value	of	plan	assets |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | U.S.\tplans(1) | U.S.\tplans(1) | Non-U.S.\tplans | Non-U.S.\tplans | U.S.\tplans(1) | U.S.\tplans(1) | Non-U.S.\tplans | Non-U.S.\tplans |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 |
| Projected\tbenefit\tobligation | $13,943 | $14,839 | $3,918 | $2,756 | $13,943 | $14,839 | $2,369 | $2,570 |
| Accumulated\tbenefit\tobligation | 13,932 | 14,821 | 3,488 | 2,353 | 13,932 | 14,821 | 2,047 | 2,233 |
| Fair\tvalue\tof\tplan\tassets | 12,137 | 13,071 | 2,762 | 1,640 | 12,137 | 13,071 | 1,243 | 1,495 |

(1) At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	for	both	the	U.S.	qualified	plan	and	nonqualified	plans,	the	aggregate	PBO	and	the	aggregate	ABO	exceeded	plan	assets.

qualified	pension	plans,	were	more	than	plan	assets	by	$1	billion	and	$0.6	billion,

respectively.

# Plan	Assumptions

The	Company	utilizes	a	number	of	assumptions	to	determine	plan	obligations	and expenses.	Changes	in	one	or	a	combination	of	these	assumptions	will	have	an impact	on	the	Company's	pension	and	postretirement	PBO,	funded	status	and (benefit)	expense.	Changes	in	the	plans'	funded	status	resulting	from	changes	in the	PBO	and	fair	value	of	plan	assets	will	have	a	corresponding	impact	on Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss).

The	actuarial	assumptions	at	the	respective	years	ended	December	31	in	the table	below	are	used	to	measure	the	year-end	PBO	and	the	net	periodic	(benefit) expense	for	the	subsequent	year	(period).		Since	Citi's	Significant	Plans	are measured	on	a	quarterly	basis,	the	year-end	rates	for	those	plans	are	used	to calculate	the	net	periodic	(benefit)	expense	for	the	subsequent	year's	first	quarter. As	a	result	of	the	quarterly	measurement	process,	the	net	periodic	(benefit)	expense for	the	Significant	Plans	is	calculated	at	each	respective	quarter	end	based	on	the preceding	quarter-end	rates	(as	shown	below	for	the	U.S.	pension	and postretirement	plans).	The	actual	assumptions	for	the	non-U.S.	pension	and postretirement	plans	relate	to	the	Significant	Plans	that	are	measured	quarterly	and All	Other	Plans	that	are	measured	annually.

Certain	assumptions	used	in	determining	pension	and	postretirement	benefit obligations	and	net	benefit	expense	for	the	Company's	plans	are	shown	in	the following	table:

# Discount	Rate

The	discount	rates	for	the	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	were	selected	by reference	to	a	Citigroup-specific	analysis	using	each	plan's	specific	cash	flows	and compared	with	high-quality	corporate	bond	indices	for	reasonableness.	The discount	rates	for	the	non-U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	are	selected	by reference	to	high-quality	corporate	bond	rates	in	countries	that	have	developed corporate	bond	markets.	However,	where	developed	corporate	bond	markets	do	not exist,	the	discount	rates	are	selected	by	reference	to	local	government	bond	rates with	a	premium	added	to	reflect	the	additional	risk	for	corporate	bonds	in	certain countries.	Effective	in	2015,	Citi	rounds	the	discount	rate	for	all	the	Significant Plans	to	the	nearest	5	basis	points.	Discount	rates	for	All	Other	Plans	are	rounded to	the	nearest	10	basis	points	for	plans	in	the	six	largest	non-U.S.	countries	and	to the	nearest	25	basis	points	for	the	remaining	non-US	countries.

# Expected	Rate	of	Return

The	Company	determines	its	assumptions	for	the	expected	rate	of	return	on	plan assets	for	its	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	using	a	"building	block" approach,	which	focuses	on	ranges	of	anticipated	rates	of	return	for	each	asset class.	A	weighted	average	range	of	nominal	rates	is	then	determined	based	on target	allocations	to	each	asset	class.	Market	performance	over	a	number	of	earlier years	is	evaluated	covering	a	wide	range	of	economic	conditions	to	determine whether	there	are	sound	reasons	for	projecting	any	past	trends.

The	Company	considers	the	expected	rate	of	return	to	be	a	long-term assessment	of	return	expectations	and	does	not	anticipate	changing	this	assumption unless	there	are	significant	changes	in	investment	strategy	or	economic	conditions. This	contrasts	with	the	selection	of	the	discount	rate	and	certain	other	assumptions, which	are	reconsidered	annually	(or	quarterly	for	the	Significant	Plans)	in accordance	with	GAAP.

The	expected	rate	of	return	for	the	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	was 7.00%	at	December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013.	The	expected	return	on	assets reflects	the	expected	annual	appreciation	of	the	plan	assets	and	reduces	the Company's	annual	pension	expense.	The	expected	return	on	assets	is	deducted from	the	sum	of	service	cost,	interest	cost	and	other	components	of	pension expense	to	arrive	at	the	net	pension	(benefit)	expense.	Net	pension	(benefit) expense	for	the	U.S.	pension	plans	for	2015,	2014	and	2013	reflects	deductions	of $893	million,	$878	million	and	$863	million	of	expected	returns,	respectively.

The	following	table	shows	the	expected	rates	of	return	used	in	determining	the Company's	pension	expense	compared	to	the	actual	rate	of	return	on	plan	assets during	2015,	2014	and	2013	for	the	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans:

(1) Actual	rates	of	return	are	presented	net	of	fees.

For	the	non-U.S.	pension	plans,	pension	expense	for	2015	was	reduced	by	the expected	return	of	$323	million,	compared	with	the	actual	return	of	$56	million. Pension	expense	for	2014	and	2013	was	reduced	by	expected	returns	of	$384 million	and	$396	million,	respectively.

# Mortality	Tables

At	December	31,	2015,	the	Company	maintained	the	Retirement	Plan	2014	(RP- 2014)	mortality	table	and	adopted	Mortality	Projection	2015	(MP-2015)	projection table	for	the	U.S.	plans.

(1) The	RP-2014	table	is	the	white-collar	RP-2014	table,	with	a	4%	increase	in	rates	to	reflect the	lower	Citigroup-specific	mortality	experience.

(2) The	MP-2015	projection	scale	is	projected	from	2011,	with	convergence	to	0 .5%	ultimate rate	of	annual	improvement	by	2029.

(3) The	MP-2014	projection	scale	includes	a	phase-out	of	the	assumed	rates	of	improvements from	2015	to	2027.

Adjustments	were	made	to	the	RP-2014	tables	and	to	the	long-term	rate	of mortality	improvement	to	reflect	the	Citigroup	specific	experience.	As	a	result,	the U.S.	qualified	and	nonqualified	pension	and	postretirement	plans'	PBO	at December	31,	2014	increased	by	$1,209	million	and	its	funded	status	and	AOCI decreased	by	$1,209	million	($737	million,	net	of	tax).	In	addition,	the	2015 qualified	and	nonqualified	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	expense	increased	by approximately	$73	million.

# Sensitivities	of	Certain	Key	Assumptions

The	following	tables	summarize	the	effect	on	pension	expense	of	a	one- percentage-point	change	in	the	discount	rate:

|  |  | One-percentage-point	increase |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| U.S.\tplans | $26 | $28 | $16 |
| Non-U.S.\tplans | (32) | (39) | (52) |

|  | One-percentage-point	decrease | One-percentage-point	decrease | One-percentage-point	decrease |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| U.S.\tplans | $(44) | $(45) | $(57) |
| Non-U.S.\tplans | 44 | 56 | 79 |

Since	the	U.S.	qualified	pension	plan	was	frozen,	the	majority	of	the prospective	service	cost	has	been	eliminated	and	the	gain/loss	amortization	period was	changed	to	the	life	expectancy	for	inactive	participants.	As	a	result,	pension expense	for	the	U.S.	qualified	pension	plan	is	driven	more	by	interest	costs	than service	costs,	and	an	increase	in	the	discount	rate	would	increase	pension	expense, while	a	decrease	in	the	discount	rate	would	decrease	pension	expense.

The	following	tables	summarize	the	effect	on	pension	expense	of	a	one- percentage-point	change	in	the	expected	rates	of	return:

|  |  | One-percentage-point	increase | One-percentage-point	increase |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| U.S.\tplans | $(128) | $(129) | $(123) |
| Non-U.S.\tplans | (63) | (67) | (68) |

|  | One-percentage-point	decrease | One-percentage-point	decrease |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| U.S.\tplans | $128 | $129 | $123 |
| Non-U.S.\tplans | 63 | 67 | 68 |

# Health	Care	Cost	Trend	Rate

Assumed	health	care	cost-trend	rates	were	as	follows:

(1) Weighted	average	for	plans	with	different	following	year	and	ultimate	rates.

	A	one-percentage-point	change	in	assumed	health	care	cost	trend	rates	would have	the	following	effects:

# Plan	Assets

Citigroup's	pension	and	postretirement	plans'	asset	allocations	for	the	U.S.	plans and	the	target	allocations	by	asset	category	based	on	asset	fair	values,	are	as follows:

|  | Target	asset<br>allocation | U.S.	pension	assets<br>at	December	31, |  | U.S.	postretirement	assets<br>at	December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Asset\tcategory(1) | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 |
| Equity\tsecurities(2) | 0–30% | 19% | 20% | 19% | 20% |
| Debt\tsecurities | 25–73 | 46 | 44 | 46 | 44 |
| Real\testate | 0–7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Private\tequity | 0–10 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| Other\tinvestments | 0–22 | 25 | 24 | 25 | 24 |
| Total |  | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |

(1) Asset	allocations	for	the	U.S.	plans	are	set	by	investment	strategy,	not	by	investment	product.	For	example,	private	equities	with	an	underlying	investment	in	real	estate	are	classified	in	the	real	estate asset	category,	not	private	equity.

(2) Equity	securities	in	the	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	do	not	include	any	Citigroup	common	stock	at	the	end	of	2015	and	2014.

Third-party	investment	managers	and	advisers	provide	their	services	to	Citigroup's U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans.	Assets	are	rebalanced	as	the	Company's Pension	Plan	Investment	Committee	deems	appropriate.	Citigroup's	investment strategy,	with	respect	to	its	assets,	is	to	maintain	a	globally	diversified	investment portfolio	across	several	asset	classes	that,	when	combined	with	Citigroup's

contributions	to	the	plans,	will	maintain	the	plans'	ability	to	meet	all	required benefit	obligations.

Citigroup's	pension	and	postretirement	plans'	weighted-average	asset allocations	for	the	non-U.S.	plans	and	the	actual	ranges	and	the	weighted-average target	allocations	by	asset	category	based	on	asset	fair	values	are	as	follows:

|  | Target	asset<br>allocation | Actual	range<br>at	December	31, | Actual	range<br>at	December	31, | Weighted-average<br>at	December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Asset\tcategory(1) | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 |
| Equity\tsecurities | 0–63\t% | 0–68% | 0–67% | 16% | 17% |
| Debt\tsecurities | 0–100 | 0–100 | 0–100 | 77 | 77 |
| Real\testate | 0–19 | 0–18 | 0–21 | 1 | — |
| Other\tinvestments | 0–100 | 0–100 | 0–100 | 6 | 6 |
| Total |  |  |  | 100% | 100% |

(1) Similar	to	the	U.S.	plans,	asset	allocations	for	certain	non-U.S.	plans	are	set	by	investment	strategy,	not	by	investment	product.

|  |  | Non-U.S.	postretirement	plans | Non-U.S.	postretirement	plans |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | Target\tasset\nallocation | Actual\trange\nat\tDecember\t31, | Actual\trange\nat\tDecember\t31, | Weighted-average\nat\tDecember\t31, |  |
| Asset\tcategory(1) | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 |
| Equity\tsecurities | 0–41% | 0–41% | 0–42% | 41% | 42% |
| Debt\tsecurities | 56–100 | 56–100 | 54–100 | 56 | 54 |
| Other\tinvestments | 0–3 | 0–3 | 0–4 | 3 | 4 |
| Total |  |  |  | 100% | 100% |

# Fair	Value	Disclosure

For	information	on	fair	value	measurements,	including	descriptions	of	Levels	1,	2 and	3	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy	and	the	valuation	methodology	utilized	by	the Company,	see	Note	1	and	Note	25	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.	ASU 2015-07	removes	the	current	requirement	to	categorize	investments	for	which	fair value	is	measured	using	the	NAV	per	share	practical	expedient	within	the	fair	value hierarchy.

Certain	investments	may	transfer	between	the	fair	value	hierarchy classifications	during	the	year	due	to	changes	in	valuation	methodology	and pricing	sources.	There	were	no	significant	transfers	of	investments	between	Level 1	and	Level	2	during	2015	and	2014.

Plan	assets	by	detailed	asset	categories	and	the	fair	value	hierarchy	are	as follows:

# U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans(1)

| In	millions	of	dollars | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2015 | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2015 | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2015 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Asset\tcategories | Level\t1 | Level\t2 | Level\t3 | Total |
| Equity\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tequity | $694 | $— | $— | $694 |
| Non-U.S.\tequity | 816 | — | — | 816 |
| Mutual\tfunds | 223 | — | — | 223 |
| Debt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tTreasuries | 1,172 | — | — | 1,172 |
| U.S.\tagency | — | 105 | — | 105 |
| U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | — | 1,681 | — | 1,681 |
| Non-U.S.\tgovernment\tdebt | — | 309 | — | 309 |
| Non-U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | — | 440 | — | 440 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal\tdebt | — | 124 | — | 124 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | — | 42 | — | 42 |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | — | 60 | — | 60 |
| Annuity\tcontracts | — | — | 27 | 27 |
| Derivatives | 6 | 521 | — | 527 |
| Other\tinvestments | — | — | 147 | 147 |
| Total\tinvestments | $2,911 | $3,282 | $174 | $6,367 |
| Cash\tand\tshort-term\tinvestments | $138 | $1,064 | $— | $1,202 |
| Other\tinvestment\tliabilities | (10) | (515) | — | (525) |
| Net\tinvestments\tat\tfair\tvalue | $3,039 | $3,831 | $174 | $7,044 |
| Other\tinvestment\treceivables\tvalued\tat\tNAV |  |  |  | $18 |
| Securities\tvalued\tat\tNAV |  |  |  | 5,241 |
| Total\tnet\tassets |  |  |  | $12,303 |
| (1)\nThe\tinvestments\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\tare\tcommingled\tin\tone\ttrust.\tAt\tDecember\t31,\t2015,\tthe\tallocable\tinterests\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\twere | (1)\nThe\tinvestments\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\tare\tcommingled\tin\tone\ttrust.\tAt\tDecember\t31,\t2015,\tthe\tallocable\tinterests\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\twere | (1)\nThe\tinvestments\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\tare\tcommingled\tin\tone\ttrust.\tAt\tDecember\t31,\t2015,\tthe\tallocable\tinterests\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\twere | (1)\nThe\tinvestments\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\tare\tcommingled\tin\tone\ttrust.\tAt\tDecember\t31,\t2015,\tthe\tallocable\tinterests\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\twere | 98.6%\tand |

(1) The	investments	of	the	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	are	commingled	in	one	trust.	At	December	31,	2015,	the	allocable	interests	of	the	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	were 98.6%	and 1.4%,	respectively.

| In	millions	of	dollars |  | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2014 | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Asset\tcategories | Level\t1 | Level\t2 | Level\t3 | Total |
| Equity\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tequity | $773 | $— | $— | $773 |
| Non-U.S.\tequity | 588 | — | — | 588 |
| Mutual\tfunds | 216 | — | — | 216 |
| Debt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tTreasuries | 1,178 | — | — | 1,178 |
| U.S.\tagency | — | 113 | — | 113 |
| U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | — | 1,534 | — | 1,534 |
| Non-U.S.\tgovernment\tdebt | — | 357 | — | 357 |
| Non-U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | — | 417 | — | 417 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal\tdebt | — | 132 | — | 132 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | — | 41 | — | 41 |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | — | 76 | — | 76 |
| Annuity\tcontracts | — | — | 59 | 59 |
| Derivatives | 12 | 637 | — | 649 |
| Other\tinvestments | — | — | 161 | 161 |
| Total\tinvestments | $2,767 | $3,307 | $220 | $6,294 |
| Cash\tand\tshort-term\tinvestments | $111 | $1,287 | — | $1,398 |
| Other\tinvestment\tliabilities | (17) | (618) | — | (635) |
| Net\tinvestments\tat\tfair\tvalue | $2,861 | $3,976 | $220 | $7,057 |
| Other\tinvestment\treceivables\tvalued\tat\tNAV |  |  |  | $63 |
| Securities\tvalued\tat\tNAV |  |  |  | 5,961 |
| Total\tnet\tassets |  |  |  | $13,081 |
| (1)\nThe\tinvestments\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\tare\tcommingled\tin\tone\ttrust.\tAt\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\tthe\tallocable\tinterests\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\twere | (1)\nThe\tinvestments\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\tare\tcommingled\tin\tone\ttrust.\tAt\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\tthe\tallocable\tinterests\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\twere | (1)\nThe\tinvestments\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\tare\tcommingled\tin\tone\ttrust.\tAt\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\tthe\tallocable\tinterests\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\twere | (1)\nThe\tinvestments\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\tare\tcommingled\tin\tone\ttrust.\tAt\tDecember\t31,\t2014,\tthe\tallocable\tinterests\tof\tthe\tU.S.\tpension\tand\tpostretirement\tplans\twere | 99.9%\tand |

(1) The	investments	of	the	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	are	commingled	in	one	trust.	At	December	31,	2014,	the	allocable	interests	of	the	U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	plans	were 99.9%	and .01%,	respectively.

# Non-U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans

| In	millions	of	dollars |  | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2015 | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2015 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Asset\tcategories | Level\t1 | Level\t2 | Level\t3 | Total |
| Equity\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tequity | $5 | $11 | $— | $16 |
| Non-U.S.\tequity | 74 | 222 | 47 | 343 |
| Commingled\tfunds | 5 | — | — | 5 |
| Debt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tTreasuries | — | 1 | — | 1 |
| U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | — | 360 | — | 360 |
| Non-U.S.\tgovernment\tdebt | 2,886 | 171 | — | 3,057 |
| Non-U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | 87 | 683 | 5 | 775 |
| Real\testate | — | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | 22 | — | — | 22 |
| Annuity\tcontracts | — | 1 | 41 | 42 |
| Other\tinvestments | 1 | — | 163 | 164 |
| Total\tinvestments | $3,080 | $1,452 | $257 | $4,789 |
| Cash\tand\tshort-term\tinvestments | $73 | $2 | $— | $75 |
| Other\tinvestment\tliabilities | — | (690) | — | (690) |
| Net\tinvestments\tat\tfair\tvalue | $3,153 | $764 | $257 | $4,174 |
| Other\tinvestment\treceivables\tvalued\tat\tNAV |  |  |  | $97 |
| Securities\tvalued\tat\tNAV |  |  |  | 2,966 |
| Total\tnet\tassets |  |  |  | $7,237 |

| In	millions	of	dollars |  | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2014 | Fair	value	measurement	at	December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Asset\tcategories | Level\t1 | Level\t2 | Level\t3 | Total |
| Equity\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tequity | $5 | $13 | $— | $18 |
| Non-U.S.\tequity | 83 | 257 | 48 | 388 |
| Mutual\tfunds | — | 24 | — | 24 |
| Commingled\tfunds | 10 | — | — | 10 |
| Debt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | — | 350 | — | 350 |
| Non-U.S.\tgovernment\tdebt | 3,213 | 220 | 1 | 3,434 |
| Non-U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | 99 | 765 | 5 | 869 |
| Real\testate | — | 3 | — | 3 |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | — | 1 | — | 1 |
| Annuity\tcontracts | — | 1 | 32 | 33 |
| Derivatives | 11 | — | — | 11 |
| Other\tinvestments | 1 | 1 | 165 | 167 |
| Total\tinvestments | $3,422 | $1,635 | $251 | $5,308 |
| Cash\tand\tshort-term\tinvestments | $112 | $2 | $— | $114 |
| Other\tinvestment\tliabilities | (3) | (723) | — | (726) |
| Net\tinvestments\tat\tfair\tvalue | $3,531 | $914 | $251 | $4,696 |
| Other\tinvestment\treceivables\tvalued\tat\tNAV |  |  |  | $114 |
| Securities\tvalued\tat\tNAV |  |  |  | 3,631 |
| Total\tnet\tassets |  |  |  | $8,441 |

# Level	3	Rollforward

The	reconciliations	of	the	beginning	and	ending	balances	during	the	year	for	Level	3	assets	are	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars |  |  | U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans | U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Asset\tcategories | Beginning\tLevel\t3\tfair\nvalue\tat\nDec.\t31,\t2014(1) | Realized\tgains\n(losses) | Unrealized\tgains\n(losses) | Purchases,\tsales,\tand\nissuances | Transfers\tin\nand/or\tout\tof\tLevel\t3 | Ending\tLevel\t3\tfair\nvalue\tat\tDec.\t31,\n2015 |
| Annuity\tcontracts | $59 | $— | $(4) | $(28) | $— | $27 |
| Other\tinvestments | 161 | (1) | (9) | (4) | — | 147 |
| Total\tinvestments | $220 | $(1) | $(13) | $(32) | $— | $174 |

(1) Beginning	balance	was	adjusted	to	exclude	 $2,496	million	of	investments	valued	at	NAV.

| Asset	categories | value	at<br>Dec.	31,	2013(1) | Realized	gains<br>(losses) | Unrealized	gains<br>(losses) | Purchases,	sales,	and<br>issuances | Transfers	in<br>and/or	out	of	Level	3 | Ending	Level	3	fair<br>value	at	Dec.	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Annuity\tcontracts | $91 | $— | $(1) | $(31) | $— | $59 |
| Other\tinvestments | 150 | (1) | (4) | 16 | — | 161 |
| Total\tinvestments | $241 | $(1) | $(5) | $(15) | $— | $220 |

| Asset	categories | Beginning	Level	3	fair<br>value	at	Dec.	31,	2014(1) | Unrealized	gains<br>(losses) | sales,	and<br>issuances | Transfers	in<br>and/or	out	of	Level	3 | Ending	Level	3	fair<br>value	at	Dec.	31,	2015 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Equity\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Non-U.S.\tequity | $48 | $(1) | $— | $— | $47 |
| Debt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Non-U.S.\tgovernment\tdebt | 1 | — | (1) | — | — |
| Non-U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | 5 | (1) | 1 | — | 5 |
| Real\testate | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
| Annuity\tcontracts | 32 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 41 |
| Other\tinvestments | 165 | (2) | 2 | (2) | 163 |
| Total\tinvestments | $251 | $(2) | $6 | $2 | $257 |

| In	millions	of	dollars |  | Non-U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans | Non-U.S.	pension	and	postretirement	benefit	plans |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Asset\tcategories | Beginning\tLevel\t3\tfair\nvalue\tat\nDec.\t31,\t2013(1) | Unrealized\tgains\n(losses) | Purchases,\nsales,\tand\nissuances | Transfers\tin\nand/or\tout\tof\tLevel\t3 | Ending\tLevel\t3\tfair\nvalue\tat\tDec.\t31,\t2014 |
| Equity\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Non-U.S.\tequity | $49 | $(3) | $— | $2 | $48 |
| Debt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Non-U.S.\tgovernment\tbonds | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
| Non-U.S.\tcorporate\tbonds | 5 | — | 1 | (1) | 5 |
| Annuity\tcontracts | 32 | — | — | — | 32 |
| Other\tinvestments | 202 | — | (37) | — | 165 |
| Total\tinvestments | $288 | $(3) | $(36) | $2 | $251 |

# Investment	Strategy

The	Company's	global	pension	and	postretirement	funds'	investment	strategy	is	to invest	in	a	prudent	manner	for	the	exclusive	purpose	of	providing	benefits	to participants.	The	investment	strategies	are	targeted	to	produce	a	total	return	that, when	combined	with	the	Company's	contributions	to	the	funds,	will	maintain	the funds'	ability	to	meet	all	required	benefit	obligations.	Risk	is	controlled	through diversification	of	asset	types	and	investments	in	domestic	and	international equities,	fixed-income	securities	and	cash	and	short-term	investments.	The	target asset	allocation	in	most	locations	outside	the	U.S.	is	primarily	in	equity	and	debt securities.	These	allocations	may	vary	by	geographic	region	and	country	depending on	the	nature	of	applicable	obligations	and	various	other	regional	considerations. The	wide	variation	in	the	actual	range	of	plan	asset	allocations	for	the	funded	non- U.S.	plans	is	a	result	of	differing	local	statutory	requirements	and	economic conditions.	For	example,	in	certain	countries	local	law	requires	that	all	pension plan	assets	must	be	invested	in	fixed-income	investments,	government	funds,	or local-country	securities.

# Significant	Concentrations	of	Risk	in	Plan	Assets

The	assets	of	the	Company's	pension	plans	are	diversified	to	limit	the	impact	of any	individual	investment.	The	U.S.	qualified	pension	plan	is	diversified	across multiple	asset	classes,	with	publicly	traded	fixed	income,	hedge	funds,	publicly traded	equity,	and	private	equity	representing	the	most	significant	asset	allocations. Investments	in	these	four	asset	classes	are	further	diversified	across	funds, managers,	strategies,	vintages,	sectors	and	geographies,	depending	on	the	specific characteristics	of	each	asset	class.	The	pension	assets	for	the	Company's	non-U.S. Significant	Plans	are	primarily	invested	in	publicly	traded	fixed	income	and publicly	traded	equity	securities.

# Oversight	and	Risk	Management	Practices

The	framework	for	the	Company's	pension	oversight	process	includes	monitoring of	retirement	plans	by	plan	fiduciaries	and/or	management	at	the	global,	regional or	country	level,	as	appropriate.	Independent	risk	management	contributes	to	the risk	oversight	and	monitoring	for	the	Company's	U.S.	qualified	pension	plan	and non-U.S.	Significant	Pension	Plans.	Although	the	specific	components	of	the oversight	process	are	tailored	to	the	requirements	of	each	region,	country	and	plan, the	following	elements	are	common	to	the	Company's	monitoring	and	risk management	process:

•periodic	asset/liability	management	studies	and	strategic	asset	allocation reviews;

•periodic	monitoring	of	funding	levels	and	funding

ratios;

# Estimated	Future	Benefit	Payments

The	Company	expects	to	pay	the	following	estimated	benefit	payments	in	future	years:

|  |  | Pension	plans | Postretirement	benefit	plans | Postretirement	benefit	plans |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | U.S.\tplans | Non-U.S.\tplans | U.S.\tplans | Non-U.S.\tplans |
| 2016 | $903 | $377 | $71 | $63 |
| 2017 | 818 | 337 | 70 | 67 |
| 2018 | 828 | 359 | 68 | 72 |
| 2019 | 848 | 382 | 67 | 77 |
| 2020 | 876 | 415 | 65 | 83 |
| 2021–2025 | 4,523 | 2,467 | 303 | 523 |

# Prescription	Drugs

In	December	2003,	the	Medicare	Prescription	Drug	Improvement	and Modernization	Act	of	2003	(Act	of	2003)	was	enacted.	The	Act	of	2003	established a	prescription	drug	benefit	under	Medicare	known	as	"Medicare	Part	D,"	and	a federal	subsidy	to	sponsors	of	U.S.	retiree	health	care	benefit	plans	that	provide	a benefit	that	is	at	least	actuarially	equivalent	to	Medicare	Part	D.	The	benefits provided	to	certain	participants	are	at	least	actuarially	equivalent	to	Medicare Part	D	and,	accordingly,	the	Company	is	entitled	to	a	subsidy.

The	subsidy	reduced	the	accumulated	postretirement	benefit	obligation (APBO)	by	approximately	$5	million	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014	and	the postretirement	expense	by	approximately	$0.2	million	for	2015	and	2014. The	following	table	shows	the	estimated	future	benefit	payments	for	the Medicare	Part	D	of	the	U.S.	postretirement	plan.

| In	millions	of<br>dollars |  | Expected	U.S.<br>postretirement	benefit	payments |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | Before\tMedicare\nPart\tD\tsubsidy | Medicare\tPart\tD\nsubsidy | After\tMedicare\nPart\tD\tsubsidy |
| 2016 | $71 | $— $ | 71 |
| 2017 | 70 | — | 70 |
| 2018 | 68 | — | 68 |
| 2019 | 67 | — | 67 |
| 2020 | 65 | — | 65 |
| 2021–2025 | 303 | 2 | 301 |

Certain	provisions	of	the	Patient	Protection	and	Affordable	Care	Act	of	2010 improved	the	Medicare	Part	D	option	known	as	the	Employer	Group	Waiver	Plan (EGWP)	with	respect	to	the	Medicare	Part	D	subsidy.	The	EGWP	provides prescription	drug	benefits	that	are	more	cost	effective	for	Medicare-eligible participants	and	large	employers.	Effective	April	1,	2013,	the	Company	began sponsoring	and	implementing	an	EGWP	for	eligible	retirees.	The	Company subsidy	received	under	the	EGWP	for	2015	and	2014	was	$11.6	million	and	$11.0 million,	respectively.

The	other	provisions	of	the	Act	of	2010	are	not	expected	to	have	a	significant impact	on	Citigroup's	pension	and	postretirement	plans.

# Postemployment	Plans

The	Company	sponsors	U.S.	postemployment	plans	that	provide	income continuation	and	health	and	welfare	benefits	to	certain	eligible	U.S.	employees	on long-term	disability.

As	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	plans'	funded	status	recognized	in	the Company's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	was	$(183)	million	and	$(256)	million, respectively.	The	amounts	recognized	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income (loss)	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014	were	$45	million	and	$24	million, respectively.	Effective	January	1,	2014,	the	Company	made	changes	to	its postemployment	plans	that	limit	the	period	for	which	future	disabled	employees are	eligible	for	continued	Company	subsidized	medical	benefits.

The	following	table	summarizes	the	components	of	net	expense	recognized	in the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income	for	the	Company's	U.S.	postemployment plans.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Service\trelated\texpense |  |  |  |
| Service\tcost | $— | $— | $20 |
| Interest\tcost | 4 | 5 | 10 |
| Prior\tservice\t(benefit) | (31) | (31) | (3) |
| Net\tactuarial\tloss | 12 | 14 | 17 |
| Total\tservice\trelated\texpense | $(15) | $(12) | $44 |
| Non-service\trelated\texpense\t(benefit) | $3 | $37 | $(14) |
| Total\tnet\t(benefit)\texpense | $(12) | $25 | $30 |

The	following	table	summarizes	certain	assumptions	used	in	determining	the postemployment	benefit	obligations	and	net	benefit	expenses	for	the	Company's U.S.	postemployment	plans.

# Defined	Contribution	Plans

The	Company	sponsors	defined	contribution	plans	in	the	U.S.	and	in	certain	non- U.S.	locations,	all	of	which	are	administered	in	accordance	with	local	laws.	The most	significant	defined	contribution	plan	sponsored	by	the	Company	is	the	Citi Retirement	Savings	Plan	in	the	U.S.	(formerly	known	as	the	Citigroup 401(k)	Plan).

Under	the	Citi	Retirement	Savings	Plan,	eligible	U.S.	employees	received matching	contributions	of	up	to	6%	of	their	eligible	compensation	for	2015	and 2014,	subject	to	statutory	limits.	Additionally,	for	eligible	employees	whose eligible	compensation	is	$100,000	or	less,	a	fixed	contribution	of	up	to	2%	of eligible	compensation	is	provided.	All	Company	contributions	are	invested according	to	participants'	individual	elections.	The	following	table	summarizes	the Company	contributions	to	the	U.S.	and	non-U.S.	plans.

Details	of	the	Company's	income	tax	provision	are	presented	below:

# Income	Tax	Provision

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Current |  |  |  |
| Federal | $861 | $181 | $(260) |
| Foreign | 3,397 | 3,281 | 3,788 |
| State | 388 | 388 | (41) |
| Total\tcurrent\tincome\ttaxes | $4,646 | $3,850 | $3,487 |
| Deferred |  |  |  |
| Federal | $3,019 | $2,510 | $2,867 |
| Foreign | (4) | 361 | (716) |
| State | (221) | 476 | 548 |
| Total\tdeferred\tincome\ttaxes | $2,794 | $3,347 | $2,699 |
| Provision\tfor\tincome\ttax\ton\tcontinuing\noperations\tbefore\tnon-controlling\tinterests(1) | $7,440 | $7,197 | $6,186 |
| Provision\t(benefit)\tfor\tincome\ttaxes\ton\ndiscontinued\toperations | (29) | 12 | (244) |
| Income\ttax\texpense\t(benefit)\treported\tin\nstockholders'\tequity\trelated\tto: |  |  |  |
| FX\ttranslation | (906) | 65 | (48) |
| Investment\tsecurities | (498) | 1,007 | (1,300) |
| Employee\tstock\tplans | (35) | (87) | 28 |
| Cash\tflow\thedges | 176 | 207 | 625 |
| Benefit\tplans | (24) | (660) | 698 |
| Retained\tearnings(2) | — | (353) | — |
| Income\ttaxes\tbefore\tnon-controlling\tinterests | $6,124 | $7,388 | $5,945 |

(1) Includes	the	effect	of	securities	transactions	and	other-than-temporary-impairment	losses resulting	in	a	provision	(benefit)	of	$239	million	and	$(93)	million	in	2015,	$200	million	and $(148)	million	in	2014	and	$262	million	and	$(187)	million	in	2013,	respectively.

(2) See	"Consolidated	Statement	of	Changes	in	Stockholders'	Equity"	above.

# Tax	Rate

The	reconciliation	of	the	federal	statutory	income	tax	rate	to	the	Company's effective	income	tax	rate	applicable	to	income	from	continuing	operations	(before non-controlling	interests	and	the	cumulative	effect	of	accounting	changes)	for	each of	the	periods	indicated	is	as	follows:

|  | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Federal\tstatutory\trate | 35.0\t% | 35.0\t% | 35.0\t% |
| State\tincome\ttaxes,\tnet\tof\tfederal\tbenefit | 1.7 | 3.4 | 1.7 |
| Foreign\tincome\ttax\trate\tdifferential | (4.6) | (0.3) | (2.3) |
| Audit\tsettlements(1) | (1.7) | (2.4) | (0.7) |
| Effect\tof\ttax\tlaw\tchanges(2) | 0.4 | 1.2 | (0.3) |
| Nondeductible\tlegal\tand\trelated\texpenses | 0.3 | 18.3 | 0.8 |
| Basis\tdifference\tin\taffiliates | — | (2.5) | — |
| Tax\tadvantaged\tinvestments | (1.8) | (3.6) | (3.0) |
| Other,\tnet | 0.7 | (0.1) | — |
| Effective\tincome\ttax\trate | 30.0\t% | 49.0\t% | 31.2\t% |

(1) For	2015,	primarily	relates	to	the	conclusion	of	a	New	York	City	tax	audit	for	2009-2011. For	2014,	relates	to	the	conclusion	of	the	audit	of	various	issues	in	the	Company's	2009-2011 U.S.	federal	tax	audit	and	the	conclusion	of	a	New	York	State	tax	audit	for	2006-2008.	For 2013,	relates	to	the	settlement	of	U.S.	federal	issues	for	2003-2005	and	IRS	appeals.

(2) For	2015,	includes	the	results	of	tax	reforms	enacted	in	New	York	City	and	several	states, which	resulted	in	a	DTA	charge	of	approximately	$101	million.	For	2014,	includes	the results	of	tax	reforms	enacted	in	New	York	State	and	South	Dakota,	which	resulted	in	a DTA	charge	of	approximately	$210	million.

As	set	forth	in	the	table	above,	Citi's	effective	tax	rate	for	2015	was	30.0%. The	decline	in	the	effective	tax	rate	from	2014	was	primarily	due	to	a	lower	level of	non-deductible	legal	and	related	expenses	in	2015.

# Deferred	Income	Taxes

Deferred	income	taxes	at	December	31	related	to	the	following:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Deferred\ttax\tassets |  |  |
| Credit\tloss\tdeduction | $6,058 | $7,010 |
| Deferred\tcompensation\tand\temployee\tbenefits | 4,110 | 4,676 |
| Repositioning\tand\tsettlement\treserves | 1,429 | 1,599 |
| Unremitted\tforeign\tearnings | 8,403 | 6,368 |
| Investment\tand\tloan\tbasis\tdifferences | 3,248 | 4,808 |
| Cash\tflow\thedges | 359 | 529 |
| Tax\tcredit\tand\tnet\toperating\tloss\tcarry-forwards | 23,053 | 23,395 |
| Fixed\tassets\tand\tleases | 1,356 | 2,093 |
| Other\tdeferred\ttax\tassets | 3,176 | 2,334 |
| Gross\tdeferred\ttax\tassets | $51,192 | $52,812 |
| Valuation\tallowance | — | — |
| Deferred\ttax\tassets\tafter\tvaluation\tallowance | $51,192 | $52,812 |
| Deferred\ttax\tliabilities |  |  |
| Deferred\tpolicy\tacquisition\tcosts\tand\tvalue\tof\tinsurance\tin\nforce | $(327) | $(415) |
| Intangibles | (1,146) | (1,636) |
| Debt\tissuances | (850) | (866) |
| Other\tdeferred\ttax\tliabilities | (1,020) | (559) |
| Gross\tdeferred\ttax\tliabilities | $(3,343) | $(3,476) |
| Net\tdeferred\ttax\tassets | $47,849 | $49,336 |

# Unrecognized	Tax	Benefits

The	following	is	a	rollforward	of	the	Company's	unrecognized	tax	benefits.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Total\tunrecognized\ttax\tbenefits\tat\tJanuary\t1 | $1,060 | $1,574 | $3,109 |
| Net\tamount\tof\tincreases\tfor\tcurrent\tyear's\ttax\npositions | 32 | 135 | 58 |
| Gross\tamount\tof\tincreases\tfor\tprior\tyears'\ttax\npositions | 311 | 175 | 251 |
| Gross\tamount\tof\tdecreases\tfor\tprior\tyears'\ttax\npositions | (61) | (772) | (716) |
| Amounts\tof\tdecreases\trelating\tto\tsettlements | (45) | (28) | (1,115) |
| Reductions\tdue\tto\tlapse\tof\tstatutes\tof\tlimitation | (22) | (30) | (15) |
| Foreign\texchange,\tacquisitions\tand\tdispositions | (40) | 6 | 2 |
| Total\tunrecognized\ttax\tbenefits\tat\nDecember\t31 | $1,235 | $1,060 | $1,574 |

The	total	amounts	of	unrecognized	tax	benefits	at	December	31,	2015,	2014 and	2013	that,	if	recognized,	would	affect	Citi's	effective	tax	rate,	are	$0.9	billion, $0.8	billion	and	$0.8	billion,	respectively.	The	remaining	uncertain	tax	positions have	offsetting	amounts	in	other	jurisdictions	or	are	temporary	differences,	except for	$0.4	billion	at	December	31,	2013,	which	was	recognized	in	Retained	earnings in	2014.

Interest	and	penalties	(not	included	in	"unrecognized	tax	benefits"	above)	are	a component	of	the	Provision	for	income	taxes.

|  |  | 2015 |  | 2014 |  | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Pretax | Net\tof\ttax | Pretax | Net\tof\ttax | Pretax | Net\tof\ttax |
| Total\tinterest\tand\tpenalties\tin\tthe\tConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet\tat\tJanuary\t1 | $269 | $169 | $277 | $173 | $492 | $315 |
| Total\tinterest\tand\tpenalties\tin\tthe\tConsolidated\tStatement\tof\tIncome | (29) | (18) | (1) | (1) | (108) | (72) |
| Total\tinterest\tand\tpenalties\tin\tthe\tConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet\tat\tDecember\t31(1) | 233 | 146 | 269 | 169 | 277 | 173 |

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citi	is	under	audit	by	the	Internal	Revenue	Service and	other	major	taxing	jurisdictions	around	the	world.	It	is	thus	reasonably possible	that	significant	changes	in	the	gross	balance	of	unrecognized	tax	benefits may	occur	within	the	next	12	months,	although	Citi	does	not	expect	such	audits	to result	in	amounts	that	would	cause	a	significant	change	to	its	effective	tax	rate, other	than	as	discussed	below.

Citi	expects	to	conclude	its	IRS	audit	for	the	2012-2013	cycle	within	the	next 12	months.	The	gross	uncertain	tax	positions	at	December	31,	2015	for	the	items that	may	be	resolved	are	as	much	as	$97	million.	Because	of	the	number	and nature	of	the	issues	remaining	to	be	resolved,	the	potential	tax	benefit	to	continuing operations	could	be	anywhere	in	a	range	between	$0	and	$94	million.	In	addition, Citi	may	conclude	certain	state	and	local	tax	audits	within	the	next	12	months.	The gross	uncertain	tax	positions	at	December	31,	2015	are	as	much	as	$222	million.	In addition	there	is	gross	interest	of	as	much	as	$16	million.	The	potential	tax	benefit to

continuing	operations	could	be	anywhere	between	$0	and	$155	million,	including interest.	Furthermore,	Citi	may	conclude	certain	foreign	audits	within	the	next	12 months.	The	gross	uncertain	positions	at	December	31,	2015	are	as	much	as	$119 million.	In	addition	there	is	gross	interest	of	as	much	as	$18	million.	The	potential tax	benefit	to	continuing	operations	could	be	anywhere	between	$0	and	$22 million,	including	interest.	The	potential	tax	benefit	to	discontinued	operations could	be	anywhere	between	$0	and	$76	million,	including	interest.

The	following	are	the	major	tax	jurisdictions	in	which	the	Company	and	its affiliates	operate	and	the	earliest	tax	year	subject	to	examination:

# Foreign	Earnings

Foreign	pretax	earnings	approximated	$11.3	billion	in	2015,	$10.1	billion	in	2014 and	$13.1	billion	in	2013.	As	a	U.S.	corporation,	Citigroup	and	its	U.S. subsidiaries	are	currently	subject	to	U.S.	taxation	on	all	foreign	pretax	earnings earned	by	a	foreign	branch.	Pretax	earnings	of	a	foreign	subsidiary	or	affiliate	are subject	to	U.S.	taxation	when	effectively	repatriated.	The	Company	provides income	taxes	on	the	undistributed	earnings	of	non-U.S.	subsidiaries	except	to	the extent	that	such	earnings	are	indefinitely	reinvested	outside	the	United	States. At	December	31,	2015,	$45.2	billion	of	accumulated	undistributed	earnings	of non-U.S.	subsidiaries	was	indefinitely	invested.	At	the	existing	U.S.	federal	income tax	rate,	additional	taxes	(net	of	U.S.	foreign	tax	credits)	of	$12.7	billion	would have	to	be	provided	if	such	earnings	were	remitted	currently.	The	current	year's effect	on	the	income	tax	expense	from	continuing	operations	is	included	in	the "Foreign	income	tax	rate	differential"	line	in	the	reconciliation	of	the	federal statutory	rate	to	the	Company's	effective	income	tax	rate	in	the	table	above.

Income	taxes	are	not	provided	for	the	Company's	"savings	bank	base	year	bad debt	reserves"	that	arose	before	1988,	because	under	current	U.S.	tax	rules,	such taxes	will	become	payable	only	to	the	extent	such	amounts	are	distributed	in	excess of	limits	prescribed	by	federal	law.	At	December	31,	2015,	the	amount	of	the	base year	reserves	totaled	approximately	$358	million	(subject	to	a	tax	of	$125	million).

# Deferred	Tax	Assets

As	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	Citi	had	no	valuation	allowance	on	its	DTAs. The	following	table	summarizes	Citi's	DTAs.

| Jurisdiction/component | DTAs	balance<br>December	31,	2015 | DTAs	balance<br>December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| U.S.\tfederal(1) |  |  |
| Net\toperating\tlosses\t(NOLs)(2) | $3.4 | $2.3 |
| Foreign\ttax\tcredits\t(FTCs)(3) | 15.9 | 17.6 |
| General\tbusiness\tcredits\t(GBCs) | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Future\ttax\tdeductions\tand\tcredits | 20.7 | 21.1 |
| Total\tU.S.\tfederal | $41.3 | $42.6 |
| State\tand\tlocal |  |  |
| New\tYork\tNOLs | $2.4 | $1.5 |
| Other\tstate\tNOLs | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Future\ttax\tdeductions | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Total\tstate\tand\tlocal | $3.9 | $3.9 |
| Foreign |  |  |
| APB\t23\tsubsidiary\tNOLs | $0.2 | $0.2 |
| Non-APB\t23\tsubsidiary\tNOLs | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| Future\ttax\tdeductions | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Total\tforeign | $2.6 | $2.8 |
| Total | $47.8 | $49.3 |
| (1) |  |  |
| deferred\ttax\tliabilities\tof\t$2\tbillion\tthat\twill\treverse\tin\tthe\trelevant\tcarry-forward\tperiod\tand |  |  |
| may\tbe\tused\tto\tsupport\tthe\tDTAs. |  |  |
| (2) |  |  |

(1) Included	in	the	net	U.S.	federal	DTAs	of	$41.3	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015	were       deferred	tax	liabilities	of	$2	billion	that	will	reverse	in	the	relevant	carry-forward	period	and      may	be	used	to	support	the	DTAs.

(2) Includes	$0.5	billion	and	$0.6	billion	for	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	of	NOL	carry- forwards	related	to	non-consolidated	tax	return	companies	that	are	expected	to	be	utilized separately	from	Citigroup's	consolidated	tax	return,	and	$2.9	billion	and	$1.7	billion	of	non- consolidated	tax	return	NOL	carry-forwards	for	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	that	are eventually	expected	to	be	utilized	in	Citigroup's	consolidated	tax	return.

(3) Includes	$1.7	billion	and	$1.0	billion	for	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	of	non-consolidated tax	return	FTC	carry-forwards	that	are	eventually	expected	to	be	utilized	in	Citigroup's consolidated	tax	return.

The	following	table	summarizes	the	amounts	of	tax	carry-forwards	and	their expiration	dates:

| Year	of	expiration | December	31,<br>2015 | December	31,<br>2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| U.S.\ttax\treturn\tforeign\ttax\tcredit\tcarry-\nforwards |  |  |
| 2017 | $— $ | 1.9 |
| 2018 | 4.8 | 5.2 |
| 2019 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 2020 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| 2021 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 3.4 | 3.4 |
| 2023(1) | 0.4 | 1.0 |
| 2025(1) | 1.3 | — |
| Total\tU.S.\ttax\treturn\tforeign\ttax\tcredit\tcarry-\nforwards | $15.9 | $17.6 |
| U.S.\ttax\treturn\tgeneral\tbusiness\tcredit\tcarry-\nforwards |  |  |
| 2030 | $— $ | 0.4 |
| 2031 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| 2032 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 2033 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 2034 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| 2035 | 0.2 | — |
| Total\tU.S.\ttax\treturn\tgeneral\tbusiness\tcredit\ncarry-forwards | $1.3 | $1.6 |
| U.S.\tsubsidiary\tseparate\tfederal\tNOL\tcarry-\nforwards |  |  |
| 2027 | $0.2 | $0.2 |
| 2028 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 2030 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 2031 | 1.5 | 1.7 |
| 2033 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| 2034 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
| 2035 | 3.6 | — |
| Total\tU.S.\tsubsidiary\tseparate\tfederal\tNOL\ncarry-forwards(2) | $9.7 | $6.5 |
| New\tYork\tState\tNOL\tcarry-forwards |  |  |
| 2034 | $14.6 | $12.3 |
| Total\tNew\tYork\tState\tNOL\tcarry-forwards(2) | $14.6 | $12.3 |
| New\tYork\tCity\tNOL\tcarry-forwards |  |  |
| 2028 | $— $ | 3.8 |
| 2031 | — | 0.1 |
| 2032 | — | 0.5 |
| 2034 | 13.3 | — |
| Total\tNew\tYork\tCity\tNOL\tcarry-forwards(2) | $13.3 | $4.4 |
| APB\t23\tsubsidiary\tNOL\tcarry-forwards |  |  |
| Various | $0.2 | $0.2 |
| Total\tAPB\t23\tsubsidiary\tNOL\tcarry-forwards | $0.2 | $0.2 |

While	Citi's	net	total	DTAs	decreased	year-over-year,	the	time	remaining	for utilization	has	shortened,	given	the	passage	of	time,	particularly	with	respect	to	the foreign	tax	credit	(FTC)	component	of	the	DTAs.	Although	realization	is	not assured,	Citi	believes	that	the	realization	of	the	recognized	net	DTAs	of	$47.8 billion	at	December	31,	2015	is	more-likely-than-not	based	upon	expectations	as	to future	taxable	income	in	the	jurisdictions	in	which	the	DTAs	arise	and	available	tax planning	strategies	(as	defined	in	ASC	740,	Income	Taxes)	that	would	be implemented,	if	necessary,	to	prevent	a	carry-forward	from	expiring.

Citi	has	concluded	that	it	has	the	necessary	positive	evidence	to	support	the full	realization	of	its	DTAs.	Specifically,	Citi	forecasts	sufficient	U.S.	taxable income	in	the	carry-forward	periods,	exclusive	of	ASC	740	tax	planning	strategies. Citi's	forecasted	taxable	income,	which	will	continue	to	be	subject	to	overall market	and	global	economic	conditions,	incorporates	geographic	business	forecasts and	taxable	income	adjustments	to	those	forecasts	(e.g.,	U.S.	tax-exempt	income, loan	loss	reserves	deductible	for	U.S.	tax	reporting	in	subsequent	years),	and actions	intended	to	optimize	its	U.S.	taxable	earnings.	In	general,	Citi	would	need to	generate	approximately	$59	billion	of	U.S.	taxable	income	during	the	FTC carry-forward	periods	to	prevent	this	most	time-sensitive	component	of	Citi's FTCs	from	expiring.

In	addition	to	its	forecasted	U.S.	taxable	income,	Citi	has	tax	planning strategies	available	to	it	under	ASC	740	that	would	be	implemented,	if	necessary, to	prevent	a	carry-forward	from	expiring.	These	strategies	include:	(i)	repatriating low-taxed	foreign	source	earnings	for	which	an	assertion	that	the	earnings	have been	indefinitely	reinvested	has	not	been	made;	(ii)	accelerating	U.S.	taxable income	into,	or	deferring	U.S.	tax	deductions	out	of,	the	latter	years	of	the	carry- forward	period	(e.g.,	selling	appreciated	assets,	electing	straight-line	depreciation); (iii)	accelerating	deductible	temporary	differences	outside	the	U.S.;	and	(iv)	selling certain	assets	that	produce	tax-exempt	income,	while	purchasing	assets	that produce	fully	taxable	income.	In	addition,	the	sale	or	restructuring	of	certain businesses	can	produce	significant	U.S.	taxable	income	within	the	relevant	carry- forward	periods.

Based	upon	the	foregoing	discussion,	Citi	believes	the	U.S.	federal	and	New York	state	and	city	NOL	carry-forward	period	of	20	years	provides	enough	time	to fully	utilize	the	DTAs	pertaining	to	the	existing	NOL	carry-forwards	and	any	NOL that	would	be	created	by	the	reversal	of	the	future	net	deductions	that	have	not	yet been	taken	on	a	tax	return.

With	respect	to	the	FTCs	component	of	the	DTAs,	the	carry-forward	period	is 10	years.	Utilization	of	FTCs	in	any	year	is	restricted	to	35%	of	foreign	source taxable	income	in	that	year.	However,	overall	domestic	losses	that	Citi	has incurred	of	approximately	$54	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015	are	allowed	to	be reclassified	as	foreign	source	income	to	the	extent	of	50%	of	domestic	source income	produced	in	subsequent	years.	Such	resulting	foreign	source	income	would cover	the	FTCs	being	carried	forward.	As	noted	in	the	table	above,	Citi's	FTC carry-forwards	were	$15.9	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015,	compared	to	$17.6 billion	as	of	December	31,	2014.	This	decrease	represented	$1.7	billion	of	the	$1.5 billion	decrease	in	Citi's	overall	DTAs	during	2015,

(1) The	$1.7	billion	in	FTC	carry-forwards	that	expire	in	2023	and	2025	are	in	a	non- consolidated	tax	return	entity	but	are	eventually	expected	to	be	utilized	in	Citigroup's consolidated	tax	return.

partially	offset	by	an	increase	in	AOCI	related	DTAs.	Citi	believes	that	it	will generate	sufficient	U.S.	taxable	income	within	the	10-year	carry-forward	period	to be	able	to	fully	utilize	the	FTCs,	in	addition	to	any	FTCs	produced	in	the	tax	return for	such	period,	which	must	be	used	prior	to	any	carry-forward	utilization.

The	following	is	a	reconciliation	of	the	income	and	share	data	used	in	the	basic	and	diluted	earnings	per	share	(EPS)	computations:

| In	millions,	except	per-share	amounts | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $17,386 | $7,504 | $13,616 |
| Less:\tNoncontrolling\tinterests\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | 90 | 192 | 227 |
| Net\tincome\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\t(for\tEPS\tpurposes) | $17,296 | $7,312 | $13,389 |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | (54) | (2) | 270 |
| Citigroup's\tnet\tincome | $17,242 | $7,310 | $13,659 |
| Less:\tPreferred\tdividends(1) | 769 | 511 | 194 |
| Net\tincome\tavailable\tto\tcommon\tshareholders | $16,473 | $6,799 | $13,465 |
| Less:\tDividends\tand\tundistributed\tearnings\tallocated\tto\temployee\trestricted\tand\tdeferred\tshares\twith\tnonforfeitable\trights\tto\tdividends,\napplicable\tto\tbasic\tEPS | 224 | 111 | 263 |
| Net\tincome\tallocated\tto\tcommon\tshareholders\tfor\tbasic\tEPS | $16,249 | $6,688 | $13,202 |
| Add:\tInterest\texpense,\tnet\tof\ttax,\tand\tdividends\ton\tconvertible\tsecurities\tand\tadjustment\tof\tundistributed\tearnings\tallocated\tto\temployee\nrestricted\tand\tdeferred\tshares\twith\tnonforfeitable\trights\tto\tdividends,\tapplicable\tto\tdiluted\tEPS | — | 1 | 1 |
| Net\tincome\tallocated\tto\tcommon\tshareholders\tfor\tdiluted\tEPS | $16,249 | $6,689 | $13,203 |
| Weighted-average\tcommon\tshares\toutstanding\tapplicable\tto\tbasic\tEPS | 3,004.0 | 3,031.6 | 3,035.8 |
| Effect\tof\tdilutive\tsecurities(3) |  |  |  |
| Options(2) | 3.6 | 5.1 | 5.3 |
| Other\temployee\tplans | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Adjusted\tweighted-average\tcommon\tshares\toutstanding\tapplicable\tto\tdiluted\tEPS | 3,007.7 | 3,037.0 | 3,041.6 |
| Basic\tearnings\tper\tshare(4) |  |  |  |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $5.43 | $2.21 | $4.26 |
| Discontinued\toperations | (0.02) | — | 0.09 |
| Net\tincome | $5.41 | $2.21 | $4.35 |
| Diluted\tearnings\tper\tshare(4) |  |  |  |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $5.42 | $2.20 | $4.25 |
| Discontinued\toperations | (0.02) | — | 0.09 |
| Net\tincome | $5.40 | $2.20 | $4.34 |

(1) See	Note	21	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	the	potential	future	impact	of	preferred	stock	dividends.

(2) During	2015,	2014	and	2013,	weighted-average	options	to	purchase	0.9	million,	2.8	million	and	4.8	million	shares	of	common	stock,	respectively,	were	outstanding	but	not	included	in	the computation	of	earnings	per	share	because	the	weighted-average	exercise	prices	of	$199.16,	$153.91	and	$101.11	per	share,	respectively,	were	anti-dilutive.

(3) Warrants	issued	to	the	U.S.	Treasury	as	part	of	the	Troubled	Asset	Relief	Program	(TARP)	and	the	loss-sharing	agreement	(all	of	which	were	subsequently	sold	to	the	public	in	January	2011),	with exercise	prices	of	$178.50	and	$106.10	per	share	for	approximately	21.0	million	and	25.5	million	shares	of	Citigroup	common	stock,	respectively.	Both	warrants	were	not	included	in	the	computation of	earnings	per	share	in	2015,	2014	and	2013	because	they	were	anti-dilutive.

# 11.	FEDERAL	FUNDS,	SECURITIES	BORROWED,	LOANED	AND SUBJECT	TO	REPURCHASE	AGREEMENTS

Federal	funds	sold	and	securities	borrowed	or	purchased	under	agreements	to resell,	at	their	respective	carrying	values,	consisted	of	the	following:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold | $25 | $— |
| Securities\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\nresell | 119,777 | 123,979 |
| Deposits\tpaid\tfor\tsecurities\tborrowed | 99,873 | 118,591 |
| Total | $219,675 | $242,570 |

Federal	funds	purchased	and	securities	loaned	or	sold	under	agreements	to repurchase,	at	their	respective	carrying	values,	consisted	of	the	following:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased | $189 | $334 |
| Securities\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\nrepurchase | 131,650 | 147,204 |
| Deposits\treceived\tfor\tsecurities\tloaned | 14,657 | 25,900 |
| Total | $146,496 | $173,438 |

The	resale	and	repurchase	agreements	represent	collateralized	financing transactions.	The	Company	executes	these	transactions	primarily	through	its broker-dealer	subsidiaries	to	facilitate	customer	matched-book	activity	and	to efficiently	fund	a	portion	of	the	Company's	trading	inventory.	Transactions executed	by	the	Company's	bank	subsidiaries	primarily	facilitate	customer financing	activity.

To	maintain	reliable	funding	under	a	wide	range	of	market	conditions, including	under	periods	of	stress,	Citi	manages	these	activities	by	taking	into consideration	the	quality	of	the	underlying	collateral,	and	stipulating	financing tenor.	Citi	manages	the	risks	in	its	collateralized	financing	transactions	by conducting	daily	stress	tests	to	account	for	changes	in	capacity,	tenors,	haircut, collateral	profile	and	client	actions.	Additionally,	Citi	maintains	counterparty diversification	by	establishing	concentration	triggers	and	assessing	counterparty reliability	and	stability	under	stress.

It	is	the	Company's	policy	to	take	possession	of	the	underlying	collateral, monitor	its	market	value	relative	to	the	amounts	due	under	the	agreements	and, when	necessary,	require	prompt	transfer	of	additional	collateral	in	order	to maintain	contractual	margin	protection.	For	resale	and	repurchase	agreements, when	necessary,	the	Company	posts	additional	collateral	in	order	to	maintain contractual	margin	protection.

Collateral	typically	consists	of	government	and	government-agency	securities, corporate	and	municipal	bonds,	equities,	and	mortgage-backed	and	other	asset- backed	securities.

The	resale	and	repurchase	agreements	are	generally	documented	under industry	standard	agreements	that	allow	the	prompt	close-out	of	all	transactions (including	the	liquidation	of	securities	held)	and	the	offsetting	of	obligations	to return	cash	or	securities	by	the	non-defaulting	party,	following	a	payment	default or	other	type	of	default	under	the	relevant	master	agreement.	Events	of	default generally	include	(i)	failure	to	deliver	cash	or	securities	as	required	under	the transaction,	(ii)	failure	to	provide	or	return	cash	or	securities	as	used	for	margining purposes,	(iii)	breach	of	representation,	(iv)	cross-default	to	another	transaction entered	into	among	the	parties,	or,	in	some	cases,	their	affiliates,	and	(v)	a repudiation	of	obligations	under	the	agreement.	The	counterparty	that	receives	the securities	in	these	transactions	is	generally	unrestricted	in	its	use	of	the	securities, with	the	exception	of	transactions	executed	on	a	tri-party	basis,	where	the	collateral is	maintained	by	a	custodian	and	operational	limitations	may	restrict	its	use	of	the securities.

A	substantial	portion	of	the	resale	and	repurchase	agreements	is	recorded	at fair	value,	as	described	in	Notes	25	and	26	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements.	The	remaining	portion	is	carried	at	the	amount	of	cash	initially advanced	or	received,	plus	accrued	interest,	as	specified	in	the	respective agreements.

The	securities	borrowing	and	lending	agreements	also	represent	collateralized financing	transactions	similar	to	the	resale	and	repurchase	agreements.	Collateral typically	consists	of	government	and	government-agency	securities	and	corporate debt	and	equity	securities.

Similar	to	the	resale	and	repurchase	agreements,	securities	borrowing	and lending	agreements	are	generally	documented	under	industry	standard	agreements that	allow	the	prompt	close-out	of	all	transactions	(including	the	liquidation	of securities	held)	and	the	offsetting	of	obligations	to	return	cash	or	securities	by	the non-defaulting	party,	following	a	payment	default	or	other	default	by	the	other party	under	the	relevant	master	agreement.	Events	of	default	and	rights	to	use securities	under	the	securities	borrowing	and	lending	agreements	are	similar	to	the resale	and	repurchase	agreements	referenced	above.

A	substantial	portion	of	securities	borrowing	and	lending	agreements	is recorded	at	the	amount	of	cash	advanced	or	received.	The	remaining	portion	is recorded	at	fair	value	as	the	Company	elected	the	fair	value	option	for	certain securities	borrowed	and	loaned	portfolios,	as	described	in	Note	26	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements.	With	respect	to	securities	loaned,	the	Company receives	cash	collateral	in	an	amount	generally	in	excess	of	the	market	value	of	the securities	loaned.	The	Company	monitors	the	market	value	of	securities	borrowed and	securities	loaned	on	a	daily	basis	and	obtains	or	posts	additional	collateral	in order	to	maintain	contractual	margin	protection.

The	enforceability	of	offsetting	rights	incorporated	in	the	master	netting agreements	for	resale	and	repurchase	agreements	and	securities	borrowing	and lending	agreements	is	evidenced	to	the	extent	that	a	supportive	legal	opinion	has been	obtained	from	counsel	of	recognized	standing	that	provides	the	requisite	level of	certainty	regarding	the	enforceability	of	these	agreements,	and	that	the	exercise of

rights	by	the	non-defaulting	party	to	terminate	and	close-out	transactions	on	a	net basis	under	these	agreements	will	not	be	stayed	or	avoided	under	applicable	law upon	an	event	of	default	including	bankruptcy,	insolvency	or	similar	proceeding. A	legal	opinion	may	not	have	been	sought	or	obtained	for	certain	jurisdictions where	local	law	is	silent	or	sufficiently	ambiguous	to	determine	the	enforceability of	offsetting	rights	or	where	adverse	case	law	or	conflicting	regulation	may	cast doubt	on	the	enforceability	of	such	rights.	In	some	jurisdictions	and	for	some counterparty	types,	the	insolvency	law	for	a	particular	counterparty	type	may	be nonexistent	or	unclear	as	overlapping	regimes	may	exist.	For	example,	this	may	be the	case	for	certain	sovereigns,	municipalities,	central	banks	and	U.S.	pension plans.

The	following	tables	present	the	gross	and	net	resale	and	repurchase agreements	and	securities	borrowing	and	lending agreements	and	the	related	offsetting	amount	permitted	under	ASC	210-20-45.	The tables	also	include	amounts	related	to	financial	instruments	that	are	not	permitted to	be	offset	under	ASC	210-20-45	but	would	be	eligible	for	offsetting	to	the	extent that	an	event	of	default	occurred	and	a	legal	opinion	supporting	enforceability	of the	offsetting	rights	has	been	obtained.	Remaining	exposures	continue	to	be secured	by	financial	collateral,	but	the	Company	may	not	have	sought	or	been	able to	obtain	a	legal	opinion	evidencing	enforceability	of	the	offsetting	right.

| In	millions	of	dollars | Gross	amounts<br>of	recognized<br>assets | Gross	amounts<br>offset	on	the<br>Consolidated<br>Balance	Sheet(1) | Net	amounts	of<br>assets	included	on<br>the	Consolidated<br>Balance	Sheet(2) | Consolidated	Balance<br>Sheet	but	eligible	for<br>offsetting	upon<br>counterparty	default(3) | Net<br>amounts(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Securities\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | $176,167 | $56,390 | $119,777 | $92,039 | $27,738 |
| Deposits\tpaid\tfor\tsecurities\tborrowed | 99,873 | — | 99,873 | 16,619 | 83,254 |
| Total | $276,040 | $56,390 | $219,650 | $108,658 | $110,992 |

| In	millions	of	dollars | Gross	amounts<br>of	recognized<br>liabilities | Gross	amounts<br>offset	on	the<br>Consolidated<br>Balance	Sheet(1) | Net	amounts	of<br>liabilities	included	on<br>the	Consolidated<br>Balance	Sheet(2) | Consolidated	Balance<br>Sheet	but	eligible	for<br>offsetting	upon<br>counterparty	default(3) | Net<br>amounts(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Securities\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase | $188,040 | $56,390 | $131,650 | $60,641 | $71,009 |
| Deposits\treceived\tfor\tsecurities\tloaned | 14,657 | — | 14,657 | 3,226 | 11,431 |
| Total | $202,697 | $56,390 | $146,307 | $63,867 | $82,440 |

| In	millions	of	dollars | Gross	amounts<br>of	recognized<br>assets | Gross	amounts<br>offset	on	the<br>Consolidated<br>Balance	Sheet(1) | Net	amounts	of<br>assets	included	on<br>the	Consolidated<br>Balance	Sheet(2) | Consolidated	Balance<br>Sheet	but	eligible	for<br>offsetting	upon<br>counterparty	default(3) | Net<br>amounts(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Securities\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | $180,318 | $56,339 | $123,979 | $94,353 | $29,626 |
| Deposits\tpaid\tfor\tsecurities\tborrowed | 118,591 | — | 118,591 | 15,139 | 103,452 |
| Total | $298,909 | $56,339 | $242,570 | $109,492 | $133,078 |

| In	millions	of	dollars | Gross	amounts<br>of	recognized<br>liabilities | Gross	amounts<br>offset	on	the<br>Consolidated<br>Balance	Sheet(1) | Net	amounts	of<br>liabilities	included	on<br>the	Consolidated<br>Balance	Sheet(2) | Consolidated	Balance<br>Sheet	but	eligible	for<br>offsetting	upon<br>counterparty	default(3) | Net<br>amounts(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Securities\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase | $203,543 | $56,339 | $147,204 | $72,928 | $74,276 |
| Deposits\treceived\tfor\tsecurities\tloaned | 25,900 | — | 25,900 | 5,190 | 20,710 |
| Total | $229,443 | $56,339 | $173,104 | $78,118 | $94,986 |

(1) Includes	financial	instruments	subject	to	enforceable	master	netting	agreements	that	are	permitted	to	be	offset	under	ASC	210-20-45.

(2) The	total	of	this	column	for	each	period	excludes	Federal	funds	sold/purchased.	See	tables	above.

(3) Includes	financial	instruments	subject	to	enforceable	master	netting	agreements	that	are	not	permitted	to	be	offset	under	ASC	210-20-45	but	would	be	eligible	for	offsetting	to	the	extent	that	an	event of	default	has	occurred	and	a	legal	opinion	supporting	enforceability	of	the	offsetting	right	has	been	obtained.

(4) Remaining	exposures	continue	to	be	secured	by	financial	collateral,	but	the	Company	may	not	have	sought	or	been	able	to	obtain	a	legal	opinion	evidencing	enforceability	of	the	offsetting	right.

The	following	table	presents	the	gross	amount	of	liabilities	associated	with	repurchase	agreements	and	securities	lending	agreements,	by	remaining	contractual	maturity	as	of December	31,	2015:

|  | Open	and |  |  | Greater	than	90 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | overnight | Up\tto\t30\tdays | 31–90\tdays | days | Total |
| Securities\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase | $89,732 | $54,336 | $21,541 | $22,431 | $188,040 |
| Deposits\treceived\tfor\tsecurities\tloaned | 9,096 | 1,823 | 2,324 | 1,414 | 14,657 |
| Total | $98,828 | $56,159 | $23,865 | $23,845 | $202,697 |

The	following	table	presents	the	gross	amount	of	liabilities	associated	with	repurchase	agreements	and	securities	lending	agreements,	by	class	of	underlying	collateral	as	of December	31,	2015:

| In	millions	of	dollars | Repurchase<br>agreements | Securities	lending<br>agreements | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| U.S\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency | $67,005 | $— | $67,005 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | 403 | — | 403 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 66,633 | 789 | 67,422 |
| Corporate\tbonds | 15,355 | 1,085 | 16,440 |
| Equity\tsecurities | 10,297 | 12,484 | 22,781 |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | 19,913 | — | 19,913 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 4,572 | — | 4,572 |
| Other | 3,862 | 299 | 4,161 |
| Total | $188,040 | $14,657 | $202,697 |

# 12.	BROKERAGE	RECEIVABLES	AND	BROKERAGE PAYABLES

The	Company	has	receivables	and	payables	for	financial	instruments	sold	to	and purchased	from	brokers,	dealers	and	customers,	which	arise	in	the	ordinary	course of	business.	The	Company	is	exposed	to	risk	of	loss	from	the	inability	of	brokers, dealers	or	customers	to	pay	for	purchases	or	to	deliver	the	financial	instruments sold,	in	which	case	the	Company	would	have	to	sell	or	purchase	the	financial instruments	at	prevailing	market	prices.	Credit	risk	is	reduced	to	the	extent	that	an exchange	or	clearing	organization	acts	as	a	counterparty	to	the	transaction	and replaces	the	broker,	dealer	or	customer	in	question.

The	Company	seeks	to	protect	itself	from	the	risks	associated	with	customer activities	by	requiring	customers	to	maintain	margin	collateral	in	compliance	with regulatory	and	internal	guidelines.	Margin	levels	are	monitored	daily,	and customers	deposit	additional	collateral	as	required.	Where	customers	cannot	meet collateral	requirements,	the	Company	may	liquidate	sufficient	underlying	financial instruments	to	bring	the	customer	into	compliance	with	the	required	margin	level.

Exposure	to	credit	risk	is	impacted	by	market	volatility,	which	may	impair	the ability	of	clients	to	satisfy	their	obligations	to	the	Company.	Credit	limits	are established	and	closely	monitored	for	customers	and	for	brokers	and	dealers engaged	in	forwards,	futures	and	other	transactions	deemed	to	be	credit	sensitive. Brokerage	receivables	and	Brokerage	payables	consisted	of	the	following:

|  | December	31, | December	31, |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| Receivables\tfrom\tcustomers | $10,435 | $10,380 |
| Receivables\tfrom\tbrokers,\tdealers,\tand\nclearing\torganizations | 17,248 | 18,039 |
| Total\tbrokerage\treceivables(1) | $27,683 | $28,419 |
| Payables\tto\tcustomers | $35,653 | $33,984 |
| Payables\tto\tbrokers,\tdealers,\tand\tclearing\norganizations | 18,069 | 18,196 |
| Total\tbrokerage\tpayables(1) | $53,722 | $52,180 |

(1) Brokerage	receivables	and	payables	are	accounted	for	in	accordance	with	the	AICPA	Audit and	Accounting	Guide	for	Brokers	and	Dealers	in	Securities	as	codified	in	ASC	940-320.

Trading	account	assets	and	Trading	account	liabilities	are	carried	at	fair	value, other	than	physical	commodities	accounted	for	at	the	lower	of	cost	or	fair	value, and	consist	of	the	following:

|  | December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities(1) |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\tagency |  |  |
| guaranteed | $24,767 | $27,053 |
| Prime | 803 | 1,271 |
| Alt-A | 543 | 709 |
| Subprime | 516 | 1,382 |
| Non-U.S.\tresidential | 523 | 1,476 |
| Commercial | 2,855 | 4,343 |
| Total\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $30,007 | $36,234 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities |  |  |
| U.S.\tTreasury | $15,791 | $18,906 |
| Agency\tobligations | 2,005 | 1,568 |
| Total\tU.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\nsecurities | $17,796 | $20,474 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal\tsecurities | $2,696 | $3,402 |
| Foreign\tgovernment\tsecurities | 56,609 | 64,937 |
| Corporate | 14,437 | 27,797 |
| Derivatives(2) | 56,184 | 67,957 |
| Equity\tsecurities | 56,495 | 57,846 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities(1) | 3,956 | 4,546 |
| Other\ttrading\tassets(3) | 11,776 | 13,593 |
| Total\ttrading\taccount\tassets | $249,956 | $296,786 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities |  |  |
| Securities\tsold,\tnot\tyet\tpurchased | $57,827 | $70,944 |
| Derivatives(2) | 57,592 | 68,092 |
| Other\ttrading\tliabilities(3) | 2,093 | — |
| Total\ttrading\taccount\tliabilities | $117,512 | $139,036 |

(1) The	Company	invests	in	mortgage-backed	and	asset-backed	securities.	These	securitizations are	generally	considered	VIEs.	The	Company's	maximum	exposure	to	loss	from	these	VIEs is	equal	to	the	carrying	amount	of	the	securities,	which	is	reflected	in	the	table	above.	For mortgage-backed	and	asset-backed	securitizations	in	which	the	Company	has	other involvement,	see	Note	22	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(2) Presented	net,	pursuant	to	enforceable	master	netting	agreements.	See	Note	 23	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	a	discussion	regarding	the	accounting	and	reporting for	derivatives.

(3) Includes	positions	related	to	investments	in	unallocated	precious	metals,	as	discussed	in Note	26	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.	Also	includes	physical	commodities accounted	for	at	the	lower	of	cost	or	fair	value.

The	following	table	presents	the	Company's	investments	by	category:

|  | December	31, | December	31, |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| Securities\tavailable-for-sale\t(AFS) | $299,136 | $300,143 |
| Debt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity\t(HTM)(1) | 36,215 | 23,921 |
| Non-marketable\tequity\tsecurities\tcarried\tat\tfair\tvalue(2) | 2,088 | 2,758 |
| Non-marketable\tequity\tsecurities\tcarried\tat\tcost(3) | 5,516 | 6,621 |
| Total\tinvestments | $342,955 | $333,443 |

(1) Carried	at	adjusted	amortized	cost	basis,	net	of	any	credit-related	impairment.

(2) Unrealized	gains	and	losses	for	non-marketable	equity	securities	carried	at	fair	value	are	recognized	in	earnings.

(3) Primarily	consists	of	shares	issued	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Bank,	Federal	Home	Loan	Banks,	foreign	central	banks	and	various	clearing	houses	of	which	Citigroup	is	a	member.

The	following	table	presents	interest	and	dividend	income	on	investments:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Taxable\tinterest | $6,414 | $6,311 | $5,750 |
| Interest\texempt\tfrom\tU.S.\tfederal\tincome\ttax | 215 | 439 | 732 |
| Dividend\tincome | 388 | 445 | 437 |
| Total\tinterest\tand\tdividend\tincome | $7,017 | $7,195 | $6,919 |

The	following	table	presents	realized	gains	and	losses	on	the	sale	of	investments.	The	gross	realized	investment	losses	exclude	losses	from	other-than-temporary	impairment (OTTI):

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Gross\trealized\tinvestment\tgains | $1,124 | $1,020 | $1,606 |
| Gross\trealized\tinvestment\tlosses | (442) | (450) | (858) |
| Net\trealized\tgains\ton\tsale\tof\tinvestments | $682 | $570 | $748 |

The	Company	has	sold	certain	debt	securities	that	were	classified	as	HTM. These	sales	were	in	response	to	significant	deterioration	in	the	creditworthiness	of the	issuers	or	securities	or	because	the	Company	has	collected	a	substantial	portion (at	least	85%)	of	the	principal	outstanding	at	acquisition	of	the	security.	In addition,	certain	other	securities	were	reclassified	to	AFS	investments	in	response to

significant	credit	deterioration.	Because	the	Company	generally	intends	to	sell these	reclassified	securities,	Citi	recorded	OTTI	on	the	securities.	The	following table	sets	forth,	for	the	periods	indicated,	the	carrying	value	of	HTM	securities	sold and	reclassified	to	AFS,	as	well	as	the	related	gain	(loss)	or	the	OTTI	losses recorded	on	these	securities.

# Securities	Available-for-Sale

The	amortized	cost	and	fair	value	of	AFS	securities	at	December	31	were	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars | Amortized<br>cost | Gross<br>unrealized<br>gains | Gross<br>unrealized<br>losses | Fair<br>value | Amortized<br>cost | Gross<br>unrealized<br>gains | Gross<br>unrealized<br>losses | Fair<br>value |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Debt\tsecurities\tAFS |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities(1) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\tagency\tguaranteed | $39,584 | $367 | $237 | $39,714 | $35,647 | $603 | $159 | $36,091 |
| Prime | 2 | — | — | 2 | 12 | — | — | 12 |
| Alt-A | 50 | 5 | — | 55 | 43 | 1 | — | 44 |
| Non-U.S.\tresidential | 5,909 | 31 | 11 | 5,929 | 8,247 | 67 | 7 | 8,307 |
| Commercial | 573 | 2 | 4 | 571 | 551 | 6 | 3 | 554 |
| Total\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $46,118 | $405 | $252 | $46,271 | $44,500 | $677 | $169 | $45,008 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tTreasury | $113,096 | $254 | $515 | $112,835 | $110,492 | $353 | $127 | $110,718 |
| Agency\tobligations | 10,095 | 22 | 37 | 10,080 | 12,925 | 60 | 13 | 12,972 |
| Total\tU.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities | $123,191 | $276 | $552 | $122,915 | $123,417 | $413 | $140 | $123,690 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal(2) | $12,099 | $132 | $772 | $11,459 | $13,526 | $150 | $977 | $12,699 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 92,384 | 410 | 593 | 92,201 | 90,249 | 734 | 286 | 90,697 |
| Corporate | 15,859 | 121 | 177 | 15,803 | 12,033 | 215 | 91 | 12,157 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities(1) | 9,261 | 5 | 92 | 9,174 | 12,534 | 30 | 58 | 12,506 |
| Other\tdebt\tsecurities | 688 | — | — | 688 | 661 | — | — | 661 |
| Total\tdebt\tsecurities\tAFS | $299,600 | $1,349 | $2,438 | $298,511 | $296,920 | $2,219 | $1,721 | $297,418 |
| Marketable\tequity\tsecurities\tAFS | $602 | $26 | $3 | $625 | $2,461 | $308 | $44 | $2,725 |
| Total\tsecurities\tAFS | $300,202 | $1,375 | $2,441 | $299,136 | $299,381 | $2,527 | $1,765 | $300,143 |

(2) The	gross	unrealized	losses	on	state	and	municipal	debt	securities	are	primarily	attributable	to	the	effects	of	fair	value	hedge	accounting.		Specifically,	Citi	hedges	the	LIBOR-benchmark	interest	rate component	of	certain	fixed-rate	tax-exempt	state	and	municipal	debt	securities	utilizing	LIBOR-based	interest	rate	swaps.	During	the	hedge	period,	losses	incurred	on	the	LIBOR-hedging	swaps recorded	in	earnings	were	substantially	offset	by	gains	on	the	state	and	municipal	debt	securities	attributable	to	changes	in	the	LIBOR	swap	rate	being	hedged.		However,	because	the	LIBOR	swap	rate decreased	significantly	during	the	hedge	period	while	the	overall	fair	value	of	the	municipal	debt	securities	was	relatively	unchanged,	the	effect	of	reclassifying	fair	value	gains	on	these	securities	from Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	(AOCI)	to	earnings,	attributable	solely	to	changes	in	the	LIBOR	swap	rate,	resulted	in	net	unrealized	losses	remaining	in	AOCI	that	relate	to	the unhedged	components	of	these	securities.

At	December	31,	2015,	the	amortized	cost	of	approximately	5,212	investments in	equity	and	fixed	income	securities	exceeded	their	fair	value	by	$2,441	million. Of	the	$2,441	million,	the	gross	unrealized	losses	on	equity	securities	were	$3 million.	Of	the	remainder,	$1,331	million	represented	unrealized	losses	on	fixed income	investments	that	have	been	in	a	gross-unrealized-loss	position	for	less	than a	year	and,	of	these,	94%	were	rated	investment	grade;	and	$1,107	million represented	unrealized	losses	on	fixed	income	investments	that	have	been	in	a gross-unrealized-loss	position	for	a	year	or	more	and,	of	these,	90%	were	rated investment	grade.	Of	the	$1,107	million	mentioned	above,	$746	million	represent state	and	municipal	securities.

At	December	31,	2015,	the	AFS	mortgage-backed	securities	portfolio	fair

value	balance	of	$46,271	million

consisted	of	$39,714	million	of	government-sponsored	agency	securities,	and $6,557	million	of	privately	sponsored	securities,	substantially	all	of	which	were backed	by	non-U.S.	residential	mortgages.

As	discussed	in	more	detail	below,	the	Company	conducts	periodic	reviews	of all	securities	with	unrealized	losses	to	evaluate	whether	the	impairment	is	other- than-temporary.	Any	credit-related	impairment	related	to	debt	securities	is recorded	in	earnings	as	OTTI.	Non-credit-related	impairment	is	recognized	in AOCI	if	the	Company	does	not	plan	to	sell	and	is	not	likely	to	be	required	to	sell the	security.	For	other	debt	securities	with	OTTI,	the	entire	impairment	is recognized	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

The	table	below	shows	the	fair	value	of	AFS	securities	that	have	been	in	an	unrealized	loss	position	for	less	than	12	months	or	for	12	months	or	longer:

|  | Less	than	12	months |  | 12	months	or	longer | 12	months	or	longer | Total |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Fair\nvalue | Gross\nunrealized\nlosses | Fair\nvalue | Gross\nunrealized\nlosses | Fair\nvalue | Gross\nunrealized\nlosses |
| December\t31,\t2015 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Securities\tAFS |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\tagency\tguaranteed | $17,816 | $141 | $2,618 | $96 | $20,434 | $237 |
| Prime | — | — | 1 | — | 1 | — |
| Non-U.S.\tresidential | 2,217 | 7 | 825 | 4 | 3,042 | 11 |
| Commercial | 291 | 3 | 55 | 1 | 346 | 4 |
| Total\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $20,324 | $151 | $3,499 | $101 | $23,823 | $252 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tTreasury | $59,384 | $505 | $1,204 | $10 | $60,588 | $515 |
| Agency\tobligations | 6,716 | 30 | 196 | 7 | 6,912 | 37 |
| Total\tU.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities | $66,100 | $535 | $1,400 | $17 | $67,500 | $552 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | $635 | $26 | $4,450 | $746 | $5,085 | $772 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 35,491 | 429 | 4,642 | 164 | 40,133 | 593 |
| Corporate | 5,586 | 132 | 1,298 | 45 | 6,884 | 177 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 5,311 | 58 | 2,247 | 34 | 7,558 | 92 |
| Other\tdebt\tsecurities | 27 | — | — | — | 27 | — |
| Marketable\tequity\tsecurities\tAFS | 132 | 3 | 1 | — | 133 | 3 |
| Total\tsecurities\tAFS | $133,606 | $1,334 | $17,537 | $1,107 | $151,143 | $2,441 |
| December\t31,\t2014 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Securities\tAFS |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\tagency\tguaranteed | $4,198 | $30 | $5,547 | $129 | $9,745 | $159 |
| Prime | 5 | — | 2 | — | 7 | — |
| Non-U.S.\tresidential | 1,276 | 3 | 199 | 4 | 1,475 | 7 |
| Commercial | 124 | 1 | 136 | 2 | 260 | 3 |
| Total\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $5,603 | $34 | $5,884 | $135 | $11,487 | $169 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tTreasury | $36,581 | $119 | $1,013 | $8 | $37,594 | $127 |
| Agency\tobligations | 5,698 | 9 | 754 | 4 | 6,452 | 13 |
| Total\tU.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities | $42,279 | $128 | $1,767 | $12 | $44,046 | $140 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | $386 | $15 | $5,802 | $962 | $6,188 | $977 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 18,495 | 147 | 5,984 | 139 | 24,479 | 286 |
| Corporate | 3,511 | 63 | 1,350 | 28 | 4,861 | 91 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 3,701 | 13 | 3,816 | 45 | 7,517 | 58 |
| Marketable\tequity\tsecurities\tAFS | 51 | 4 | 218 | 40 | 269 | 44 |
| Total\tsecurities\tAFS | $74,026 | $404 | $24,821 | $1,361 | $98,847 | $1,765 |

The	following	table	presents	the	amortized	cost	and	fair	value	of	AFS	debt	securities	by	contractual	maturity	dates:

# December	31,

| In	millions	of	dollars | Amortized<br>cost | Fair<br>value | Amortized<br>cost | Fair<br>value |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities(1) |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $114 | $114 | $44 | $44 |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | 1,408 | 1,411 | 931 | 935 |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | 1,750 | 1,751 | 1,362 | 1,387 |
| After\t10\tyears(2) | 42,846 | 42,995 | 42,163 | 42,642 |
| Total | $46,118 | $46,271 | $44,500 | $45,008 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $3,016 | $3,014 | $13,070 | $13,084 |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | 107,034 | 106,878 | 104,982 | 105,131 |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | 12,786 | 12,684 | 2,286 | 2,325 |
| After\t10\tyears(2) | 355 | 339 | 3,079 | 3,150 |
| Total | $123,191 | $122,915 | $123,417 | $123,690 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $3,289 | $3,287 | $652 | $651 |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | 1,781 | 1,781 | 4,387 | 4,381 |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | 502 | 516 | 524 | 537 |
| After\t10\tyears(2) | 6,527 | 5,875 | 7,963 | 7,130 |
| Total | $12,099 | $11,459 | $13,526 | $12,699 |
| Foreign\tgovernment |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $26,322 | $26,329 | $31,355 | $31,382 |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | 44,801 | 44,756 | 41,913 | 42,467 |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | 18,935 | 18,779 | 16,008 | 15,779 |
| After\t10\tyears(2) | 2,326 | 2,337 | 973 | 1,069 |
| Total | $92,384 | $92,201 | $90,249 | $90,697 |
| All\tother(3) |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $1,930 | $1,931 | $1,248 | $1,251 |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | 12,748 | 12,762 | 10,442 | 10,535 |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | 7,867 | 7,782 | 7,282 | 7,318 |
| After\t10\tyears(2) | 3,263 | 3,190 | 6,256 | 6,220 |
| Total | $25,808 | $25,665 | $25,228 | $25,324 |
| Total\tdebt\tsecurities\tAFS | $299,600 | $298,511 | $296,920 | $297,418 |

(1) Includes	mortgage-backed	securities	of	U.S.	government-sponsored	agencies.

(2) Investments	with	no	stated	maturities	are	included	as	contractual	maturities	of	greater	than	10	years.	Actual	maturities	may	differ	due	to	call	or	prepayment	rights.

(3) Includes	corporate,	asset-backed	and	other	debt	securities.

# Debt	Securities	Held-to-Maturity

The	carrying	value	and	fair	value	of	debt	securities	HTM	were	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars | Amortized<br>cost	basis(1) | Net	unrealized<br>gains<br>(losses)<br>recognized	in<br>AOCI | Carrying<br>value(2) | Gross<br>unrealized<br>gains | Gross<br>unrealized<br>(losses) | Fair<br>value |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| December\t31,\t2015 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Debt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities(3) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment\tagency\tguaranteed | $17,648 | $138 | $17,786 | $71 | $(100) | $17,757 |
| Prime | 121 | (78) | 43 | 3 | (1) | 45 |
| Alt-A | 433 | (1) | 432 | 259 | (162) | 529 |
| Subprime | 2 | — | 2 | 13 | — | 15 |
| Non-U.S.\tresidential | 1,330 | (60) | 1,270 | 37 | — | 1,307 |
| Commercial | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $19,534 | $(1) | $19,533 | $383 | $(263) | $19,653 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal(4) | $8,581 | $(438) | $8,143 | $245 | $(87) | $8,301 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 4,068 | — | 4,068 | 28 | (3) | 4,093 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities(3) | 4,485 | (14) | 4,471 | 34 | (41) | 4,464 |
| Total\tdebt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity | $36,668 | $(453) | $36,215 | $690 | $(394) | $36,511 |
| December\t31,\t2014 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Debt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities(3) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment\tagency\tguaranteed | $8,795 | $95 | $8,890 | $106 | $(6) | $8,990 |
| Prime | 60 | (12) | 48 | 6 | (1) | 53 |
| Alt-A | 1,125 | (213) | 912 | 537 | (287) | 1,162 |
| Subprime | 6 | (1) | 5 | 15 | — | 20 |
| Non-U.S.\tresidential | 983 | (137) | 846 | 92 | — | 938 |
| Commercial | 8 | — | 8 | 1 | — | 9 |
| Total\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $10,977 | $(268) | $10,709 | $757 | $(294) | $11,172 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | $8,443 | $(494) | $7,949 | $227 | $(57) | $8,119 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 4,725 | — | 4,725 | 77 | — | 4,802 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities(3) | 556 | (18) | 538 | 50 | (10) | 578 |
| Total\tdebt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity(5) | $24,701 | $(780) | $23,921 | $1,111 | $(361) | $24,671 |

(1) For	securities	transferred	to	HTM	from	Trading	account	assets,	amortized	cost	basis	is	defined	as	the	fair	value	of	the	securities	at	the	date	of	transfer	plus	any	accretion	income	and	less	any impairments	recognized	in	earnings	subsequent	to	transfer.	For	securities	transferred	to	HTM	from	AFS,	amortized	cost	is	defined	as	the	original	purchase	cost,	adjusted	for	the	cumulative	accretion	or amortization	of	any	purchase	discount	or	premium,	plus	or	minus	any	cumulative	fair	value	hedge	adjustments,	net	of	accretion	or	amortization,	and	less	any	other-than-temporary	impairment recognized	in	earnings.

(2) HTM	securities	are	carried	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	at	amortized	cost	basis,	plus	or	minus	any	unamortized	unrealized	gains	and	losses	and	fair	value	hedge	adjustments	recognized	in	AOCI prior	to	reclassifying	the	securities	from	AFS	to	HTM.	Changes	in	the	values	of	these	securities	are	not	reported	in	the	financial	statements,	except	for	the	amortization	of	any	difference	between	the carrying	value	at	the	transfer	date	and	par	value	of	the	securities,	and	the	recognition	of	any	non-credit	fair	value	adjustments	in	AOCI	in	connection	with	the	recognition	of	any	credit	impairment	in earnings	related	to	securities	the	Company	continues	to	intend	to	hold	until	maturity.

(4) The	net	unrealized	losses	recognized	in	AOCI	on	state	and	municipal	debt	securities	are	primarily	attributable	to	the	effects	of	fair	value	hedge	accounting	applied	when	these	debt	securities	were classified	as	AFS.	Specifically,	Citi	hedged	the	LIBOR-benchmark	interest	rate	component	of	certain	fixed-rate	tax-exempt	state	and	municipal	debt	securities	utilizing	LIBOR-based	interest	rate swaps.	During	the	hedge	period,	losses	incurred	on	the	LIBOR-hedging	swaps	recorded	in	earnings	were	substantially	offset	by	gains	on	the	state	and	municipal	debt	securities	attributable	to	changes in	the	LIBOR	swap	rate	being	hedged.	However,	because	the	LIBOR	swap	rate	decreased	significantly	during	the	hedge	period	while	the	overall	fair	value	of	the	municipal	debt	securities	was relatively	unchanged,	the	effect	of	reclassifying	fair	value	gains	on	these	securities	from	AOCI	to	earnings	attributable	solely	to	changes	in	the	LIBOR	swap	rate	resulted	in	net	unrealized	losses remaining	in	AOCI	that	relate	to	the	unhedged	components	of	these	securities.	Upon	transfer	of	these	debt	securities	to	HTM,	all	hedges	have	been	de-designated	and	hedge	accounting	has	ceased.

(5) During	the	second	quarter	of	2015,	securities	with	a	total	fair	value	of	approximately	 $7.1	billion	were	transferred	from	AFS	to	HTM,	consisting	of	 $7.0	billion	of	U.S.	government	agency	mortgage- backed	securities	and	$0.1	billion	of	obligations	of	U.S.	states	and	municipalities.	During	the	second	quarter	of	2014,	securities	with	a	total	fair	value	of	approximately	 $11.8	billion	were	transferred from	AFS	to	HTM,	consisting	of	$5.4	billion	of	U.S.	government	agency	mortgage-backed	securities	and	$6.4	billion	of	obligations	of	U.S.	states	and	municipalities.	The	transfer	reflects	the Company's	intent	to	hold	these	securities	to	maturity	or	to	issuer	call	in	order	to	reduce	the	impact	of	price	volatility	on	AOCI	and	certain	capital	measures	under	Basel	III.	While	these	securities	were transferred	to	HTM	at	fair	value	as	of	the	transfer	date,	no	subsequent	changes	in	value	may	be	recorded,	other	than	in	connection	with	the	recognition	of	any	subsequent	other-than-temporary impairment	and	the	amortization	of	differences	between	the	carrying	values	at	the	transfer	date	and	the	par	values	of	each	security	as	an	adjustment	of	yield	over	the	remaining	contractual	life	of	each security.	Any	net	unrealized	holding	losses	within	AOCI	related	to	the	respective	securities	at	the	date	of	transfer,	inclusive	of	any	cumulative	fair	value	hedge	adjustments,	will	be	amortized	over	the remaining	contractual	life	of	each	security	as	an	adjustment	of	yield	in	a	manner	consistent	with	the	amortization	of	any	premium	or	discount.

The	Company	has	the	positive	intent	and	ability	to	hold	these	securities	to maturity	or,	where	applicable,	the	exercise	of	any	issuer	call	options,	absent	any unforeseen	significant	changes	in	circumstances,	including	deterioration	in	credit or	changes	in	regulatory	capital	requirements.

The	net	unrealized	losses	classified	in	AOCI	primarily	relate	to	debt	securities previously	classified	as	AFS	that	have	been	transferred	to	HTM,	and	include	any cumulative	fair

value	hedge	adjustments.	The	net	unrealized	loss	amount	also	includes	any	non- credit-related	changes	in	fair	value	of	HTM	securities	that	have	suffered	credit impairment	recorded	in	earnings.	The	AOCI	balance	related	to	HTM	securities	is amortized	over	the	remaining	contractual	life	of	the	related	securities	as	an adjustment	of	yield	in	a	manner	consistent	with	the	accretion	of	any	difference between	the	carrying	value	at	the	transfer	date	and	par	value	of	the	same	debt securities.

The	table	below	shows	the	fair	value	of	debt	securities	HTM	that	have	been	in	an	unrecognized	loss	position	for	less	than	12	months	and	for	12	months	or	longer:

|  | Less	than	12	months | Less	than	12	months | 12	months	or	longer | 12	months	or	longer |  | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Fair\nvalue | Gross\nunrecognized\nlosses | Fair\nvalue | Gross\nunrecognized\nlosses | Fair\nvalue | Gross\nunrecognized\nlosses |
| December\t31,\t2015 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Debt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | $935 | $1 | $10,301 | $262 | $11,236 | $263 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | 881 | 20 | 1,826 | 67 | 2,707 | 87 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 180 | 3 | — | — | 180 | 3 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 132 | 13 | 3,232 | 28 | 3,364 | 41 |
| Total\tdebt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity | $2,128 | $37 | $15,359 | $357 | $17,487 | $394 |
| December\t31,\t2014 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Debt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | $4 | $— | $1,134 | $294 | $1,138 | $294 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | 2,528 | 34 | 314 | 23 | 2,842 | 57 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 9 | 1 | 174 | 9 | 183 | 10 |
| Total\tdebt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity | $2,541 | $35 | $1,622 | $326 | $4,163 | $361 |

Excluded	from	the	gross	unrecognized	losses	presented	in	the	above	table	are $(453)	million	and	$(780)	million	of	net	unrealized	losses	recorded	in	AOCI	as	of December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	respectively,	primarily	related	to	the difference	between	the	amortized	cost	and	carrying	value	of	HTM	securities	that were	reclassified	from	AFS.	Substantially	all	of	these	net	unrecognized	losses relate	to	securities	that	have	been	in	a	loss	position	for	12	months	or	longer	at December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014.

The	following	table	presents	the	carrying	value	and	fair	value	of	HTM	debt	securities	by	contractual	maturity	dates:

|  | 2015 |  | 2014 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Carrying\tvalue | Fair\tvalue | Carrying\tvalue | Fair\tvalue |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $— | $— | $— | $— |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | 172 | 172 | — | — |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | 660 | 663 | 863 | 869 |
| After\t10\tyears(1) | 18,701 | 18,818 | 9,846 | 10,303 |
| Total | $19,533 | $19,653 | $10,709 | $11,172 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $309 | $305 | $205 | $205 |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | 336 | 335 | 243 | 243 |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | 262 | 270 | 140 | 144 |
| After\t10\tyears(1) | 7,236 | 7,391 | 7,361 | 7,527 |
| Total | $8,143 | $8,301 | $7,949 | $8,119 |
| Foreign\tgovernment |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $— | $— | $— | $— |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | 4,068 | 4,093 | 4,725 | 4,802 |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | — | — | — | — |
| After\t10\tyears(1) | — | — | — | — |
| Total | $4,068 | $4,093 | $4,725 | $4,802 |
| All\tother(2) |  |  |  |  |
| Due\twithin\t1\tyear | $— | $— | $— | $— |
| After\t1\tbut\twithin\t5\tyears | — | — | — | — |
| After\t5\tbut\twithin\t10\tyears | — | — | — | — |
| After\t10\tyears(1) | 4,471 | 4,464 | 538 | 578 |
| Total | $4,471 | $4,464 | $538 | $578 |
| Total\tdebt\tsecurities\theld-to-maturity | $36,215 | $36,511 | $23,921 | $24,671 |

(2) Includes	corporate	and	asset-backed	securities.

# Evaluating	Investments	for	Other-Than-Temporary	Impairment

The	Company	conducts	periodic	reviews	of	all	securities	with	unrealized	losses	to evaluate	whether	the	impairment	is	other-than-temporary.

An	unrealized	loss	exists	when	the	current	fair	value	of	an	individual	security is	less	than	its	amortized	cost	basis.	Unrealized	losses	that	are	determined	to	be temporary	in	nature	are	recorded,	net	of	tax,	in	AOCI	for	AFS	securities.	Losses related	to	HTM	securities	generally	are	not	recorded,	as	these	investments	are carried	at	adjusted	amortized	cost	basis.	However,	for	HTM	securities	with	credit- related	losses,	the	credit	loss	is	recognized	in	earnings	as	OTTI	and	any	difference between	the	cost	basis	adjusted	for	the	OTTI	and	fair	value	is	recognized	in	AOCI and	amortized	as	an	adjustment	of	yield	over	the	remaining	contractual	life	of	the security.	For	securities	transferred	to	HTM	from	Trading	account	assets,	amortized cost	is	defined	as	the	fair	value	of	the	securities	at	the	date	of	transfer,	plus	any accretion	income	and	less	any	impairment	recognized	in	earnings	subsequent	to transfer.	For	securities	transferred	to	HTM	from	AFS,	amortized	cost	is	defined	as the	original	purchase	cost,	adjusted	for	the	cumulative	accretion	or	amortization	of any	purchase	discount	or	premium,	plus	or	minus	any	cumulative	fair	value	hedge adjustments,	net	of	accretion	or	amortization,	and	less	any	impairment	recognized in	earnings.

Regardless	of	the	classification	of	the	securities	as	AFS	or	HTM,	the	Company assesses	each	position	with	an	unrealized	loss	for	OTTI.	Factors	considered	in determining	whether	a	loss	is	temporary	include:

•the	length	of	time	and	the	extent	to	which	fair	value	has	been	below cost;

•the	severity	of	the	impairment;

•the	cause	of	the	impairment	and	the	financial	condition	and	near-term prospects	of	the	issuer;

•activity	in	the	market	of	the	issuer	that	may	indicate	adverse	credit	conditions;

•the	Company's	ability	and	intent	to	hold	the	investment	for	a	period	of	time sufficient	to	allow	for	any	anticipated	recovery.

# The	Company's	review	for	impairment	generally	entails:

•identification	and	evaluation	of	impaired	investments; •analysis	of	individual	investments	that	have	fair	values	less	than	amortized cost,	including	consideration	of	the	length	of	time	the	investment	has	been	in an	unrealized	loss	position	and	the	expected	recovery	period; •consideration	of	evidential	matter,	including	an	evaluation	of	factors	or triggers	that	could	cause	individual	investments	to	qualify	as	having	other- than-temporary	impairment	and	those	that	would	not	support	other-than- temporary	impairment;	and

•documentation	of	the	results	of	these	analyses,	as	required	under	business policies.

The	entire	difference	between	amortized	cost	basis	and	fair	value	is	recognized	in earnings	as	OTTI	for	impaired	debt	securities	that	the	Company	has	an	intent	to sell	or	for	which	the	Company	believes	it	will	more-likely-than-not	be	required	to sell	prior	to	recovery	of	the	amortized	cost	basis.	However,	for	those	securities	that the	Company	does	not	intend	to	sell	and	is	not	likely	to	be	required	to	sell,	only	the credit-related	impairment	is	recognized	in	earnings	and	any	non-credit-related impairment	is	recorded	in	AOCI.

For	debt	securities,	credit	impairment	exists	where	management	does	not expect	to	receive	contractual	principal	and	interest	cash	flows	sufficient	to	recover the	entire	amortized	cost	basis	of	a	security.

# Equity

For	equity	securities,	management	considers	the	various	factors	described	above, including	its	intent	and	ability	to	hold	the	equity	security	for	a	period	of	time sufficient	for	recovery	to	cost	or	whether	it	is	more-likely-than-not	that	the Company	will	be	required	to	sell	the	security	prior	to	recovery	of	its	cost	basis. Where	management	lacks	that	intent	or	ability,	the	security's	decline	in	fair	value is	deemed	to	be	other-than-temporary	and	is	recorded	in	earnings.	AFS	equity securities	deemed	to	be	other-than-temporarily	impaired	are	written	down	to	fair value,	with	the	full	difference	between	fair	value	and	cost	recognized	in	earnings. Management	assesses	equity	method	investments	that	have	fair	values	that	are less	than	their	respective	carrying	values	for	OTTI.	Fair	value	is	measured	as	price multiplied	by	quantity	if	the	investee	has	publicly	listed	securities.	If	the	investee	is not	publicly	listed,	other	methods	are	used	(see	Note	25	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements).

For	impaired	equity	method	investments	that	Citi	plans	to	sell	prior	to recovery	of	value	or	would	likely	be	required	to	sell,	with	no	expectation	that	the fair	value	will	recover	prior	to	the	expected	sale	date,	the	full	impairment	is recognized	in	earnings	as	OTTI	regardless	of	severity	and	duration.	The measurement	of	the	OTTI	does	not	include	partial	projected	recoveries	subsequent to	the	balance	sheet	date.

For	impaired	equity	method	investments	that	management	does	not	plan	to	sell and	is	not	likely	to	be	required	to	sell	prior	to	recovery	of	value,	the	evaluation	of whether	an	impairment	is	other-than-temporary	is	based	on	(i)	whether	and	when an	equity	method	investment	will	recover	in	value	and	(ii)	whether	the	investor	has the	intent	and	ability	to	hold	that	investment	for	a	period	of	time	sufficient	to recover	the	value.	The	determination	of	whether	the	impairment	is	considered other-than-temporary	considers	the	following	indicators,	regardless	of	the	time	and extent	of	impairment:

•the	cause	of	the	impairment	and	the	financial	condition	and	near-term prospects	of	the	issuer,	including	any	specific	events	that	may	influence	the operations	of	the	issuer;

•the	intent	and	ability	to	hold	the	investment	for	a	period	of	time	sufficient	to allow	for	any	anticipated	recovery	in	market	value;	and

•the	length	of	time	and	extent	to	which	fair	value	has	been	less	than	the carrying	value.

The	sections	below	describe	the	Company's	process	for	identifying	credit- related	impairments	for	security	types	that	have	the	most	significant	unrealized losses	as	of	December	31,	2015.

# Mortgage-Backed	Securities

For	U.S.	mortgage-backed	securities	(and	in	particular	for	Alt-A	and	other mortgage-backed	securities	that	have	significant	unrealized	losses	as	a	percentage of	amortized	cost),	credit	impairment	is	assessed	using	a	cash	flow	model	that estimates	the	principal	and	interest	cash	flows	on	the	underlying	mortgages	using the	security-specific	collateral	and	transaction	structure.	The	model	distributes	the estimated	cash	flows	to	the	various	tranches	of	securities,	considering	the transaction	structure	and	any	subordination	and	credit	enhancements	that	exist	in that	structure.	The	cash	flow	model	incorporates	actual	cash	flows	on	the	mortgage- backed	securities	through	the	current	period	and	then	estimates	the	remaining	cash flows	using	a	number	of	assumptions,	including	default	rates,	prepayment	rates, recovery	rates	(on	foreclosed	properties)	and	loss	severity	rates	(on	non-agency mortgage-backed	securities).

Management	develops	specific	assumptions	using	market	data,	internal estimates	and	estimates	published	by	rating	agencies	and	other	third-party	sources. Default	rates	are	projected	by	considering	current	underlying	mortgage	loan performance,	generally	assuming	the	default	of	(i)	10%	of	current	loans,	(ii)	25% of	30–59	day	delinquent	loans,	(iii)	70%	of	60–90	day	delinquent	loans	and (iv)	100%	of	91+	day	delinquent	loans.	These	estimates	are	extrapolated	along	a default	timing	curve	to	estimate	the	total	lifetime	pool	default

rate.	Other	assumptions	contemplate	the	actual	collateral	attributes,	including geographic	concentrations,	rating	actions	and	current	market	prices.

Cash	flow	projections	are	developed	using	different	stress	test	scenarios. Management	evaluates	the	results	of	those	stress	tests	(including	the	severity	of any	cash	shortfall	indicated	and	the	likelihood	of	the	stress	scenarios	actually occurring	based	on	the	underlying	pool's	characteristics	and	performance)	to assess	whether	management	expects	to	recover	the	amortized	cost	basis	of	the security.	If	cash	flow	projections	indicate	that	the	Company	does	not	expect	to recover	its	amortized	cost	basis,	the	Company	recognizes	the	estimated	credit	loss in	earnings.

# State	and	Municipal	Securities

The	process	for	identifying	credit	impairments	in	Citigroup's	AFS	and	HTM	state and	municipal	bonds	is	primarily	based	on	a	credit	analysis	that	incorporates	third- party	credit	ratings.		Citigroup	monitors	the	bond	issuers	and	any	insurers providing	default	protection	in	the	form	of	financial	guarantee	insurance.		The average	external	credit	rating,	ignoring	any	insurance,	is	Aa3/AA-.		In	the	event	of an	external	rating	downgrade	or	other	indicator	of	credit	impairment	(i.e.,	based	on instrument-specific	estimates	of	cash	flows	or	probability	of	issuer	default),	the subject	bond	is	specifically	reviewed	for	adverse	changes	in	the	amount	or	timing of	expected	contractual	principal	and	interest	payments.

For	state	and	municipal	bonds	with	unrealized	losses	that	Citigroup	plans	to sell	(for	AFS	only),	would	be	more-likely-than-not	required	to	sell	(for	AFS	only) or	will	be	subject	to	an	issuer	call	deemed	probable	of	exercise	prior	to	the expected	recovery	of	its	amortized	cost	basis	(for	AFS	and	HTM),	the	full impairment	is	recognized	in	earnings.

# Recognition	and	Measurement	of	OTTI

The	total	OTTI	recognized	in	earnings	are	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars | AFS(1) | HTM | assets | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Impairment\tlosses\trelated\tto\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tdoes\tnot\tintend\tto\tsell\tnor\twill\tlikely\tbe\trequired\tto\tsell: |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tOTTI\tlosses\trecognized\tduring\tthe\tperiod | $33 | $1 | $— | $34 |
| Less:\tportion\tof\timpairment\tloss\trecognized\tin\tAOCI\t(before\ttaxes) | — | — | — | — |
| Net\timpairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings\tfor\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tdoes\tnot\tintend\tto\tsell\tnor\twill\tlikely\tbe\nrequired\tto\tsell | $33 | $1 | $— | $34 |
| Impairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings\tfor\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tintends\tto\tsell,\twould\tbe\tmore\tlikely\tthan\nnot\trequired\tto\tsell\tor\twill\tbe\tsubject\tto\tan\tissuer\tcall\tdeemed\tprobable\tof\texercise | 182 | 43 | 6 | 231 |
| Total\timpairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings | $215 | $44 | $6 | $265 |

(1) Includes	OTTI	on	non-marketable	equity	securities.

| In	millions	of	dollars | AFS(1) | HTM | assets | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Impairment\tlosses\trelated\tto\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tdoes\tnot\tintend\tto\tsell\tnor\twill\tlikely\tbe\trequired\tto\tsell: |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tOTTI\tlosses\trecognized\tduring\tthe\tperiod | $21 | $5 | $— | $26 |
| Less:\tportion\tof\timpairment\tloss\trecognized\tin\tAOCI\t(before\ttaxes) | 8 | — | — | 8 |
| Net\timpairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings\tfor\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tdoes\tnot\tintend\tto\tsell\tnor\twill\tlikely\tbe\nrequired\tto\tsell | $13 | $5 | $— | $18 |
| Impairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings\tfor\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tintends\tto\tsell,\twould\tbe\tmore\tlikely\tthan\nnot\trequired\tto\tsell\tor\twill\tbe\tsubject\tto\tan\tissuer\tcall\tdeemed\tprobable\tof\texercise | 380 | 26 | — | 406 |
| Total\timpairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings | $393 | $31 | $— | $424 |

| OTTI	on	Investments	and	Other	Assets |  | Year	ended<br>December	31,	2013 | Year	ended<br>December	31,	2013 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | AFS(1) | HTM | Other\nassets(2) | Total |
| Impairment\tlosses\trelated\tto\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tdoes\tnot\tintend\tto\tsell\tnor\twill\tlikely\tbe\trequired\tto\tsell: |  |  |  |  |
| Total\tOTTI\tlosses\trecognized\tduring\tthe\tperiod | $9 | $154 | $— | $163 |
| Less:\tportion\tof\timpairment\tloss\trecognized\tin\tAOCI\t(before\ttaxes) | — | 98 | — | 98 |
| Net\timpairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings\tfor\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tdoes\tnot\tintend\tto\tsell\tnor\twill\tlikely\tbe\nrequired\tto\tsell | $9 | $56 | $— | $65 |
| Impairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings\tfor\tsecurities\tthat\tthe\tCompany\tintends\tto\tsell\tor\tmore-likely-than-not\twill\nbe\trequired\tto\tsell\tbefore\trecovery\t(2) | 269 | — | 201 | 470 |
| Total\timpairment\tlosses\trecognized\tin\tearnings | $278 | $56 | $201 | $535 |

(2) The	impairment	charge	relates	to	the	carrying	value	of	Citi's	then-remaining 35%	interest	in	the	MSSB	joint	venture,	offset	by	the	equity	pickup	from	MSSB	during	the	respective	periods	that	was recorded	in	Other	revenue.

The	following	are	12-month	rollforwards	of	the	credit-related	impairments	recognized	in	earnings	for	AFS	and	HTM	debt	securities	held	that	the	Company	does	not	intend	to sell	nor	likely	will	be	required	to	sell:

# Cumulative	OTTI	credit	losses	recognized	in	earnings	on	securities	still	held

|  |  | Cumulative	OTTI	credit	losses	recognized	in	earnings	on	securities	still	held | Cumulative	OTTI	credit	losses	recognized	in	earnings	on	securities	still	held | Cumulative	OTTI	credit	losses	recognized	in	earnings	on	securities	still	held |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Dec.\t31,\t2014\nbalance | Credit\nimpairments\nrecognized\tin\nearnings\ton\nsecurities\tnot\npreviously\nimpaired | Credit\nimpairments\nrecognized\tin\nearnings\ton\nsecurities\tthat\nhave\nbeen\tpreviously\nimpaired | Reductions\tdue\tto\ncredit-impaired\nsecurities\tsold,\ntransferred\tor\nmatured | Dec.\t31,\t2015\nbalance |
| AFS\tdebt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | $295 | $— | $(1) | $— | $294 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | — | 8 | — | — | 8 |
| Foreign\tgovernment\tsecurities | 171 | — | — | (1) | 170 |
| Corporate | 118 | 2 | (2) | (6) | 112 |
| All\tother\tdebt\tsecurities | 149 | 22 | (1) | — | 170 |
| Total\tOTTI\tcredit\tlosses\trecognized\tfor\tAFS\tdebt\nsecurities | $733 | $32 | $(4) | $(7) | $754 |
| HTM\tdebt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities(1) | $670 | $1 | $(1) | $(2) | $668 |
| Corporate | — | — | — | — | — |
| All\tother\tdebt\tsecurities | 133 | — | — | (1) | 132 |
| Total\tOTTI\tcredit\tlosses\trecognized\tfor\tHTM\tdebt\nsecurities | $803 | $1 | $(1) | $(3) | $800 |

# (1) Primarily	consists	of	Alt-A	securities.

|  |  | Cumulative	OTTI	credit	losses	recognized	in	earnings	on	securities	still	held | Cumulative	OTTI	credit	losses	recognized	in	earnings	on	securities	still	held |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Dec.\t31,\t2013\nbalance | Credit\nimpairments\nrecognized\tin\nearnings\ton\nsecurities\tnot\npreviously\nimpaired | Credit\nimpairments\nrecognized\tin\nearnings\ton\nsecurities\tthat\nhave\nbeen\tpreviously\nimpaired | Reductions\tdue\tto\ncredit-impaired\nsecurities\tsold,\ntransferred\tor\nmatured | Dec.\t31,\t2014\nbalance |
| AFS\tdebt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | $295 | $— | $— | $— | $295 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | — | — | — | — | — |
| Foreign\tgovernment\tsecurities | 171 | — | — | — | 171 |
| Corporate | 113 | 8 | — | (3) | 118 |
| All\tother\tdebt\tsecurities | 144 | 5 | — | — | 149 |
| Total\tOTTI\tcredit\tlosses\trecognized\tfor\tAFS\tdebt\tsecurities | $723 | $13 | $— | $(3) | $733 |
| HTM\tdebt\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities(1) | $678 | $5 | $— | $(13) | $670 |
| Corporate | 56 | — | — | (56) | — |
| All\tother\tdebt\tsecurities | 133 | — | — | — | 133 |
| Total\tOTTI\tcredit\tlosses\trecognized\tfor\tHTM\tdebt\tsecurities | $867 | $5 | $— | $(69) | $803 |

# Investments	in	Alternative	Investment	Funds	That	Calculate	Net	Asset	Value per	Share

The	Company	holds	investments	in	certain	alternative	investment	funds	that calculate	net	asset	value	(NAV)	per	share,	including	hedge	funds,	private	equity funds,	funds	of	funds	and	real	estate	funds.	The	Company's	investments	include co-investments	in	funds	that	are	managed	by	the	Company	and	investments	in funds	that	are	managed	by	third	parties.	Investments	in	funds	are	generally classified	as	non-marketable	equity	securities	carried	at	fair	value.	The	fair	values of	these	investments	are	estimated	using	the	NAV	per	share	of	the	Company's ownership	interest	in	the	funds,	where	it	is	not	probable	that	the	Company	will	sell an	investment	at	a	price	other	than	the	NAV.

|  | Fair	value |  | Unfunded<br>commitments |  | Redemption	frequency<br>(if	currently	eligible)<br>monthly,	quarterly,	annually | Redemption<br>notice<br>period |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | December\t31,\t2015 | December\t31,\t2014 | December\t31,\t2015 | December\t31,\t2014 |  |  |
| Hedge\tfunds | $3 | $8 | $— | $— | Generally\tquarterly | 10–95\tdays |
| Private\tequity\tfunds(1)(2) | 762 | 891 | 173 | 205 | — | — |
| Real\testate\tfunds\t(2)(3) | 130 | 166 | 21 | 24 | — | — |
| Total(4) | $895 | $1,065 | $194 | $229 | — | — |

(1) Private	equity	funds	include	funds	that	invest	in	infrastructure,	leveraged	buyout	transactions,	emerging	markets	and	venture	capital.

(2) With	respect	to	the	Company's	investments	in	private	equity	funds	and	real	estate	funds,	distributions	from	each	fund	will	be	received	as	the	underlying	assets	held	by	these	funds	are	liquidated.	It	is estimated	that	the	underlying	assets	of	these	funds	will	be	liquidated	over	a	period	of	several	years	as	market	conditions	allow.	Private	equity	and	real	estate	funds	do	not	allow	redemption	of investments	by	their	investors.	Investors	are	permitted	to	sell	or	transfer	their	investments,	subject	to	the	approval	of	the	general	partner	or	investment	manager	of	these	funds,	which	generally	may	not be	unreasonably	withheld.

(3) Includes	several	real	estate	funds	that	invest	primarily	in	commercial	real	estate	in	the	U.S.,	Europe	and	Asia.

(4) Included	in	the	total	fair	value	of	investments	above	are	$0.9	billion	and	$0.8	billion	of	fund	assets	that	are	valued	using	NAVs	provided	by	third-party	asset	managers	as	of	 December	31,	2015	and December	31,	2014,	respectively.

Citigroup	loans	are	reported	in	two	categories—consumer	and	corporate.	These categories	are	classified	primarily	according	to	the	segment	and	subsegment	that manage	the	loans.

Consumer	loans	represent	loans	and	leases	managed	primarily	by	the	GCB businesses	in	Citicorp	and	in	Citi	Holdings.	The	following	table	provides information	by	loan	type	for	the	periods	indicated:

|  | December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| In\tU.S.\toffices |  |  |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate(1) | $80,281 | $96,533 |
| Installment,\trevolving\tcredit,\tand\tother | 3,480 | 14,450 |
| Cards | 112,800 | 112,982 |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | 6,407 | 5,895 |
|  | $202,968 | $229,860 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. |  |  |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate(1) | $47,062 | $54,462 |
| Installment,\trevolving\tcredit,\tand\tother | 29,480 | 31,128 |
| Cards | 27,342 | 32,032 |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | 21,679 | 22,561 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 427 | 609 |
|  | $125,990 | $140,792 |
| Total\tconsumer\tloans | $328,958 | $370,652 |
| Net\tunearned\tincome | $825 | $(682) |
| Consumer\tloans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | $329,783 | $369,970 |

Citigroup	has	established	a	risk	management	process	to	monitor,	evaluate	and manage	the	principal	risks	associated	with	its	consumer	loan	portfolio.	Credit quality	indicators	that	are	actively	monitored	include	delinquency	status,	consumer credit	scores	(FICO),	and	loan	to	value	(LTV)	ratios,	each	as	discussed	in	more detail	below.

Included	in	the	loan	table	above	are	lending	products	whose	terms	may	give rise	to	greater	credit	issues.	Credit	cards	with	below-market	introductory	interest rates	and	interest-only	loans	are	examples	of	such	products.	These	products	are closely	managed	using	credit	techniques	that	are	intended	to	mitigate	their	higher inherent	risk.

During	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	Company	sold and/or	reclassified	to	held-for-sale	$25.8	billion	and	$10.3	billion,	respectively,	of consumer	loans.	The	Company	did	not	have	significant	purchases	of	consumer loans	during	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014.

# Delinquency	Status

Delinquency	status	is	monitored	and	considered	a	key	indicator	of	credit	quality	of consumer	loans.	Principally,	the	U.S.	residential	first	mortgage	loans	use	the Mortgage	Bankers	Association	(MBA)	method	of	reporting	delinquencies,	which considers	a	loan	delinquent	if	a	monthly	payment	has	not	been	received	by	the	end of	the	day	immediately	preceding	the	loan's	next	due	date.	All	other	loans	use	a method	of	reporting	delinquencies	that	considers	a	loan	delinquent	if	a	monthly payment	has	not	been	received	by	the	close	of	business	on	the	loan's	next	due	date. As	a	general	policy,	residential	first	mortgages,	home	equity	loans	and installment	loans	are	classified	as	non-accrual	when	loan	payments	are	90	days contractually	past	due.	Credit	cards	and	unsecured	revolving	loans	generally accrue	interest	until	payments	are	180	days	past	due.	Home	equity	loans	in regulated	bank	entities	are	classified	as	non-accrual	if	the	related	residential	first mortgage	is	90	days	or	more	past	due.	Mortgage	loans	in	regulated	bank	entities discharged	through	Chapter	7	bankruptcy,	other	than	Federal	Housing Administration	(FHA)-insured	loans,	are	classified	as	non-accrual.	Commercial market	loans	are	placed	on	a	cash	(non-accrual)	basis	when	it	is	determined,	based on	actual	experience	and	a	forward-looking	assessment	of	the	collectability	of	the loan	in	full,	that	the	payment	of	interest	or	principal	is	doubtful	or	when	interest	or principal	is	90	days	past	due.

The	policy	for	re-aging	modified	U.S.	consumer	loans	to	current	status	varies by	product.	Generally,	one	of	the	conditions	to	qualify	for	these	modifications	is that	a	minimum	number	of	payments	(typically	ranging	from	one	to	three)	be made.	Upon	modification,	the	loan	is	re-aged	to	current	status.	However,	re-aging practices	for	certain	open-ended	consumer	loans,	such	as	credit	cards,	are	governed by	Federal	Financial	Institutions	Examination	Council	(FFIEC)	guidelines.	For open-ended	consumer	loans	subject	to	FFIEC	guidelines,	one	of	the	conditions	for a	loan	to	be	re-aged	to	current	status	is	that	at	least	three	consecutive	minimum monthly	payments,	or	the	equivalent	amount,	must	be	received.	In	addition,	under FFIEC	guidelines,	the	number	of	times	that	such	a	loan	can	be	re-aged	is	subject	to limitations	(generally	once	in	12	months	and	twice	in	five	years).	Furthermore, FHA	and	Department	of	Veterans	Affairs	(VA)	loans	are	modified	under	those respective	agencies'	guidelines	and	payments	are	not	always	required	in	order	to re-age	a	modified	loan	to	current.

# The	following	tables	provide	details	on	Citigroup's	consumer	loan	delinquency	and	non-accrual	loans:

# Consumer	Loan	Delinquency	and	Non-Accrual	Details	at	December	31,	2015

| In	millions	of	dollars | Total<br>current(1)(2) | 30–89	days<br>past	due(3) | ≥	90	days<br>past	due(3) | Past	due<br>government<br>guaranteed(4) | Total<br>loans(2) | Total<br>non-accrual | 90	days	past	due<br>and	accruing |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tNorth\tAmerica\toffices |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $53,146 | $846 | $564 | $2,318 | $56,874 | $1,216 | $1,997 |
| Home\tequity\tloans(5) | 22,335 | 136 | 277 | — | 22,748 | 1,017 | — |
| Credit\tcards | 110,814 | 1,296 | 1,243 | — | 113,353 | — | 1,243 |
| Installment\tand\tother | 4,236 | 80 | 33 | — | 4,349 | 56 | 2 |
| Commercial\tmarket\tloans | 8,241 | 16 | 61 | — | 8,318 | 222 | 17 |
| Total | $198,772 | $2,374 | $2,178 | $2,318 | $205,642 | $2,511 | $3,259 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tNorth\tAmerica |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $39,698 | $241 | $178 | $— | $40,117 | $390 | $— |
| Credit\tcards | 25,810 | 478 | 442 | — | 26,730 | 261 | 278 |
| Installment\tand\tother | 29,067 | 317 | 192 | — | 29,576 | 226 | — |
| Commercial\tmarket\tloans | 27,401 | 62 | 63 | — | 27,526 | 277 | — |
| Total | $121,976 | $1,098 | $875 | $— | $123,949 | $1,154 | $278 |
| Total\tGCB\tand\tCiti\tHoldings\tconsumer | $320,748 | $3,472 | $3,053 | $2,318 | $329,591 | $3,665 | $3,537 |
| Other(6) | 178 | 7 | 7 | — | 192 | 25 | — |
| Total\tCitigroup | $320,926 | $3,479 | $3,060 | $2,318 | $329,783 | $3,690 | $3,537 |

(1) Loans	less	than	30	days	past	due	are	presented	as	current.

(2) Includes	$34	million	of	residential	first	mortgages	recorded	at	fair	value.

(3) Excludes	loans	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government-sponsored	entities.

(4) Consists	of	residential	first	mortgages	that	are	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government-sponsored	entities	that	are	30–89	days	past	due	of $0.3	billion	and	90	days	or	more	past	due	of	$2.0	billion.

(5) Fixed-rate	home	equity	loans	and	loans	extended	under	home	equity	lines	of	credit,	which	are	typically	in	junior	lien	positions.

| In	millions	of	dollars | Total<br>current(1)(2) | 30–89	days<br>past	due(3) | ≥	90	days<br>past	due(3) | Past	due<br>government<br>guaranteed(4) | Total<br>loans(2) | Total<br>non-accrual | 90	days	past	due<br>and	accruing |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tNorth\tAmerica\toffices |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $61,730 | $1,280 | $1,371 | $3,443 | $67,824 | $2,746 | $2,759 |
| Home\tequity\tloans(5) | 27,262 | 335 | 520 | — | 28,117 | 1,271 | — |
| Credit\tcards | 111,441 | 1,316 | 1,271 | — | 114,028 | — | 1,273 |
| Installment\tand\tother | 12,361 | 229 | 284 | — | 12,874 | 254 | 3 |
| Commercial\tmarket\tloans | 8,630 | 31 | 13 | — | 8,674 | 135 | 15 |
| Total | $221,424 | $3,191 | $3,459 | $3,443 | $231,517 | $4,406 | $4,050 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tNorth\tAmerica |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $44,782 | $312 | $223 | $— | $45,317 | $454 | $— |
| Credit\tcards | 30,327 | 602 | 553 | — | 31,482 | 413 | 322 |
| Installment\tand\tother | 29,297 | 328 | 149 | — | 29,774 | 216 | — |
| Commercial\tmarket\tloans | 31,280 | 86 | 255 | — | 31,621 | 405 | — |
| Total | $135,686 | $1,328 | $1,180 | $— | $138,194 | $1,488 | $322 |
| Total\tGCB\tand\tCiti\tHoldings | $357,110 | $4,519 | $4,639 | $3,443 | $369,711 | $5,894 | $4,372 |
| Other(6) | 238 | 10 | 11 | — | 259 | 30 | — |
| Total\tCitigroup | $357,348 | $4,529 | $4,650 | $3,443 | $369,970 | $5,924 | $4,372 |

(4) Consists	of	residential	first	mortgages	that	are	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government-sponsored	entities	that	are	30–89	days	past	due	of $0.6	billion	and	90	days	or	more	past	due	of	$2.8	billion.

# Consumer	Credit	Scores	(FICO)

In	the	U.S.,	independent	credit	agencies	rate	an	individual's	risk	for	assuming	debt based	on	the	individual's	credit	history	and	assign	every	consumer	a	"FICO"	(Fair Isaac	Corporation)	credit	score.	These	scores	are	continually	updated	by	the agencies	based	upon	an	individual's	credit	actions	(e.g.,	taking	out	a	loan	or	missed or	late	payments).

The	following	tables	provide	details	on	the	FICO	scores	attributable	to	Citi's U.S.	consumer	loan	portfolio	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014	(commercial market	loans	are	not	included	in	the	table	since	they	are	business	based	and	FICO scores	are	not	a	primary	driver	in	their	credit	evaluation).	FICO	scores	are	updated monthly	for	substantially	all	of	the	portfolio	or,	otherwise,	on	a	quarterly	basis	for the	remaining	portfolio.

| In	millions	of	dollars | Less	than<br>620 | ≥	620	but	less<br>than	660 | greater<br>than	660 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $3,483 | $3,036 | $45,047 |
| Home\tequity\tloans | 2,067 | 1,782 | 17,837 |
| Credit\tcards | 7,341 | 10,072 | 93,194 |
| Installment\tand\tother | 337 | 270 | 2,662 |
| Total | $13,228 | $15,160 | $158,740 |

(1) Excludes	loans	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government	entities,	loans	subject	to	long-term	standby commitments	(LTSCs)	with	U.S.	government-sponsored	entities	and	loans	recorded	at	fair value.

(2) Excludes	balances	where	FICO	was	not	available.	Such	amounts	are	not	material.

| in	U.S.	portfolio(1)(2) |  | December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  |  | Equal\tto\tor |
|  | Less\tthan | ≥\t620\tbut\tless | greater |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 620 | than\t660 | than\t660 |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $8,911 | $5,463 | $45,783 |
| Home\tequity\tloans | 3,257 | 2,456 | 20,957 |
| Credit\tcards | 7,647 | 10,296 | 92,877 |
| Installment\tand\tother | 4,015 | 2,520 | 5,150 |
| Total | $23,830 | $20,735 | $164,767 |

(1) Excludes	loans	guaranteed	by	U.S.	government	entities,	loans	subject	to	LTSCs	with U.S.	government-sponsored	entities	and	loans	recorded	at	fair	value.

# Loan	to	Value	(LTV)	Ratios

The	following	tables	provide	details	on	the	LTV	ratios	attributable	to	Citi's U.S.	consumer	mortgage	portfolios.	LTV	ratios	are	updated	monthly	using	the most	recent	Core	Logic	Home	Price	Index	data	available	for	substantially	all	of	the portfolio	applied	at	the	Metropolitan	Statistical	Area	level,	if	available,	or	the	state level	if	not.	The	remainder	of	the	portfolio	is	updated	in	a	similar	manner	using	the Federal	Housing	Finance	Agency	indices.

# LTV	distribution	in

| LTV	distribution	in<br>U.S.	portfolio(1)(2) |  | December	31,	2015 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | &gt;\t80%\tbut\tless | Greater |
|  | Less\tthan\tor | than\tor\tequal\tto | than |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | equal\tto\t80% | 100% | 100% |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $46,559 | $4,478 | $626 |
| Home\tequity\tloans | 13,904 | 5,147 | 2,527 |
| Total | $60,463 | $9,625 | $3,153 |

(2) Excludes	balances	where	LTV	was	not	available.	Such	amounts	are	not	material.

| LTV	distribution	in<br>U.S.	portfolio(1)(2) |  | December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | &gt;\t80%\tbut\tless | Greater |
|  | Less\tthan\tor | than\tor\tequal\tto | than |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | equal\tto\t80% | 100% | 100% |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $48,163 | $9,480 | $2,670 |
| Home\tequity\tloans | 14,638 | 7,267 | 4,641 |
| Total | $62,801 | $16,747 | $7,311 |

# Impaired	Consumer	Loans

Impaired	loans	are	those	loans	where	Citigroup	believes	it	is	probable	all	amounts due	according	to	the	original	contractual	terms	of	the	loan	will	not	be	collected. Impaired	consumer	loans	include	non-accrual	commercial	market	loans,	as	well	as smaller-balance	homogeneous	loans	whose	terms	have	been	modified	due	to	the borrower's	financial	difficulties	and	where	Citigroup	has	granted	a	concession	to the	borrower.	These	modifications	may	include	interest	rate	reductions	and/or principal	forgiveness.	Impaired	consumer	loans	exclude	smaller-balance homogeneous	loans	that	have	not	been	modified	and	are	carried	on	a	non-accrual basis.

# The	following	tables	present	information	about	total	impaired	consumer	loans

and	for	interest	income	recognized	on	impaired	consumer	loans:

# At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015

|  |  | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015 | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015 | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Recorded\ninvestment(1)(2) | Unpaid\nprincipal\nbalance | Related\nspecific\nallowance(3) | Average\ncarrying\nvalue(4) | Interest\tincome\nrecognized(5) |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate |  |  |  |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $6,038 | $6,610 | $739 | $8,932 | $439 |
| Home\tequity\tloans | 1,399 | 1,972 | 406 | 1,778 | 64 |
| Credit\tcards | 1,950 | 1,986 | 604 | 2,079 | 179 |
| Installment\tand\tother |  |  |  |  |  |
| Individual\tinstallment\tand\tother | 464 | 519 | 202 | 449 | 54 |
| Commercial\tmarket\tloans | 352 | 587 | 113 | 372 | 13 |
| Total | $10,203 | $11,674 | $2,064 | $13,610 | $749 |

(1) Recorded	investment	in	a	loan	includes	net	deferred	loan	fees	and	costs,	unamortized	premium	or	discount	and	direct	write-downs	and	includes	accrued	interest	only	on	credit	card	loans.

(2) $1,151	million	of	residential	first	mortgages,	$459	million	of	home	equity	loans	and	$86	million	of	commercial	market	loans	do	not	have	a	specific	allowance.

(3)	Included	in	the	Allowance	for	loan	losses.

(4)	Average	carrying	value	represents	the	average	recorded	investment	ending	balance	for	the	last	four	quarters	and	does	not	include	the	related	specific	allowance.

(5)	Includes	amounts	recognized	on	both	an	accrual	and	cash	basis.

|  |  | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2014 | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2014 | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Recorded\ninvestment(1)(2) | Unpaid\nprincipal\tbalance | Related\nspecific\nallowance(3) | Average\ncarrying\tvalue(4) | Interest\tincome\nrecognized(5)(6) |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate |  |  |  |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $13,551 | $14,387 | $1,920 | $15,389 | $690 |
| Home\tequity\tloans | 2,029 | 2,674 | 602 | 2,075 | 74 |
| Credit\tcards | 2,407 | 2,447 | 862 | 2,732 | 196 |
| Installment\tand\tother |  |  |  |  |  |
| Individual\tinstallment\tand\tother | 948 | 963 | 445 | 975 | 124 |
| Commercial\tmarket\tloans | 423 | 599 | 88 | 381 | 22 |
| Total | $19,358 | $21,070 | $3,917 | $21,552 | $1,106 |

(4) Average	carrying	value	represents	the	average	recorded	investment	ending	balance	for	the	last four	quarters	and	does	not	include	the	related	specific	allowance. (5)	Includes	amounts	recognized	on	both	an	accrual	and	cash	basis.

(6)	Interest	income	recognized	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2013	was	$1,280	million.

# Consumer	Troubled	Debt	Restructurings

# The	following	tables	present	consumer	TDRs	occurring:

(1) Post-modification	balances	include	past	due	amounts	that	are	capitalized	at	the	modification	date.

(2) Post-modification	balances	in	North	America	include	$209	million	of	residential	first	mortgages	and	$ 55	million	of	home	equity	loans	to	borrowers	who	have	gone	through	Chapter	7	bankruptcy	in	the year	ended	December	31,	2015.	These	amounts	include	$126	million	of	residential	first	mortgages	and	$ 47	million	of	home	equity	loans	that	were	newly	classified	as	TDRs	during	2015,	based	on previously	received	OCC	guidance.

(3) Represents	portion	of	contractual	loan	principal	that	is	non-interest	bearing	but	still	due	from	the	borrower.	Such	deferred	principal	is	charged	off	at	the	time	of	permanent	modification	to	the	extent that	the	related	loan	balance	exceeds	the	underlying	collateral	value.

(4) Represents	portion	of	contractual	loan	principal	that	is	non-interest	bearing	and,	depending	upon	borrower	performance,	eligible	for	forgiveness.

(5) Represents	portion	of	contractual	loan	principal	that	was	forgiven	at	the	time	of	permanent	modification.

(6)	Commercial	markets	loans	are	generally	borrower-specific	modifications	and	incorporate	changes	in	the	amount	and/or	timing	of	principal	and/or	interest.

(7)	Post-modification	balances	in	North	America	include	$322	million	of	residential	first	mortgages	and	$ 80	million	of	home	equity	loans	to	borrowers	who	have	gone	through	Chapter	7	bankruptcy	in	the year	ended	December	31,	2014.	These	amounts	include	$179	million	of	residential	first	mortgages	and	$ 69	million	of	home	equity	loans	that	were	newly	classified	as	TDRs	during	2014,	based	on previously	received	OCC	guidance.

(8)	The	above	tables	reflect	activity	for	loans	outstanding	as	of	the	end	of	the	reporting	period	that	were	considered	TDRs.

The	following	table	presents	consumer	TDRs	that	defaulted	for	which	the	payment	default	occurred	within	one	year	of	a	permanent	modification.	Default	is	defined	as 60	days	past	due,	except	for	classifiably	managed	commercial	markets	loans,	where	default	is	defined	as	90	days	past	due.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| North\tAmerica |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $420 | $715 |
| Home\tequity\tloans | 38 | 72 |
| Credit\tcards | 187 | 194 |
| Installment\tand\tother\trevolving | 8 | 95 |
| Commercial\tmarkets | 9 | 9 |
| Total | $662 | $1,085 |
| International |  |  |
| Residential\tfirst\tmortgages | $22 | $24 |
| Credit\tcards | 141 | 217 |
| Installment\tand\tother\trevolving | 88 | 104 |
| Commercial\tmarkets | 28 | 105 |
| Total | $279 | $450 |

Corporate	loans	represent	loans	and	leases	managed	by	ICG.	The	following	table presents	information	by	corporate	loan	type:

|  | December	31, | December	31, |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| In\tU.S.\toffices |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $41,147 | $35,055 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 36,396 | 36,272 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate(1) | 37,565 | 32,537 |
| Installment,\trevolving\tcredit\tand\nother | 33,374 | 29,207 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 1,780 | 1,758 |
|  | $150,262 | $134,829 |
| In\toffices\toutside\tthe\tU.S. |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $78,420 | $79,239 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 28,704 | 33,269 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate(1) | 5,106 | 6,031 |
| Installment,\trevolving\tcredit\tand\nother | 20,853 | 19,259 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 238 | 356 |
| Governments\tand\tofficial\ninstitutions | 4,911 | 2,236 |
|  | $138,232 | $140,390 |
| Total\tcorporate\tloans | $288,494 | $275,219 |
| Net\tunearned\tincome | (660) | (554) |
| Corporate\tloans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\nincome | $287,834 | $274,665 |

The	Company	sold	and/or	reclassified	to	held-for-sale	$2.8	billion	and	$4.8 billion	of	corporate	loans	during	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014, respectively.	The	Company	did	not	have	significant	purchases	of	corporate	loans classified	as	held-for-investment	for	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015	or	2014.

Citi	generally	does	not	manage	corporate	loans	on	a	delinquency	basis.	Corporate loans	are	identified	as	impaired	and	placed	on	a	cash	(non-accrual)	basis	when	it	is determined,	based	on	actual	experience	and	a	forward-looking	assessment	of	the collectability	of	the	loan	in	full,	that	the	payment	of	interest	or	principal	is	doubtful or	when	interest	or	principal	is	90	days	past	due,	except	when	the	loan	is	well collateralized	and	in	the	process	of	collection.	Any	interest	accrued	on	impaired corporate	loans	and	leases	is	reversed	at	90	days	and	charged	against	current earnings,	and	interest	is	thereafter	included	in	earnings	only	to	the	extent	actually received	in	cash.	When	there	is	doubt	regarding	the	ultimate	collectability	of principal,	all	cash	receipts	are	thereafter	applied	to	reduce	the	recorded	investment in	the	loan.	While	corporate	loans	are	generally	managed	based	on	their	internally assigned	risk	rating	(see	further	discussion	below),	the	following	tables	present delinquency	information	by	corporate	loan	type.

# Corporate	Loan	Delinquency	and	Non-Accrual	Details	at	December	31,	2015

| In	millions	of	dollars | past	due<br>and	accruing(1) | past	due	and<br>accruing(1) | Total	past	due<br>and	accruing | Total<br>non-accrual(2) | Total<br>current(3) | Total<br>loans	(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $87 | $4 | $91 | $1,039 | $114,564 | $115,694 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 16 | — | 16 | 173 | 64,128 | 64,317 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 137 | 7 | 144 | 232 | 42,095 | 42,471 |
| Leases | — | — | — | 76 | 1,941 | 2,017 |
| Other | 29 | — | 29 | 44 | 58,286 | 58,359 |
| Loans\tat\tfair\tvalue |  |  |  |  |  | 4,971 |
| Purchased\tdistressed\tloans |  |  |  |  |  | 5 |
| Total | $269 | $11 | $280 | $1,564 | $281,014 | $287,834 |

| In	millions	of	dollars | past	due<br>and	accruing(1) | past	due	and<br>accruing(1) | Total	past	due<br>and	accruing | Total<br>non-accrual(2) | Total<br>current(3) | Total<br>loans	(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $50 | $— | $50 | $575 | $109,764 | $110,389 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 2 | — | 2 | 250 | 67,580 | 67,832 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 86 | — | 86 | 252 | 38,135 | 38,473 |
| Leases | — | — | — | 51 | 2,062 | 2,113 |
| Other | 49 | 1 | 50 | 55 | 49,844 | 49,949 |
| Loans\tat\tfair\tvalue |  |  |  |  |  | 5,858 |
| Purchased\tdistressed\tloans |  |  |  |  |  | 51 |
| Total | $187 | $1 | $188 | $1,183 | $267,385 | $274,665 |

(1) Corporate	loans	that	are	90	days	past	due	are	generally	classified	as	non-accrual.	Corporate	loans	are	considered	past	due	when	principal	or	interest	is	contractually	due	but	unpaid.

(2) Non-accrual	loans	generally	include	those	loans	that	are	≥	90	days	past	due	or	those	loans	for	which	Citi	believes,	based	on	actual	experience	and	a	forward-looking	assessment	of	the	collectability	of the	loan	in	full,	that	the	payment	of	interest	or	principal	is	doubtful.

(3) Corporate	loans	are	past	due	when	principal	or	interest	is	contractually	due	but	unpaid.	Loans	less	than	 30	days	past	due	are	presented	as	current.

(4) Total	loans	include	loans	at	fair	value,	which	are	not	included	in	the	various	delinquency	columns.

Citigroup	has	a	risk	management	process	to	monitor,	evaluate	and	manage	the principal	risks	associated	with	its	corporate	loan	portfolio.	As	part	of	its	risk management	process,	Citi	assigns	numeric	risk	ratings	to	its	corporate	loan facilities	based	on	quantitative	and	qualitative	assessments	of	the	obligor	and facility.	These	risk	ratings	are	reviewed	at	least	annually	or	more	often	if	material events	related	to	the	obligor	or	facility	warrant.	Factors	considered	in	assigning	the risk	ratings	include	financial	condition	of	the	obligor,	qualitative	assessment	of management	and	strategy,	amount	and	sources	of	repayment,	amount	and	type	of collateral	and	guarantee	arrangements,	amount	and	type	of	any	contingencies associated	with	the	obligor,	and	the	obligor's	industry	and	geography. The	obligor	risk	ratings	are	defined	by	ranges	of	default	probabilities.	The facility	risk	ratings	are	defined	by	ranges	of	loss	norms,	which	are	the	product	of the	probability	of	default	and	the	loss	given	default.	The	investment	grade	rating categories	are	similar	to	the	category	BBB-/Baa3	and	above	as	defined	by	S&P	and Moody's.	Loans	classified	according	to	the	bank	regulatory	definitions	as	special mention,	substandard	and	doubtful	will	have	risk	ratings	within	the	non-investment grade	categories.

# Corporate	Loans	Credit	Quality	Indicators

# Recorded	investment	in	loans(1)

| In	millions	of	dollars | December	31,	2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Investment\tgrade(2) |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $81,927 | $80,812 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 53,522 | 56,154 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 18,869 | 16,068 |
| Leases | 1,660 | 1,669 |
| Other | 51,449 | 46,284 |
| Total\tinvestment\tgrade | $207,427 | $200,987 |
| Non-investment\tgrade(2) |  |  |
| Accrual |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $32,726 | $29,003 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 10,622 | 11,429 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 2,800 | 3,587 |
| Leases | 282 | 393 |
| Other | 6,867 | 3,609 |
| Non-accrual |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | 1,039 | 575 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 173 | 250 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 232 | 252 |
| Leases | 76 | 51 |
| Other | 44 | 55 |
| Total\tnon-investment\tgrade | $54,861 | $49,204 |
| Private\tbank\tloans\tmanaged\ton\ta\ndelinquency\tbasis(2) | $20,575 | $18,616 |
| Loans\tat\tfair\tvalue | 4,971 | 5,858 |
| Corporate\tloans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\nincome | $287,834 | $274,665 |

Impaired	collateral-dependent	loans	and	leases,	where	repayment	is	expected to	be	provided	solely	by	the	sale	of	the	underlying	collateral	and	there	are	no	other available	and	reliable	sources	of	repayment,	are	written	down	to	the	lower	of	cost or	collateral	value,	less	cost	to	sell.	Cash-basis	loans	are	returned	to	an	accrual status	when	all	contractual	principal	and	interest	amounts	are	reasonably	assured	of repayment	and	there	is	a	sustained	period	of	repayment	performance,	generally	six months,	in	accordance	with	the	contractual	terms	of	the	loan.

(1) Recorded	investment	in	a	loan	includes	net	deferred	loan	fees	and	costs,	unamortized premium	or	discount,	less	any	direct	write-downs.

(2) Held-for-investment	loans	are	accounted	for	on	an	amortized	cost	basis.

The	following	tables	present	non-accrual	loan	information	by	corporate	loan	type	and	interest	income	recognized	on	non-accrual	corporate	loans:

# Non-Accrual	Corporate	Loans

|  |  |  | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015 | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Recorded\ninvestment(1) | Unpaid\nprincipal\tbalance | Related\tspecific\nallowance | Average\ncarrying\tvalue(2) | Interest\tincome\nrecognized(3) |
| Non-accrual\tcorporate\tloans |  |  |  |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $1,039 | $1,224 | $246 | $825 | $7 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 173 | 196 | 10 | 194 | — |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 232 | 336 | 21 | 240 | 4 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 76 | 76 | 54 | 62 | — |
| Other | 44 | 114 | 32 | 39 | — |
| Total\tnon-accrual\tcorporate\tloans | $1,564 | $1,946 | $363 | $1,360 | $11 |

|  |  |  | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2014 | At	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Recorded\ninvestment(1) | Unpaid\nprincipal\tbalance | Related\tspecific\nallowance | Average\ncarrying\tvalue(2) | Interest\tincome\nrecognized(3) |
| Non-accrual\tcorporate\tloans |  |  |  |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $575 | $863 | $155 | $658 | $32 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 250 | 262 | 7 | 278 | 4 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 252 | 287 | 24 | 263 | 8 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 51 | 53 | 29 | 85 | — |
| Other | 55 | 68 | 21 | 60 | 3 |
| Total\tnon-accrual\tcorporate\tloans | $1,183 | $1,533 | $236 | $1,344 | $47 |

|  | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Recorded\ninvestment(1) | Related\tspecific\nallowance | Recorded\ninvestment(1) | Related\tspecific\nallowance |
| Non-accrual\tcorporate\tloans\twith\tvaluation\tallowances |  |  |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $539 | $246 | $224 | $155 |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 18 | 10 | 37 | 7 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 60 | 21 | 70 | 24 |
| Lease\tfinancing | 75 | 54 | 47 | 29 |
| Other | 40 | 32 | 55 | 21 |
| Total\tnon-accrual\tcorporate\tloans\twith\tspecific\tallowance | $732 | $363 | $433 | $236 |
| Non-accrual\tcorporate\tloans\twithout\tspecific\tallowance |  |  |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $500 |  | $351 |  |
| Financial\tinstitutions | 155 |  | 213 |  |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 172 |  | 182 |  |
| Lease\tfinancing | 1 |  | 4 |  |
| Other | 4 |  | — |  |
| Total\tnon-accrual\tcorporate\tloans\twithout\tspecific\tallowance | $832 | N/A | $750 | N/A |

(2) Average	carrying	value	represents	the	average	recorded	investment	balance	and	does	not	include	related	specific	allowance.

(3) Interest	income	recognized	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2013	was	$43	million.

# Corporate	Troubled	Debt	Restructurings

The	following	table	presents	corporate	TDR	activity	at	and	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2015:

| In	millions	of	dollars | Carrying<br>Value | TDRs<br>involving	changes<br>in	the	amount<br>and/or	timing	of<br>principal	payments(1) | TDRs<br>involving	changes<br>in	the	amount<br>and/or	timing	of<br>interest	payments(2) | TDRs<br>involving	changes<br>in	the	amount<br>and/or	timing	of<br>both	principal	and<br>interest	payments |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $120 | $67 | $— | $53 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 47 | 3 | — | 44 |
| Total | $167 | $70 | $— | $97 |

(1) TDRs	involving	changes	in	the	amount	or	timing	of	principal	payments	may	involve	principal	forgiveness	or	deferral	of	periodic	and/or	final	principal	payments.	Because	forgiveness	of	principal	is rare	for	commercial	loans,	modifications	typically	have	little	to	no	impact	on	the	loans'	projected	cash	flows	and	thus	little	to	no	impact	on	the	allowance	established	for	the	loans.		Charge-offs	for amounts	deemed	uncollectable	may	be	recorded	at	the	time	of	the	restructuring	or	may	have	already	been	recorded	in	prior	periods	such	that	no	charge-off	is	required	at	the	time	of	the	modification.

(2) TDRs	involving	changes	in	the	amount	or	timing	of	interest	payments	may	involve	a	below-market	interest	rate.

| In	millions	of	dollars | Carrying<br>Value | TDRs<br>involving	changes<br>in	the	amount<br>and/or	timing	of<br>principal	payments(1) | TDRs<br>involving	changes<br>in	the	amount<br>and/or	timing	of<br>interest	payments(2) | TDRs<br>involving	changes<br>in	the	amount<br>and/or	timing	of<br>both	principal	and<br>interest	payments |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $48 | $30 | $17 | $1 |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 |
| Total | $56 | $35 | $18 | $3 |

The	following	table	presents	total	corporate	loans	modified	in	a	TDR	as	well	as	those	TDRs	that	defaulted	and	for	which	the	payment	default	occurred	within	one	year	of	a permanent	modification.	Default	is	defined	as	60	days	past	due,	except	for	classifiably	managed	commercial	markets	loans,	where	default	is	defined	as	90	days	past	due.

| In	millions	of	dollars | TDR	balances	at	December<br>31,	2015 | TDR	loans	in	payment	default	during<br>the	year	ended	December	31,	2015 | TDR	balances	at<br>December	31,	2014 | TDR	loans	in	payment	default	during	the<br>year	ended	December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Commercial\tand\tindustrial | $135 | $— | $117 | $— |
| Loans\tto\tfinancial\tinstitutions | 5 | 1 | — | — |
| Mortgage\tand\treal\testate | 138 | — | 107 | — |
| Other | 308 | — | 355 | — |
| Total(1) | $586 | $1 | $579 | $— |

# Purchased	Distressed	Loans

Included	in	the	corporate	and	consumer	loans	outstanding	tables	above	are purchased	distressed	loans,	which	are	loans	that	have	evidenced	significant	credit deterioration	subsequent	to	origination	but	prior	to	acquisition	by	Citigroup.	In accordance	with	ASC	310-30,	the	difference	between	the	total	expected	cash	flows for	these	loans	and	the	initial	recorded	investment	is	recognized	in	income	over	the life	of	the	loans	using	a	level	yield.	Accordingly,	these	loans	have	been	excluded from	the	impaired	loan	table	information	presented	above.	In	addition,	per	ASC 310-30,	subsequent	decreases	in	the	expected	cash	flows	for	a	purchased	distressed loan	require	a	build	of	an	allowance	so	the	loan

retains	its	level	yield.	However,	increases	in	the	expected	cash	flows	are	first recognized	as	a	reduction	of	any	previously	established	allowance	and	then recognized	as	income	prospectively	over	the	remaining	life	of	the	loan	by increasing	the	loan's	level	yield.	Where	the	expected	cash	flows	cannot	be	reliably estimated,	the	purchased	distressed	loan	is	accounted	for	under	the	cost	recovery method.	The	carrying	amount	of	the	Company's	purchased	distressed	loan portfolio	was	$234	million	and	$361	million,	net	of	an	allowance	of	$16	million and	$60	million,	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.

The	changes	in	the	accretable	yield,	related	allowance	and	carrying	amount	net	of	accretable	yield	were	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars | Accretable<br>yield | Carrying<br>amount	of	loan<br>receivable | Allowance |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2013 | $107 | $703 | $113 |
| Purchases(1) | $1 | $46 | $— |
| Disposals/payments\treceived | (6) | (307) | (15) |
| Accretion | (24) | 24 | — |
| Builds\t(reductions)\tto\tthe\tallowance | (36) | — | (27) |
| Increase\tto\texpected\tcash\tflows | 23 | — | — |
| FX\ttranslation/other | (9) | (45) | (11) |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2014(2) | $56 | $421 | $60 |
| Purchases(1) | $3 | $54 | $— |
| Disposals/payments\treceived | (5) | (162) | (9) |
| Accretion | (13) | 13 | — |
| Builds\t(reductions)\tto\tthe\tallowance | — | — | 9 |
| Increase\tto\texpected\tcash\tflows | 1 | — | — |
| FX\ttranslation/other | (9) | (76) | (44) |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015(2) | $33 | $250 | $16 |

(1) The	balance	reported	in	the	column	"Carrying	amount	of	loan	receivable"	consists	of	 $54	million	and	$46	million	in	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	of	purchased	loans	accounted	for	under	the	level- yield	method.	No	purchased	loans	were	accounted	for	under	the	cost-recovery	method.	These	balances	represent	the	fair	value	of	these	loans	at	their	acquisition	date.	The	related	total	expected	cash flows	for	the	level-yield	loans	at	their	acquisition	dates	were	$56	million	and	$46	million	in	2015	and	2014,	respectively.

(2)	The	balance	reported	in	the	column	"Carrying	amount	of	loan	receivable"	consists	of	$245	million	and	$413	million	of	loans	accounted	for	under	the	level-yield	method	and	 $5	million	and	$8	million accounted	for	under	the	cost-recovery	method	in	2015	and	2014,	respectively.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $15,994 | $19,648 | $25,455 |
| Gross\tcredit\tlosses | (9,041) | (11,108) | (12,769) |
| Gross\trecoveries(1) | 1,739 | 2,135 | 2,306 |
| Net\tcredit\tlosses\t(NCLs) | $(7,302) | $(8,973) | $(10,463) |
| NCLs | $7,302 | $8,973 | $10,463 |
| Net\treserve\tbuilds\t(releases) | 139 | (1,879) | (1,961) |
| Net\tspecific\treserve\treleases | (333) | (266) | (898) |
| Total\tprovision\tfor\tloan\tlosses | $7,108 | $6,828 | $7,604 |
| Other,\tnet(2)(3) | (3,174) | (1,509) | (2,948) |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tat\tend\tof\tperiod | $12,626 | $15,994 | $19,648 |
| Allowance\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\ton\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $1,063 | $1,229 | $1,119 |
| Provision\t(release)\tfor\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | 74 | (162) | 80 |
| Other,\tnet(3) | 265 | (4) | 30 |
| Allowance\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\ton\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments\tat\tend\tof\tperiod(4) | $1,402 | $1,063 | $1,229 |
| Total\tallowance\tfor\tloans,\tleases,\tand\tunfunded\tlending\tcommitments | $14,028 | $17,057 | $20,877 |

(2) 2015	includes	reductions	of	approximately	$2.4	billion	related	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	held-for-sale	(HFS)	of	various	loan	portfolios,	including	approximately	 $1.5	billion	related	to	the	transfer	of various	real	estate	loan	portfolios	to	HFS.	Additionally,	2015	includes	a	reduction	of	approximately	$474	million	related	to	FX	translation.	2014	includes	reductions	of	approximately	 $1.1	billion related	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	HFS	of	various	loan	portfolios,	including	approximately	$411	million	related	to	the	transfer	of	various	real	estate	loan	portfolios	to	HFS,	approximately $204	million related	to	the	transfer	to	HFS	of	a	business	in	Greece,	approximately	$177	million	related	to	the	transfer	to	HFS	of	a	business	in	Spain,	approximately	 $29	million	related	to	the	transfer	to	HFS	of	a business	in	Honduras,	and	approximately	$108	million	related	to	the	transfer	to	HFS	of	various	 EMEA	loan	portfolios.	Additionally,	2014	includes	a	reduction	of	approximately	 $463	million	related	to FX	translation.	2013	includes	reductions	of	approximately	$2.4	billion	related	to	the	sale	or	transfer	to	HFS	of	various	loan	portfolios,	including	approximately	 $360	million	related	to	the	sale	of Credicard	and	approximately	$255	million	related	to	a	transfer	to	HFS	of	a	loan	portfolio	in	Greece,	approximately	 $230	million	related	to	a	non-provision	transfer	of	reserves	associated	with	deferred interest	to	other	assets	which	includes	deferred	interest	and	approximately	$220	million	related	to	FX	translation.

(3) 2015	includes	a	reclassification	of	$271	million	of	Allowance	for	Loan	Losses	to	Allowance	for	Unfunded	Lending	Commitments,	included	in	Other,	net.	This	reclassification	reflects	the	re-attribution of	$271	million	in	Allowances	for	Credit	Losses	between	the	funded	and	unfunded	portions	of	the	corporate	credit	portfolios	and	does	not	reflect	a	change	in	the	underlying	credit	performance	of	these portfolios.

(4) Represents	additional	credit	loss	reserves	for	unfunded	lending	commitments	and	letters	of	credit	recorded	in	 Other	liabilities	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

# Allowance	for	Credit	Losses	and	Investment	in	Loans	at	December	31,	2015

| In	millions	of	dollars | Corporate | Consumer | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $2,389 | $13,605 | $15,994 |
| Charge-offs | (331) | (8,710) | (9,041) |
| Recoveries | 97 | 1,642 | 1,739 |
| Replenishment\tof\tnet\tcharge-offs | 234 | 7,068 | 7,302 |
| Net\treserve\tbuilds\t(releases) | 523 | (384) | 139 |
| Net\tspecific\treserve\tbuilds\t(releases) | 86 | (419) | (333) |
| Other | (288) | (2,886) | (3,174) |
| Ending\tbalance | $2,710 | $9,916 | $12,626 |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses |  |  |  |
| Determined\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t450 | $2,345 | $7,839 | $10,184 |
| Determined\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t310-10-35 | 362 | 2,064 | 2,426 |
| Determined\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t310-30 | 3 | 13 | 16 |
| Total\tallowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses | $2,710 | $9,916 | $12,626 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome |  |  |  |
| Loans\tcollectively\tevaluated\tfor\timpairment\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t450 | $281,066 | $319,301 | $600,367 |
| Loans\tindividually\tevaluated\tfor\timpairment\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t310-10-35 | 1,792 | 10,203 | 11,995 |
| Loans\tacquired\twith\tdeteriorated\tcredit\tquality\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t310-30 | 5 | 245 | 250 |
| Loans\theld\tat\tfair\tvalue | 4,971 | 34 | 5,005 |
| Total\tloans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | $287,834 | $329,783 | $617,617 |

| In	millions	of	dollars | Corporate | Consumer | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $2,584 | $17,064 | $19,648 |
| Charge-offs | (427) | (10,681) | (11,108) |
| Recoveries | 139 | 1,996 | 2,135 |
| Replenishment\tof\tnet\tcharge-offs | 288 | 8,685 | 8,973 |
| Net\treserve\treleases | (133) | (1,746) | (1,879) |
| Net\tspecific\treserve\treleases | (20) | (246) | (266) |
| Other | (42) | (1,467) | (1,509) |
| Ending\tbalance | $2,389 | $13,605 | $15,994 |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses |  |  |  |
| Determined\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t450 | $2,110 | $9,673 | $11,783 |
| Determined\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t310-10-35 | 235 | 3,917 | 4,152 |
| Determined\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t310-30 | 44 | 15 | 59 |
| Total\tallowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses | $2,389 | $13,605 | $15,994 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome |  |  |  |
| Loans\tcollectively\tevaluated\tfor\timpairment\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t450 | $267,271 | $350,199 | $617,470 |
| Loans\tindividually\tevaluated\tfor\timpairment\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t310-10-35 | 1,485 | 19,358 | 20,843 |
| Loans\tacquired\twith\tdeteriorated\tcredit\tquality\tin\taccordance\twith\tASC\t310-30 | 51 | 370 | 421 |
| Loans\theld\tat\tfair\tvalue | 5,858 | 43 | 5,901 |
| Total\tloans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | $274,665 | $369,970 | $644,635 |

# Allowance	for	Credit	Losses	at	December	31,	2013

| In	millions	of	dollars | Corporate | Consumer | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | $2,776 | $22,679 | $25,455 |
| Charge-offs | (369) | (12,400) | (12,769) |
| Recoveries | 168 | 2,138 | 2,306 |
| Replenishment\tof\tnet\tcharge-offs | 201 | 10,262 | 10,463 |
| Net\treserve\treleases | (199) | (1,762) | (1,961) |
| Net\tspecific\treserve\treleases | (1) | (897) | (898) |
| Other | 8 | (2,956) | (2,948) |
| Ending\tbalance | $2,584 | $17,064 | $19,648 |

# 17.			GOODWILL	AND	INTANGIBLE	ASSETS

# The	changes	in	Goodwill	were	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars |  |
| :--- | :--- |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2012 | $25,673 |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation | (577) |
| Divestitures,\tpurchase\taccounting\tadjustments\tand\tother(1) | (25) |
| Sale\tof\tBrazil\tCredicard | (62) |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2013 | $25,009 |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tand\tother | $(1,214) |
| Divestitures\tand\tpurchase\taccounting\tadjustments(1) | (203) |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2014 | $23,592 |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tand\tother | $(1,000) |
| Impairment\tof\tgoodwill | (31) |
| Divestitures(2) | (212) |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | $22,349 |

The	changes	in	Goodwill	by	segment	were	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars | Consumer<br>Banking | Institutional<br>Clients	Group | Citi	Holdings | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2013 | $13,985 | $10,868 | $156 | $25,009 |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tand\tother | (505) | (711) | 2 | $(1,214) |
| Divestitures\tand\tpurchase\taccounting\tadjustments(1) | (86) | (1) | (116) | (203) |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2014 | $13,394 | $10,156 | $42 | $23,592 |
| Impact\tof\treorganization\tat\tJanuary\t1,\t2015(3) | $(177) | $— | $177 | $— |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tand\tother | (355) | (644) | (1) | (1,000) |
| Impairment\tof\tgoodwill | — | — | (31) | (31) |
| Divestitures(2) | (24) | (1) | (187) | (212) |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | $12,838 | $9,511 | $— | $22,349 |

(1) Primarily	related	to	the	sales	of	the	Spain	consumer	operations	and	the	Japan	retail	banking	business.	See	Note	2	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(2) Primarily	related	to	the	sales	of	the	Latin	America	Retirement	Services	and	Japan	cards	businesses	completed	during	the	year,	and	agreements	to	sell	certain	businesses	in	Citi	Holdings	as	of December	31,	2015.	See	Note	2	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(3) Goodwill	allocation	associated	with	the	transfers	of	certain	 GCB	businesses	to	Citi	Holdings	effective	January	1,	2015,	as	described	above.	See	Note	3	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

Goodwill	impairment	testing	is	performed	at	the	level	below	each	business segment	(referred	to	as	a	reporting	unit).	The	Company	performed	its	annual goodwill	impairment	test	as	of	July	1,	2015	resulting	in	no	impairment	for	any	of the	reporting	units.	The	reporting	unit	structure	in	2015	was	the	same	as	the reporting	unit	structure	in	2014,	except	for	the	effect	of	the	January	1,	2015 reorganization	noted	below	and	the	sales	involving	the	Citi	Holdings—Cards, Latin	America	Retirement	Services,	and	Citi	Holdings—Consumer	Japan reporting	units	during	the	third	quarter	of	2014	and	second	and	fourth	quarter	of 2015,	respectively.

Furthermore,	interim	goodwill	impairment	tests	were	performed	during	the year,	which	resulted	in	$31	million	of	total	goodwill	impairment	recorded	in Operating	expenses,

as	discussed	below.	No	goodwill	was	deemed	impaired	in	2014	and	2013. Effective	January	1,	2015,	certain	consumer	banking	and	institutional businesses	were	transferred	to	Citi	Holdings	and	aggregated	to	form	five	new reporting	units:	Citi	Holdings—Consumer	EMEA,	Citi	Holdings—Consumer	Latin America,	Citi	Holdings—Consumer	Japan,	Citi	Holdings—Consumer	Finance South	Korea,	and	Citi	Holdings—ICG.	Goodwill	balances	associated	with	the transfers	were	allocated	to	each	of	the	component	businesses	based	on	their	relative fair	values	to	the	legacy	reporting	units.	An	interim	goodwill	impairment	test	was performed	as	of	January	1,	2015	under	the	legacy	and	new	reporting	structures, which	resulted	in	full	impairment	of	the	new	Citi	Holdings—Consumer	Finance South	Korea	reporting	unit's	$16	million	of	goodwill.	Additionally,

during	the	third	quarter	of	2015,	Citi	signed	definitive	agreements	to	sell	most	of its	businesses	reported	in	Citi	Holdings—Consumer	Latin	America	and	allocated $55	million	of	goodwill	to	these	disposals,	which	are	classified	as	held-for-sale. This	resulted	in	full	impairment	of	the	remaining	$15	million	of	goodwill	within the	Citi	Holdings—Consumer	Latin	America	reporting	unit.

The	fair	values	of	the	Company's	reporting	units	substantially	exceeded	their carrying	values	and	did	not	indicate	a	risk	of	impairment	based	on	current valuations.	The	following	table	shows	reporting	units	with	goodwill	balances	as	of December	31,	2015	and	the	fair	value	as	a	percentage	of	allocated	book	value	as	of the	annual	impairment	test.

| Reporting	unit(1)(2) | Fair	value	as	a	%	of	allocated<br>book	value | Goodwill |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| North\tAmerica\tGlobal\tConsumer\nBanking | 182% | $6,706 |
| EMEA\tGlobal\tConsumer\tBanking | 199 | 293 |
| Asia\tGlobal\tConsumer\tBanking | 229 | 4,513 |
| Latin\tAmerica\tGlobal\tConsumer\nBanking | 146 | 1,326 |
| Banking | 237 | 3,052 |
| Markets\tand\tSecurities\tServices | 145 | 6,459 |
| Total |  | $22,349 |

(1) Citi	Holdings—Other	and	Citi	Holdings—ICG	are	excluded	from	the	table	as	there	is	no goodwill	allocated	to	them.

(2) Citi	Holdings—Consumer	EMEA,	Citi	Holdings	—	Consumer	Latin	America,	and	Citi

Holdings—Consumer	Finance	South	Korea	are	excluded	from	the	table	as	the	allocated goodwill	was	either	impaired	or	classified	as	held-for-sale	as	of	December	31,	2015.

The	components	of	intangible	assets	were	as	follows:

|  |  | December	31,	2015 |  |  | December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Gross\ncarrying\namount | Accumulated\namortization | Net\ncarrying\namount | Gross\ncarrying\namount | Accumulated\namortization | Net\ncarrying\namount |
| Purchased\tcredit\tcard\trelationships | $7,606 | $6,520 | $1,086 | $7,626 | $6,294 | $1,332 |
| Core\tdeposit\tintangibles | 1,050 | 969 | 81 | 1,153 | 1,021 | 132 |
| Other\tcustomer\trelationships | 471 | 252 | 219 | 579 | 331 | 248 |
| Present\tvalue\tof\tfuture\tprofits | 37 | 31 | 6 | 233 | 154 | 79 |
| Indefinite-lived\tintangible\tassets | 234 | — | 234 | 290 | — | 290 |
| Other(1) | 4,709 | 2,614 | 2,095 | 5,217 | 2,732 | 2,485 |
| Intangible\tassets\t(excluding\tMSRs) | $14,107 | $10,386 | $3,721 | $15,098 | $10,532 | $4,566 |
| Mortgage\tservicing\trights\t(MSRs)(2) | 1,781 | — | 1,781 | 1,845 | — | 1,845 |
| Total\tintangible\tassets | $15,888 | $10,386 | $5,502 | $16,943 | $10,532 | $6,411 |

(1) Includes	contract-related	intangible	assets.

(2) For	additional	information	on	Citi's	MSRs,	including	the	rollforward	from	2014	to	2015,	see	Note	 22	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

The	changes	in	intangible	assets	during	the	twelve	months	ended	December	31,	2015	were	as	follows:

|  | Net	carrying<br>amount	at |  |  |  |  | Net	carrying<br>amount	at |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | December\t31,\t2014 | Acquisitions/\ndivestitures | Amortization | Impairments | FX\ttranslation\nand\nother | December\t31,\n2015 |
| Purchased\tcredit\tcard\trelationships | $1,332 | $— | $(261) | $— | $15 | $1,086 |
| Core\tdeposit\tintangibles | 132 | — | (41) | — | (10) | 81 |
| Other\tcustomer\trelationships | 248 | — | (24) | — | (5) | 219 |
| Present\tvalue\tof\tfuture\tprofits | 79 | (68) | (4) | — | (1) | 6 |
| Indefinite-lived\tintangible\tassets | 290 | — | — | (17) | (39) | 234 |
| Other | 2,485 | (108) | (295) | (5) | 18 | 2,095 |
| Intangible\tassets\t(excluding\tMSRs) | $4,566 | $(176) | $(625) | $(22) | $(22) | $3,721 |
| Mortgage\tservicing\trights\t(MSRs)(1) | 1,845 |  |  |  |  | 1,781 |
| Total\tintangible\tassets | $6,411 |  |  |  |  | $5,502 |

# Short-Term	Borrowings

|  | 2015 |  | 2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | Weighted |  | Weighted |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Balance | average\tcoupon | Balance | average\tcoupon |
| Commercial\tpaper |  |  |  |  |
| Citibank,\tN.A. | $9,995 | 0.22% | $16,085 | 0.22% |
| Non-bank\tand\tother(1) | — | — | 70 | 0.95 |
| Total\tcommercial\tpaper | $9,995 | 0.22% | $16,155 | 0.23% |
| Other\tborrowings(2) | 11,084 | 1.50 | 42,180 | 0.53 |
| Total | $21,079 |  | $58,335 |  |

(1) Includes	parent	holding	company	(Citigroup	Inc.),	Citi's	broker-dealer	subsidiaries	and	other non-bank	subsidiaries	that	are	consolidated	into	Citigroup	Inc.,	as	well	as	Banamex	and Citibank	(Switzerland)	AG.

(2) Includes	borrowings	from	the	Federal	Home	Loan	Banks	and	other	market	participants.	At December	31,	2014,	collateralized	short-term	advances	from	the	Federal	Home	Loan	Banks were	$11.2	billion.	At	December	31,	2015,	no	amounts	were	outstanding.

Borrowings	under	bank	lines	of	credit	may	be	at	interest	rates	based	on LIBOR,	CD	rates,	the	prime	rate	or	bids	submitted	by	the	banks.	Citigroup	pays commitment	fees	for	its	lines	of	credit.

Some	of	Citigroup's	non-bank	subsidiaries	have	credit	facilities	with Citigroup's	subsidiary	depository	institutions,	including	Citibank.	Borrowings under	these	facilities	are	secured	in	accordance	with	Section	23A	of	the	Federal Reserve	Act.

Citigroup	Global	Markets	Holdings	Inc.	(CGMHI)	has	borrowing	agreements consisting	of	facilities	that	CGMHI	has	been	advised	are	available,	but	where	no contractual	lending	obligation	exists.	These	arrangements	are	reviewed	on	an ongoing	basis	to	ensure	flexibility	in	meeting	CGMHI's	short-term	requirements.

| In	millions	of	dollars | Weighted<br>average<br>coupon | Maturities | 2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Citigroup\tInc.(1) |  |  |  |  |
| Senior\tdebt | 3.84% | 2016-2098 | $113,569 | $122,323 |
| Subordinated\tdebt(2) | 4.48 | 2016-2044 | 26,875 | 25,464 |
| Trust\tpreferred\n\t\t\t\tsecurities | 6.90 | 2036-2067 | 1,713 | 1,725 |
| Bank(3) |  |  |  |  |
| Senior\tdebt | 1.58 | 2016-2038 | 55,131 | 65,146 |
| Broker-dealer(4) |  |  |  |  |
| Senior\tdebt | 3.25 | 2016-2042 | 3,968 | 8,399 |
| Subordinated\tdebt(2) | 1.18 | 2016-2037 | 19 | 23 |
| Total | 3.32% |  | $201,275 | $223,080 |
| Senior\tdebt |  |  | $172,668 | $195,868 |
| Subordinated\tdebt(2) |  |  | 26,894 | 25,487 |
| Trust\tpreferred\n\t\t\t\tsecurities |  |  | 1,713 | 1,725 |
| Total |  |  | $201,275 | $223,080 |

(1) Parent	holding	company,	Citigroup	Inc.

(2) Includes	notes	that	are	subordinated	within	certain	countries,	regions	or	subsidiaries.

(3) Represents	Citibank	entities	as	well	as	other	bank	entities.	At	 December	31,	2015	and December	31,	2014,	collateralized	long-term	advances	from	the	Federal	Home	Loan	Banks were	$17.8	billion	and	$19.8	billion,	respectively.

(4) Represents	broker-dealer	subsidiaries	that	are	consolidated	into	Citigroup	Inc.,	the	parent holding	company.

The	Company	issues	both	fixed	and	variable	rate	debt	in	a	range	of	currencies. It	uses	derivative	contracts,	primarily	interest	rate	swaps,	to	effectively	convert	a portion	of	its	fixed-rate	debt	to	variable-rate	debt	and	variable-rate	debt	to	fixed- rate	debt.	The	maturity	structure	of	the	derivatives	generally	corresponds	to	the maturity	structure	of	the	debt	being	hedged.	In	addition,	the	Company	uses	other derivative	contracts	to	manage	the	foreign	exchange	impact	of	certain	debt issuances.	At	December	31,	2015,	the	Company's	overall	weighted	average	interest rate	for	long-term	debt	was	3.32%	on	a	contractual	basis	and	2.55%	including	the effects	of	derivative	contracts.

Aggregate	annual	maturities	of	long-term	debt	obligations	(based	on	final	maturity	dates)	including	trust	preferred	securities	are	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Thereafter | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Bank | $24,577 | $14,614 | $9,341 | $2,280 | $448 | $3,871 | $55,131 |
| Broker-dealer | 951 | 294 | 806 | 640 | 103 | 1,193 | 3,987 |
| Citigroup\tInc. | 18,009 | 19,437 | 21,269 | 16,233 | 8,826 | 58,383 | 142,157 |
| Total | $43,537 | $34,345 | $31,416 | $19,153 | $9,377 | $63,447 | $201,275 |

The	following	table	summarizes	the	Company's	outstanding	trust	preferred	securities	at	December	31,	2015:

| Trust | Issuance<br>date | Securities<br>issued | Liquidation<br>value(1) | Coupon<br>rate(2) | Common<br>shares<br>issued<br>to	parent | Amount | Maturity | Redeemable<br>by	issuer<br>beginning |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| \tIn\tmillions\tof\tdollars,\texcept\tshare\tamounts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Citigroup\tCapital\tIII | Dec.\t1996 | 194,053 | $194 | 7.625% | 6,003 | $200 | Dec.\t1,\t2036 | Not\tredeemable |
| Citigroup\tCapital\tXIII | Sept.\t2010 | 89,840,000 | 2,246 | 7.875 | 1,000 | 2,246 | Oct.\t30,\t2040 | Oct.\t30,\t2015 |
| Citigroup\tCapital\tXVIII | June\t2007 | 99,901 | 148 | 6.829 | 50 | 148 | June\t28,\t2067 | June\t28,\t2017 |
| Total\tobligated |  |  | $2,588 |  |  | $2,594 |  |  |

Note:	Distributions	on	the	trust	preferred	securities	and	interest	on	the	subordinated	debentures	are	payable	semiannually	for	Citigroup	Capital	III	and	Citigroup	Capital	XVIII	and	quarterly	for	Citigroup Capital	XIII.

(1) Represents	the	notional	value	received	by	investors	from	the	trusts	at	the	time	of	issuance.

(2) In	each	case,	the	coupon	rate	on	the	subordinated	debentures	is	the	same	as	that	on	the	trust	preferred	securities.

# 19.	REGULATORY	CAPITAL

Citigroup	is	subject	to	risk-based	capital	and	leverage	standards	issued	by	the Federal	Reserve	Board.	Citi's	U.S.	insured	depository	institution	subsidiaries, including	Citibank,	are	subject	to	similar	standards	issued	by	their	respective primary	federal	bank	regulatory	agencies.	These	standards	are	used	to	evaluate capital	adequacy	and	include	the	required	minimums	shown	in	the	following	table. The	regulatory	agencies	are	required	by	law	to	take	specific	prompt	actions

with	respect	to	institutions	that	do	not	meet	minimum	capital	standards. 	The	following	table	sets	forth	Citigroup's	and	Citibank's	regulatory	capital tiers,	total	risk-weighted	assets,	quarterly	adjusted	average	total	assets,	Total Leverage	Exposure,	risk-based	capital	ratios	and	leverage	ratios	in	accordance	with current	regulatory	standards	(reflecting	Basel	III	Transition	Arrangements):

| In	millions	of	dollars,	except	ratios | Stated<br>minimum | Well<br>capitalized<br>minimum | December	31,<br>2015 | Well<br>capitalized<br>minimum(1) | December	31,<br>2015 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital |  |  | $173,862 |  | $126,496 |
| Tier\t1\tCapital |  |  | 176,420 |  | 126,496 |
| Total\tCapital\t(Tier\t1\tCapital\t+\tTier\t2\tCapital) |  |  | 198,746 |  | 148,916 |
| Total\trisk-weighted\tassets |  |  | 1,190,853 |  | 998,181 |
| Quarterly\tadjusted\taverage\ttotal\tassets(2) |  |  | 1,732,933 |  | 1,297,733 |
| Total\tLeverage\tExposure(3) |  |  | 2,326,072 |  | 1,838,114 |
| Common\tEquity\tTier\t1\tCapital\tratio(4) | 4.5% | \t\t\t\tN/A | 14.60% | 6.5% | 12.67% |
| Tier\t1\tCapital\tratio(4) | 6.0 | 6.0% | 14.81 | 8.0 | 12.67 |
| Total\tCapital\tratio(4) | 8.0 | 10.0 | 16.69 | 10.0 | 14.92 |
| Tier\t1\tLeverage\tratio | 4.0 | N/A | 10.18 | 5.0 | 9.75 |
| Supplementary\tLeverage\tratio(5) | N/A | N/A | 7.58 | N/A | 6.88 |

(1) Beginning	January	1,	2015,	an	insured	depository	institution,	such	as	Citibank,	must	maintain	minimum	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1	Capital,	Total	Capital,	and	Tier	1	Leverage	ratios	of 6.5%,	8%,	10%	and	5%,	respectively,	to	be	considered	"well	capitalized."

(4) As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citigroup's	reportable	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1	Capital,	and	Total	Capital	ratios	were	the	lower	derived	under	the	Basel	III	Advanced	Approaches	framework.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	Citibank's	reportable	Common	Equity	Tier	1	Capital,	Tier	1	Capital,	and	Total	Capital	ratios	were	the	lower	derived	under	the	Basel	III	Standardized	Approach	framework.

(5) Commencing	with	2015,	Citi	and	Citibank	are	required	to	publicly	disclose	their	Supplementary	Leverage	ratios.	Beginning	on	January	1,	2018,	Citi	and	Citibank	will	be	required	to	maintain	a	stated minimum	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	of	3%,	and	Citibank	will	be	required	to	maintain	a	Supplementary	Leverage	ratio	of	 6%	to	be	considered	"well	capitalized."

As	indicated	in	the	table	above,	Citigroup	and	Citibank	were	"well capitalized"	under	the	current	federal	bank	regulatory	definitions	as	of December	31,	2015.

organizations	should	generally	pay	dividends	out	of	current	operating	earnings. Citigroup	received	$13.5	billion	and	$8.9	billion	in	dividends	from	Citibank	during 2015	and	2014,	respectively.

# Banking	Subsidiaries—Constraints	on	Dividends

There	are	various	legal	limitations	on	the	ability	of	Citigroup's	subsidiary depository	institutions	to	extend	credit,	pay	dividends	or	otherwise	supply	funds	to Citigroup	and	its	non-bank	subsidiaries.	The	approval	of	the	Office	of	the Comptroller	of	the	Currency	is	required	if	total	dividends	declared	in	any	calendar year	exceed	amounts	specified	by	the	applicable	agency's	regulations.	State- chartered	depository	institutions	are	subject	to	dividend	limitations	imposed	by applicable	state	law.

In	determining	the	dividends,	each	depository	institution	must	also	consider	its effect	on	applicable	risk-based	capital	and	leverage	ratio	requirements,	as	well	as policy	statements	of	the	federal	regulatory	agencies	that	indicate	that	banking

# 20.			CHANGES	IN	ACCUMULATED	OTHER	COMPREHENSIVE	INCOME	(LOSS)

Changes	in	each	component	of	Citigroup's	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss):

| In	millions	of	dollars | Net<br>unrealized<br>gains	(losses)<br>on	investment<br>securities | Cash	flow	hedges(1) | Benefit	plans(2) | Foreign<br>currency<br>translation<br>adjustment	(CTA),<br>net	of	hedges(3)(4) | Accumulated<br>other<br>comprehensive	income<br>(loss) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Balance,\tDecember\t31,\t2012 | $597 | $(2,293) | $(5,270) | $(9,930) | $(16,896) |
| Change,\tnet\tof\ttaxes(5) | (1,962) | 512 | 1,098 | (2,534) | (2,886) |
| Increase\t(decrease)\tdue\tto\tamounts\treclassified\tfrom\n\t\tAOCI(5) | (275) | 536 | 183 | 205 | 649 |
| Change,\tnet\tof\ttaxes(5) | $(2,237) | $1,048 | $1,281 | $(2,329) | $(2,237) |
| Balance,\tDecember\t31,\t2013 | $(1,640) | $(1,245) | $(3,989) | $(12,259) | $(19,133) |
| Other\tcomprehensive\tincome\tbefore\treclassifications | $1,790 | $85 | $(1,346) | $(4,946) | $(4,417) |
| Increase\t(decrease)\tdue\tto\tamounts\treclassified\tfrom\n\t\tAOCI | (93) | 251 | 176 | — | 334 |
| Change,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | $1,697 | $336 | $(1,170) | $(4,946) | $(4,083) |
| Balance,\tDecember\t31,\t2014 | $57 | $(909) | $(5,159) | $(17,205) | $(23,216) |
| Other\tcomprehensive\tincome\tbefore\treclassifications | $(695) | $83 | $(143) | $(5,465) | $(6,220) |
| Increase\t(decrease)\tdue\tto\tamounts\treclassified\tfrom\n\t\tAOCI | (269) | 209 | 186 | (34) | 92 |
| Change,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | $(964) | $292 | $43 | $(5,499) | $(6,128) |
| Balance\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | $(907) | $(617) | $(5,116) | $(22,704) | $(29,344) |

(1) Primarily	driven	by	Citigroup's	pay	fixed/receive	floating	interest	rate	swap	programs	that	hedge	the	floating	rates	on	liabilities.

(2) Primarily	reflects	adjustments	based	on	the	quarterly	actuarial	valuations	of	the	Company's	significant	pension	and	postretirement	plans,	annual	actuarial	valuations	of	all	other	plans,	and	amortization of	amounts	previously	recognized	in	other	comprehensive	income.

(3) Primarily	reflects	the	movements	in	(by	order	of	impact)	the	Mexican	peso,	Brazilian	real,	Korean	won	and	Euro	against	the	U.S.	dollar,	and	changes	in	related	tax	effects	and	hedges	for	the	year ended	December	31,	2015.	Primarily	reflects	the	movements	in	(by	order	of	impact)	the	Mexican	peso,	Euro,	Japanese	yen,	and	Russian	ruble	against	the	U.S.	dollar,	and	changes	in	related	tax	effects and	hedges	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2014.	Primarily	reflects	the	movements	in	(by	order	of	impact)	the	Japanese	yen,	Mexican	peso,	Australian	dollar	and	Indian	rupee	against	the	U.S.	dollar, and	changes	in	related	tax	effects	and	hedges	for	the	year	ended	December	31,	2013.

(4) During	2014,	$137	million	($84	million	net	of	tax)	was	reclassified	to	reflect	the	allocation	of	FX	translation	between	net	unrealized	gains	(losses)	on	investment	securities	to	foreign	currency translation	adjustment	(CTA).

(5) On	December	20,	2013,	the	sale	of	Credicard	was	completed	(see	Note	2	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements).	The	total	impact	to	the	gross	CTA	(net	CTA	including	hedges)	was	a	pretax	loss	of $314	million	($205	million	net	of	tax).

The	pretax	and	after-tax	changes	in	each	component	of	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	are	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars | Pretax | Tax	effect | After-tax |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Balance,\tDecember\t31,\t2012 | $(25,334) | $8,438 | $(16,896) |
| Change\tin\tnet\tunrealized\tgains\t(losses)\ton\tinvestment\tsecurities | (3,537) | 1,300 | (2,237) |
| Cash\tflow\thedges | 1,673 | (625) | 1,048 |
| Benefit\tplans | 1,979 | (698) | 1,281 |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tadjustment | (2,377) | 48 | (2,329) |
| Change | $(2,262) | $25 | $(2,237) |
| Balance,\tDecember\t31,\t2013 | $(27,596) | $8,463 | $(19,133) |
| Change\tin\tnet\tunrealized\tgains\t(losses)\ton\tinvestment\tsecurities | 2,704 | (1,007) | 1,697 |
| Cash\tflow\thedges | 543 | (207) | 336 |
| Benefit\tplans | (1,830) | 660 | (1,170) |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tadjustment | (4,881) | (65) | (4,946) |
| Change | $(3,464) | $(619) | $(4,083) |
| Balance,\tDecember\t31,\t2014 | $(31,060) | $7,844 | $(23,216) |
| Change\tin\tnet\tunrealized\tgains\t(losses)\ton\tinvestment\tsecurities | (1,462) | 498 | (964) |
| Cash\tflow\thedges | 468 | (176) | 292 |
| Benefit\tplans | 19 | 24 | 43 |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tadjustment | (6,405) | 906 | (5,499) |
| Change | $(7,380) | $1,252 | $(6,128) |
| Balance,\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | $(38,440) | $9,096 | $(29,344) |

During	2015,	2014	and	2013	the	Company	recognized	pretax	losses	of	$155	million	($92	million	net	of	tax),	$542	million	($334	million	gain	net	of	tax)	and	$1,071	million ($649	million	net	of	tax),	respectively,	related	to	amounts	reclassified	out	of	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	into	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.	See details	in	the	table	below:

|  |  | Year	ended	December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Realized\t(gains)\tlosses\ton\tsales\tof\tinvestments | $(682) | $(570) | $(748) |
| OTTI\tgross\timpairment\tlosses | 265 | 424 | 334 |
| Subtotal,\tpretax | $(417) | $(146) | $(414) |
| Tax\teffect | 148 | 53 | 139 |
| Net\trealized\t(gains)\tlosses\ton\tinvestment\tsecurities,\tafter-tax (1) | $(269) | $(93) | $(275) |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $186 | $260 | $700 |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | 146 | 149 | 176 |
| Subtotal,\tpretax | $332 | $409 | $876 |
| Tax\teffect | (123) | (158) | (340) |
| Amortization\tof\tcash\tflow\thedges,\tafter-tax (2) | $209 | $251 | $536 |
| Amortization\tof\tunrecognized |  |  |  |
| Prior\tservice\tcost\t(benefit) | $(40) | $(40) | $— |
| Net\tactuarial\tloss | 276 | 243 | 271 |
| Curtailment/settlement\timpact(3) | 57 | 76 | 44 |
| Cumulative\teffect\tof\tchange\tin\taccounting\tpolicy(3) | — | — | (20) |
| Subtotal,\tpretax | $293 | $279 | $295 |
| Tax\teffect | (107) | (103) | (112) |
| Amortization\tof\tbenefit\tplans,\tafter-tax(3) | $186 | $176 | $183 |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tadjustment | $(53) | $— | $314 |
| Tax\teffect | 19 | — | (109) |
| Foreign\tcurrency\ttranslation\tadjustment | $(34) | $— | $205 |
| Total\tamounts\treclassified\tout\tof\tAOCI,\tpretax | $155 | $542 | $1,071 |
| Total\ttax\teffect | (63) | (208) | (422) |
| Total\tamounts\treclassified\tout\tof\tAOCI,\tafter-tax | $92 | $334 | $649 |

(1) The	pretax	amount	is	reclassified	to	Realized	gains	(losses)	on	sales	of	investments,	net 	and	Gross	impairment	losses	on	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.	See	Note	14	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements	for	additional	details.

(2) See	Note	23	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	additional	details.

# 21.			PREFERRED	STOCK

The	following	table	summarizes	the	Company's	preferred	stock	outstanding:

|  |  |  | Redemption |  | Carrying	value |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  |  | price\tper |  | \tin\tmillions\tof\tdollars |  |
| Issuance\tdate | Redeemable\tby\tissuer\nbeginning | Dividend\nrate | \tdepositary\nshare/preference\tshare | Number\nof\tdepositary\nshares | December\t31,\n2015 | December\t31,\n2014 |
| January\t25,\t2008 | February\t15,\t2018 | 8.125% | $25 | 3,870,330 | $97 | $97 |
| April\t28,\t2008 | April\t30,\t2018 | 8.400 | 1,000 | 121,254 | 121 | 121 |
| October\t29,\t2012 | January\t30,\t2023 | 5.950 | 1,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500 | 1,500 |
| December\t13,\t2012 | February\t15,\t2023 | 5.900 | 1,000 | 750,000 | 750 | 750 |
| March\t26,\t2013 | April\t22,\t2018 | 5.800 | 25 | 23,000,000 | 575 | 575 |
| April\t30,\t2013 | May\t15,\t2023 | 5.350 | 1,000 | 1,250,000 | 1,250 | 1,250 |
| September\t19,\t2013 | September\t30,\t2023 | 7.125 | 25 | 38,000,000 | 950 | 950 |
| October\t31,\t2013 | November\t15,\t2023 | 6.875 | 25 | 59,800,000 | 1,495 | 1,495 |
| February\t12,\t2014 | February\t12,\t2019 | 6.875 | 25 | 19,200,000 | 480 | 480 |
| April\t30,\t2014 | May\t15,\t2024 | 6.300 | 1,000 | 1,750,000 | 1,750 | 1,750 |
| October\t29,\t2014 | November\t15,\t2019 | 5.800 | 1,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500 | 1,500 |
| March\t20,\t2015 | March\t27,\t2020 | 5.875 | 1,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500 | — |
| April\t24,\t2015 | May\t15,\t2025 | 5.950 | 1,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000 | — |
| August\t12,\t2015 | August\t15,\t2020 | 5.950 | 1,000 | 1,250,000 | 1,250 | — |
| November\t13,\t2015 | November\t15,\t2020 | 6.125 | 1,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500 | — |
|  |  |  |  |  | $16,718 | $10,468 |

(1) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/1,000th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	quarterly	on	February	15, May	15,	August	15	and	November	15,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of	Directors.

(2) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/25 th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	April	30	and October	30	at	a	fixed	rate	until	April	30,	2018,	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	January	30,	April	30,	July	30	and	October	30	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of Directors.

(3) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/25 th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	January	30 and	July	30	at	a	fixed	rate	until	January	30,	2023,	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	January	30,	April	30,	July	30	and	October	30	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board of	Directors.

(4) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/25 th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	February	15 and	August	15	at	a	fixed	rate	until	February	15,	2023,	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	February	15,	May	15,	August	15	and	November	15	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the Citi	Board	of	Directors.

(5) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/1,000th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	quarterly	on	January	22, April	22,	July	22	and	October	22	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of	Directors.

(6) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/25 th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	May	15	and November	15	at	a	fixed	rate	until	May	15,	2023,	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	February	15,	May	15,	August	15	and	November	15	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi Board	of	Directors.

(7) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/1,000th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	quarterly	on	March	30, June	30,	September	30	and	December	30	at	a	fixed	rate	until	September	30,	2023,	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	the	same	dates	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi Board	of	Directors.

(8) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/1,000th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	quarterly	on	February	15, May	15,	August	15	and	November	15	at	a	fixed	rate	until	November	15,	2023,	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	the	same	dates	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board of	Directors.

(9) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/1,000th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	quarterly	on	February	12, May	12,	August	12	and	November	12	at	a	fixed	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of	Directors.

(10) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/25 th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	May	15	and November	15	at	a	fixed	rate	until	May	15,	2024,	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	February	15,	May	15,	August	15,	and	November	15	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi Board	of	Directors.

(11) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/25 th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	May	15	and November	15	at	a	fixed	rate	until,	but	excluding,	November	15,	2019,	and	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	February	15,	May	15,	August	15	and	November	15	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of	Directors.

(12) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/25 th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	March	27 and	September	27	at	a	fixed	rate	until,	but	excluding,	March	27,	2020,	and	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	March	27,	June	27,	September	27	and	December	27	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of	Directors.

(13) Issued	as	depositary	shares,	each	representing	a	1/25 th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	May	15	and November	15	at	a	fixed	rate	until,	but	excluding,	May	15,	2025,	and	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	February	15,	May	15,	August	15,	and	November	15	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of	Directors.

(14) Issued	as	depository	shares,	each	representing	1/25th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	February	15 and	August	15	at	a	fixed	rated	until,	but	excluding,	August	15,	2020,	and	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	February	15,	May	15,	August	15,	and	November	15	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of	Directors.

(15) Issued	as	depository	shares,	each	representing	1/25th	interest	in	a	share	of	the	corresponding	series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	Dividends	are	payable	semi-annually	on	May	15	and November	15	at	a	fixed	rated	until,	but	excluding,	November	15,	2020,	and	thereafter	payable	quarterly	on	February	15,	May	15,	August	15	and	November	15	at	a	floating	rate,	in	each	case	when,	as and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of	Directors.

On	January	26,	2016,	Citi	issued	$1	billion	of	Series	S	Preferred	Stock	as depositary	shares,	each	representing	1/1000th	interest	in	a	share	of	corresponding series	of	non-cumulative	perpetual	preferred	stock.	The	dividend	rate	is	6.3%

payable	quarterly	on	February	12,	May	12,	August	12	and	November	12,

beginning	May	12,	2016,	in	each	case	when,	as	and	if	declared	by	the	Citi	Board	of Directors.

During	2015,	Citi	distributed	$769	million	in	dividends	on	its	outstanding preferred	stock.	Based	on	its	preferred	stock	outstanding	as	of	December	31,	2015, Citi	estimates	it	will	distribute	preferred	dividends	of	approximately	$1,027	million during	2016,	in	each	case	assuming	such	dividends	are	declared	by	the	Citi	Board of	Directors.

# 22.	SECURITIZATIONS	AND	VARIABLE	INTEREST	ENTITIES

# Uses	of	Special	Purpose	Entities

A	special	purpose	entity	(SPE)	is	an	entity	designed	to	fulfill	a	specific	limited need	of	the	company	that	organized	it.	The	principal	uses	of	SPEs	by	Citi	are	to obtain	liquidity	and	favorable	capital	treatment	by	securitizing	certain	financial assets,	to	assist	clients	in	securitizing	their	financial	assets	and	to	create	investment products	for	clients.	SPEs	may	be	organized	in	various	legal	forms,	including trusts,	partnerships	or	corporations.	In	a	securitization,	the	company	transferring assets	to	an	SPE	converts	all	(or	a	portion)	of	those	assets	into	cash	before	they would	have	been	realized	in	the	normal	course	of	business	through	the	SPE's issuance	of	debt	and	equity	instruments,	certificates,	commercial	paper	or	other notes	of	indebtedness.	These	issuances	are	recorded	on	the	balance	sheet	of	the SPE,	which	may	or	may	not	be	consolidated	onto	the	balance	sheet	of	the	company that	organized	the	SPE.

Investors	usually	have	recourse	only	to	the	assets	in	the	SPE,	but	may	also benefit	from	other	credit	enhancements,	such	as	a	collateral	account,	a	line	of credit	or	a	liquidity	facility,	such	as	a	liquidity	put	option	or	asset	purchase agreement.	Because	of	these	enhancements,	the	SPE	issuances	typically	obtain	a more	favorable	credit	rating	than	the	transferor	could	obtain	for	its	own	debt issuances.	This	results	in	less	expensive	financing	costs	than	unsecured	debt.	The SPE	may	also	enter	into	derivative	contracts	in	order	to	convert	the	yield	or currency	of	the	underlying	assets	to	match	the	needs	of	the	SPE	investors	or	to limit	or	change	the	credit	risk	of	the	SPE.	Citigroup	may	be	the	provider	of	certain credit	enhancements	as	well	as	the	counterparty	to	any	related	derivative	contracts. Most	of	Citigroup's	SPEs	are	variable	interest	entities	(VIEs),	as	described below.

VIEs	are	entities	that	have	either	a	total	equity	investment	that	is	insufficient	to permit	the	entity	to	finance	its	activities	without	additional	subordinated	financial support,	or	whose	equity	investors	lack	the	characteristics	of	a	controlling	financial interest	(i.e.,	ability	to	make	significant	decisions	through	voting	rights	and	a	right to	receive	the	expected	residual	returns	of	the	entity	or	an	obligation	to	absorb	the expected	losses	of	the	entity).	Investors	that	finance	the	VIE	through	debt	or	equity interests	or	other	counterparties	providing	other	forms	of	support,	such	as guarantees,	subordinated	fee	arrangements	or	certain	types	of	derivative	contracts are	variable	interest	holders	in	the	entity.

The	variable	interest	holder,	if	any,	that	has	a	controlling	financial	interest	in	a VIE	is	deemed	to	be	the	primary	beneficiary	and	must	consolidate	the	VIE. Citigroup	would	be	deemed	to	have	a	controlling	financial	interest	and	be	the primary	beneficiary	if	it	has	both	of	the	following	characteristics:

•power	to	direct	the	activities	of	the	VIE	that	most	significantly	impact	the entity's	economic	performance;	and

•an	obligation	to	absorb	losses	of	the	entity	that	could	potentially	be	significant to	the	VIE,	or	a	right	to	receive	benefits	from	the	entity	that	could	potentially be	significant	to	the	VIE.

The	Company	must	evaluate	each	VIE	to	understand	the	purpose	and	design of	the	entity,	the	role	the	Company	had	in	the	entity's	design	and	its	involvement	in the	VIE's	ongoing	activities.	The	Company	then	must	evaluate	which	activities most	significantly	impact	the	economic	performance	of	the	VIE	and	who	has	the power	to	direct	such	activities.

For	those	VIEs	where	the	Company	determines	that	it	has	the	power	to	direct the	activities	that	most	significantly	impact	the	VIE's	economic	performance,	the Company	must	then	evaluate	its	economic	interests,	if	any,	and	determine	whether it	could	absorb	losses	or	receive	benefits	that	could	potentially	be	significant	to	the VIE.	When	evaluating	whether	the	Company	has	an	obligation	to	absorb	losses that	could	potentially	be	significant,	it	considers	the	maximum	exposure	to	such loss	without	consideration	of	probability.	Such	obligations	could	be	in	various forms,	including,	but	not	limited	to,	debt	and	equity	investments,	guarantees, liquidity	agreements	and	certain	derivative	contracts.

In	various	other	transactions,	the	Company	may:	(i)	act	as	a	derivative counterparty	(for	example,	interest	rate	swap,	cross-currency	swap,	or	purchaser	of credit	protection	under	a	credit	default	swap	or	total	return	swap	where	the Company	pays	the	total	return	on	certain	assets	to	the	SPE);	(ii)	act	as	underwriter or	placement	agent;	(iii)	provide	administrative,	trustee	or	other	services;	or	(iv) make	a	market	in	debt	securities	or	other	instruments	issued	by	VIEs.	The Company	generally	considers	such	involvement,	by	itself,	not	to	be	variable interests	and	thus	not	an	indicator	of	power	or	potentially	significant	benefits	or losses.

See	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	a	discussion	of impending	changes	to	targeted	areas	of	consolidation	guidance.

Citigroup's	involvement	with	consolidated	and	unconsolidated	VIEs	with	which	the	Company	holds	significant	variable	interests	or	has	continuing	involvement	through servicing	a	majority	of	the	assets	in	a	VIE	is	presented	below:

| In	millions	of	dollars | involvement<br>with	SPE<br>assets | Consolidated<br>VIE	/	SPE	assets | Significant<br>unconsolidated<br>VIE	assets(3) | Debt<br>investments | Equity<br>investments | Funding<br>commitments | Guarantees<br>and<br>derivatives | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Credit\tcard\tsecuritizations | $55,050 | $54,916 | $134 | $— | $— | $— | $— | $— |
| Mortgage\tsecuritizations(4) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tagency-sponsored | 236,225 | — | 236,225 | 3,582 | — | — | 95 | 3,677 |
| Non-agency-sponsored | 14,305 | 1,586 | 12,719 | 528 | — | — | 1 | 529 |
| Citi-administered\tasset-backed |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| commercial\tpaper\tconduits |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (ABCP) | 21,280 | 21,280 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Collateralized\tloan\tobligations\n(CLOs) | 20,564 | — | 20,564 | 3,154 | — | — | 86 | 3,240 |
| Asset-based\tfinancing | 83,397 | 1,364 | 82,033 | 25,923 | 270 | 3,891 | 436 | 30,520 |
| Municipal\tsecurities\ttender\noption\tbond\ttrusts\t(TOBs) | 8,572 | 3,830 | 4,742 | 2 | — | 3,100 | — | 3,102 |
| Municipal\tinvestments | 22,935 | 44 | 22,891 | 2,275 | 2,512 | 2,338 | — | 7,125 |
| Client\tintermediation | 1,965 | 335 | 1,630 | 49 | — | — | — | 49 |
| Investment\tfunds(5) | 27,569 | 842 | 26,727 | 13 | 318 | 102 | — | 433 |
| Other | 4,986 | 597 | 4,389 | 292 | 554 | — | 52 | 898 |
| Total(6) | $496,848 | $84,794 | $412,054 | $35,818 | $3,654 | $9,431 | $670 | $49,573 |

| In	millions	of	dollars | involvement<br>with	SPE<br>assets | Consolidated<br>VIE	/	SPE	assets | Significant<br>unconsolidated<br>VIE	assets(3) | Debt<br>investments | Equity<br>investments | Funding<br>commitments | Guarantees<br>and<br>derivatives | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Credit\tcard\tsecuritizations | $60,503 | $60,271 | $232 | $— | $— | $— | $— | $— |
| Mortgage\tsecuritizations(4) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tagency-sponsored | 264,848 | — | 264,848 | 5,213 | — | — | 110 | 5,323 |
| Non-agency-sponsored | 17,888 | 1,304 | 16,584 | 577 | — | — | 1 | 578 |
| Citi-administered\tasset-backed |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| commercial\tpaper\tconduits |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (ABCP) | 29,181 | 29,181 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Collateralized\tloan\tobligations\n(CLOs) | 19,736 | — | 19,736 | 1,965 | — | — | 86 | 2,051 |
| Asset-based\tfinancing | 63,900 | 1,151 | 62,749 | 22,928 | 66 | 2,271 | 333 | 25,598 |
| Municipal\tsecurities\ttender\noption\tbond\ttrusts\t(TOBs) | 12,280 | 6,671 | 5,609 | 3 | — | 3,670 | — | 3,673 |
| Municipal\tinvestments | 23,706 | 70 | 23,636 | 2,014 | 2,197 | 2,225 | — | 6,436 |
| Client\tintermediation | 1,745 | 137 | 1,608 | 10 | — | — | 10 | 20 |
| Investment\tfunds(5) | 31,992 | 1,096 | 30,896 | 16 | 382 | 124 | — | 522 |
| Other | 8,298 | 2,909 | 5,389 | 183 | 1,451 | 23 | 73 | 1,730 |
| Total(6) | $534,077 | $102,790 | $431,287 | $32,909 | $4,096 | $8,313 | $613 | $45,931 |

(1) The	definition	of	maximum	exposure	to	loss	is	included	in	the	text	that	follows	this	table.

(2) Included	on	Citigroup's	December	31,	2015	and	2014	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

(3) A	significant	unconsolidated	VIE	is	an	entity	where	the	Company	has	any	variable	interest	or	continuing	involvement	considered	to	be	significant,	regardless	of	the	likelihood	of	loss	or	the	notional amount	of	exposure.

(4) Citigroup	mortgage	securitizations	also	include	agency	and	non-agency	(private-label)	re-securitization	activities.	These	SPEs	are	not	consolidated.	See	"Re-securitizations"	below	for	further discussion.

(5)	Substantially	all	of	the	unconsolidated	investment	funds'	assets	are	related	to	retirement	funds	in	Mexico	managed	by	Citi.	See	"Investment	Funds"	below	for	further	discussion.

(6)	Citi's	total	involvement	with	Citicorp	SPE	assets	was	$460.5	billion	and	$481.3	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	with	the	remainder	related	to	Citi	Holdings.

# The	previous	tables	do	not	include:

•certain	venture	capital	investments	made	by	some	of	the	Company's	private equity	subsidiaries,	as	the	Company	accounts	for	these	investments	in accordance	with	the	Investment	Company	Audit	Guide	(codified	in	ASC	946); •certain	limited	partnerships	that	are	investment	funds	that	qualify	for	the deferral	from	the	requirements	of	ASC	810	where	the	Company	is	the	general partner	and	the	limited	partners	have	the	right	to	replace	the	general	partner	or liquidate	the	funds;

•certain	investment	funds	for	which	the	Company	provides	investment management	services	and	personal	estate	trusts	for	which	the	Company provides	administrative,	trustee	and/or	investment	management	services; •VIEs	structured	by	third	parties	where	the	Company	holds	securities	in inventory,	as	these	investments	are	made	on	arm's-length	terms; •certain	positions	in	mortgage-backed	and	asset-backed	securities	held	by	the Company,	which	are	classified	as	Trading	account	assets	or	Investments, where	the	Company	has	no	other	involvement	with	the	related	securitization entity	deemed	to	be	significant	(for	more	information	on	these	positions,	see Notes	13	and	14	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements); •certain	representations	and	warranties	exposures	in	legacy	ICG-sponsored mortgage-backed	and	asset-backed	securitizations,	where	the	Company	has	no variable	interest	or	continuing	involvement	as	servicer.	The	outstanding balance	of	mortgage	loans	securitized	during	2005	to	2008	where	the Company	has	no	variable	interest	or	continuing	involvement	as	servicer	was approximately	$12	billion	and	$14	billion	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014, respectively;

•certain	representations	and	warranties	exposures	in	Citigroup	residential mortgage	securitizations,	where	the	original	mortgage	loan	balances	are	no longer	outstanding;	and

•VIEs	such	as	trust	preferred	securities	trusts	used	in	connection	with	the Company's	funding	activities.	The	Company	does	not	have	a	variable	interest in	these	trusts.

The	asset	balances	for	consolidated	VIEs	represent	the	carrying	amounts	of	the assets	consolidated	by	the	Company.	The	carrying	amount	may	represent	the amortized	cost	or	the	current	fair	value	of	the	assets	depending	on	the	legal	form	of the	asset	(e.g.,	security	or	loan)	and	the	Company's	standard	accounting	policies for	the	asset	type	and	line	of	business.

The	asset	balances	for	unconsolidated	VIEs	where	the	Company	has significant	involvement	represent	the	most	current	information	available	to	the Company.	In	most	cases,	the	asset	balances	represent	an	amortized	cost	basis without	regard	to	impairments	in	fair	value,	unless	fair	value	information	is	readily available	to	the	Company.	For	VIEs	that	obtain	asset	exposures	synthetically through	derivative	instruments,	the	tables	generally	include	the	full	original notional	amount	of	the	derivative	as	an	asset	balance.

The	maximum	funded	exposure	represents	the	balance	sheet	carrying	amount of	the	Company's	investment	in	the	VIE.	It	reflects	the	initial	amount	of	cash invested	in	the	VIE	adjusted	for	any	accrued	interest	and	cash	principal	payments received.	The	carrying	amount	may	also	be	adjusted	for	increases	or	declines	in fair	value	or	any	impairment	in	value	recognized	in	earnings.	The	maximum exposure	of	unfunded	positions	represents	the	remaining	undrawn	committed amount,	including	liquidity	and	credit	facilities	provided	by	the	Company,	or	the notional	amount	of	a	derivative	instrument	considered	to	be	a	variable	interest.	In certain	transactions,	the	Company	has	entered	into	derivative	instruments	or	other arrangements	that	are	not	considered	variable	interests	in	the	VIE	(e.g.,	interest rate	swaps,	cross-currency	swaps,	or	where	the	Company	is	the	purchaser	of	credit protection	under	a	credit	default	swap	or	total	return	swap	where	the	Company pays	the	total	return	on	certain	assets	to	the	SPE).	Receivables	under	such arrangements	are	not	included	in	the	maximum	exposure	amounts.

# Funding	Commitments	for	Significant	Unconsolidated	VIEs—Liquidity	Facilities	and	Loan	Commitments

The	following	table	presents	the	notional	amount	of	liquidity	facilities	and	loan	commitments	that	are	classified	as	funding	commitments	in	the	VIE	tables	above:

|  | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Liquidity\nfacilities | Loan\t/\tequity\ncommitments | Liquidity\nfacilities | Loan\t/\tequity\ncommitments |
| Asset-based\tfinancing | $5 | $3,886 | $5 | $2,266 |
| Municipal\tsecurities\ttender\toption\tbond\ttrusts\t(TOBs) | 3,100 | — | 3,670 | — |
| Municipal\tinvestments | — | 2,338 | — | 2,225 |
| Investment\tfunds | — | 102 | — | 124 |
| Other | — | — | — | 23 |
| Total\tfunding\tcommitments | $3,105 | $6,326 | $3,675 | $4,638 |

# Consolidated	VIEs

The	Company	engages	in	on-balance	sheet	securitizations,	which	are securitizations	that	do	not	qualify	for	sales	treatment;	thus,	the	assets	remain	on	the Company's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet,	and	any	proceeds	received	are	recognized as	secured	liabilities.	The	consolidated	VIEs	included	in	the	tables	below	represent hundreds	of	separate	entities	with	which	the	Company	is	involved.	In	general,	the third-party	investors	in	the	obligations	of	consolidated	VIEs	have	legal	recourse only	to	the	assets	of	the	respective	VIEs	and	do	not	have	such	recourse	to	the Company,	except	where	the	Company	has	provided	a	guarantee	to	the	investors	or is	the	counterparty	to	certain	derivative	transactions	involving

the	VIE.	Thus,	the	Company's	maximum	legal	exposure	to	loss	related	to consolidated	VIEs	is	significantly	less	than	the	carrying	value	of	the	consolidated VIE	assets	due	to	outstanding	third-party	financing.	Intercompany	assets	and liabilities	are	excluded	from	the	table.	All	VIE	assets	are	restricted	from	being	sold or	pledged	as	collateral.	The	cash	flows	from	these	assets	are	the	only	source	used to	pay	down	the	associated	liabilities,	which	are	non-recourse	to	the	Company's general	assets.

The	following	table	presents	the	carrying	amounts	and	classifications	of consolidated	assets	that	are	collateral	for	consolidated	VIE	obligations:

| In	billions	of	dollars | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Cash | $0.2 | $0.3 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Investments | 5.3 | 8.0 |
| Total\tloans,\tnet\tof\tallowance | 78.6 | 93.2 |
| Other | 0.1 | 0.6 |
| Total\tassets | $84.8 | $102.8 |
| Short-term\tborrowings | $14.0 | $22.7 |
| Long-term\tdebt | 31.3 | 40.1 |
| Other\tliabilities | 2.1 | 0.9 |
| Total\tliabilities(1) | $47.4 | $63.7 |

(1) The	total	liabilities	of	consolidated	VIEs	for	which	creditors	or	beneficial	interest	holders	do	not	have	recourse	to	the	general	credit	of	Citi	were	 $45.3	billion	and	$61.2	billion	as	of	December	31, 2015	and	2014,	respectively.	Liabilities	of	consolidated	VIEs	for	which	creditors	or	beneficial	interest	holders	have	recourse	to	the	general	credit	of	Citi	comprise	 two	items	included	in	the	above table:	(i)	credit	enhancements	provided	to	consolidated	Citi-administered	commercial	paper	conduits	in	the	form	of	letters	of	credit	of	$1.9	billion	and	$2.3	billion	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014, respectively;	and	(ii)	credit	guarantees	provided	by	Citi	to	certain	consolidated	municipal	tender	option	bond	trusts	of	$82	million	and	$198	million	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.

# Significant	Interests	in	Unconsolidated	VIEs—Balance	Sheet	Classification

The	following	table	presents	the	carrying	amounts	and	classification	of	significant	variable	interests	in	unconsolidated	VIEs:

| In	billions	of	dollars | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Cash | $0.1 | $— |
| Trading\taccount\tassets | 6.2 | 7.6 |
| Investments | 3.0 | 2.6 |
| Total\tloans,\tnet\tof\tallowance | 28.4 | 25.0 |
| Other | 1.8 | 2.0 |
| Total\tassets | $39.5 | $37.2 |

# Credit	Card	Securitizations

The	Company	securitizes	credit	card	receivables	through	trusts	established	to purchase	the	receivables.	Citigroup	transfers	receivables	into	the	trusts	on	a	non- recourse	basis.	Credit	card	securitizations	are	revolving	securitizations;	as customers	pay	their	credit	card	balances,	the	cash	proceeds	are	used	to	purchase new	receivables	and	replenish	the	receivables	in	the	trust.

Substantially	all	of	the	Company's	credit	card	securitization	activity	is	through two	trusts—Citibank	Credit	Card	Master	Trust	(Master	Trust)	and	the	Citibank Omni	Master	Trust	(Omni	Trust),	with	the	substantial	majority	through	the	Master Trust.	These	trusts	are	consolidated	entities	because,	as	servicer,	Citigroup	has	the power	to	direct

the	activities	that	most	significantly	impact	the	economic	performance	of	the trusts,	Citigroup	holds	a	seller's	interest	and	certain	securities	issued	by	the	trusts, and	also	provides	liquidity	facilities	to	the	trusts,	which	could	result	in	potentially significant	losses	or	benefits	from	the	trusts.	Accordingly,	the	transferred	credit card	receivables	remain	on	Citi's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	with	no	gain	or	loss recognized.	The	debt	issued	by	the	trusts	to	third	parties	is	included	on	Citi's Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

The	Company	utilizes	securitizations	as	one	of	the	sources	of	funding	for	its business	in	North	America.	The	following	table	reflects	amounts	related	to	the Company's	securitized	credit	card	receivables:

| In	billions	of	dollars | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Ownership\tinterests\tin\tprincipal\tamount\tof\ttrust\tcredit\tcard\treceivables |  |  |
| \t\t\tSold\tto\tinvestors\tvia\ttrust-issued\tsecurities | $29.7 | $37.0 |
| \t\t\tRetained\tby\tCitigroup\tas\ttrust-issued\tsecurities | 9.4 | 10.1 |
| \t\t\tRetained\tby\tCitigroup\tvia\tnon-certificated\tinterests | 16.5 | 14.2 |
| Total | $55.6 | $61.3 |

The	following	tables	summarize	selected	cash	flow	information	related	to Citigroup's	credit	card	securitizations:

| In	billions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tnew\tsecuritizations | $— | $12.6 | $11.7 |
| Pay\tdown\tof\tmaturing\tnotes | (7.4) | (7.8) | (2.2) |

# Managed	Loans

After	securitization	of	credit	card	receivables,	the	Company	continues	to	maintain credit	card	customer	account	relationships	and	provides	servicing	for	receivables transferred	to	the	trusts.	As	a	result,	the	Company	considers	the	securitized	credit card	receivables	to	be	part	of	the	business	it	manages.	As	Citigroup	consolidates the	credit	card	trusts,	all	managed	securitized	card	receivables	are	on-balance sheet.

# Funding,	Liquidity	Facilities	and	Subordinated	Interests

As	noted	above,	Citigroup	securitizes	credit	card	receivables	through	two securitization	trusts—Master	Trust,	which	is	part	of	Citicorp,	and	Omni	Trust, substantially	all	of	which	is	also	part	of	Citicorp.	The	liabilities	of	the	trusts	are included	in	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet,	excluding	those	retained	by	Citigroup.

The	Master	Trust	issues	fixed-	and	floating-rate	term	notes.	Some	of	the	term notes	are	issued	to	multi-seller	commercial	paper	conduits.	The	weighted	average maturity	of

# Master	Trust	Liabilities	(at	Par	Value)

| In	billions	of	dollars | Dec.	31,	2015 | Dec.	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Term\tnotes\tissued\tto\tthird\tparties | $28.4 | $35.7 |
| Term\tnotes\tretained\tby\tCitigroup\taffiliates | 7.5 | 8.2 |
| Total\tMaster\tTrust\tliabilities | $35.9 | $43.9 |

The	Omni	Trust	issues	fixed-	and	floating-rate	term	notes,	some	of	which	are purchased	by	multi-seller	commercial	paper	conduits.	The	weighted	average maturity	of	the	third-party	term	notes	issued	by	the	Omni	Trust	was	0.9	years	as	of December	31,	2015	and	1.9	years	as	of	December	31,	2014.

# Omni	Trust	Liabilities	(at	Par	Value)

| In	billions	of	dollars | Dec.	31,	2015 | Dec.	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Term\tnotes\tissued\tto\tthird\tparties | $1.3 | $1.3 |
| Term\tnotes\tretained\tby\tCitigroup\taffiliates | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Total\tOmni\tTrust\tliabilities | $3.2 | $3.2 |

# Mortgage	Securitizations

The	Company	provides	a	wide	range	of	mortgage	loan	products	to	a	diverse customer	base.	Once	originated,	the	Company	often	securitizes	these	loans	through the	use	of	VIEs.	These	VIEs	are	funded	through	the	issuance	of	trust	certificates backed	solely	by	the	transferred	assets.	These	certificates	have	the	same	life	as	the transferred	assets.	In	addition	to	providing	a	source	of	liquidity	and	less	expensive funding,	securitizing	these	assets	also	reduces	the	Company's	credit	exposure	to the	borrowers.	These	mortgage	loan	securitizations	are	primarily	non-recourse, thereby	effectively	transferring	the	risk	of	future	credit	losses	to	the	purchasers	of the	securities	issued	by	the	trust.	However,	the	Company's	U.S.	consumer mortgage	business	generally	retains	the	servicing	rights	and	in	certain	instances retains	investment	securities,	interest-only	strips	and	residual	interests	in	future cash	flows	from	the	trusts	and	also	provides	servicing	for	a	limited	number	of	ICG securitizations.

The	Company	securitizes	mortgage	loans	generally	through	either	a government-sponsored	agency,	such	as	Ginnie	Mae,	Fannie	Mae	or	Freddie	Mac (U.S.	agency-sponsored

mortgages),	or	private-label	(non-agency-sponsored	mortgages)	securitization.	The Company	is	not	the	primary	beneficiary	of	its	U.S.	agency-sponsored	mortgage securitizations	because	Citigroup	does	not	have	the	power	to	direct	the	activities	of the	VIE	that	most	significantly	impact	the	entity's	economic	performance. Therefore,	Citi	does	not	consolidate	these	U.S.	agency-sponsored	mortgage securitizations.

The	Company	does	not	consolidate	certain	non-agency-sponsored	mortgage securitizations	because	Citi	is	either	not	the	servicer	with	the	power	to	direct	the significant	activities	of	the	entity	or	Citi	is	the	servicer	but	the	servicing relationship	is	deemed	to	be	a	fiduciary	relationship;	therefore,	Citi	is	not	deemed to	be	the	primary	beneficiary	of	the	entity.

In	certain	instances,	the	Company	has	(i)	the	power	to	direct	the	activities	and (ii)	the	obligation	to	either	absorb	losses	or	the	right	to	receive	benefits	that	could be	potentially	significant	to	its	non-agency-sponsored	mortgage	securitizations	and, therefore,	is	the	primary	beneficiary	and	thus	consolidates	the	VIE.

The	following	tables	summarize	selected	cash	flow	information	related	to	Citigroup	mortgage	securitizations:

|  |  | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars | U.S.\tagency-\nsponsored\nmortgages | Non-agency-\nsponsored\nmortgages | Agency-\tand\tnon-\nagency-sponsored\nmortgages | Agency-\tand\tnon-\nagency-sponsored\nmortgages |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tnew\tsecuritizations(1) | $25.6 | $12.1 | $39.6 | $72.7 |
| Contractual\tservicing\tfees\treceived | 0.5 | — | 0.5 | 0.7 |
| Cash\tflows\treceived\ton\tretained\tinterests\tand\tother\tnet\tcash\tflows | 0.1 | — | 0.1 | 0.1 |

(1)	The	proceeds	from	new	securitizations	in	2015	include	$0.7	billion	related	to	personal	loan	securitizations.

Agency	and	non-agency	securitization	gains	for	the	year	ended	December	31, 2015	were	$150	million	and	$44	million,	respectively. Agency	and	non-agency	securitization	gains	for	the	years	ended	December	31, 2014	and	2013	were	$267	million	and	$223	million,	respectively.

Key	assumptions	used	in	measuring	the	fair	value	of	retained	interests	at	the	date	of	sale	or	securitization	of	mortgage	receivables	were	as	follows:

|  |  | Non-agency-sponsored	mortgages(1) |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | U.S.\tagency-\nsponsored\tmortgages | Senior\ninterests | Subordinated\ninterests |
| Discount\trate | 0.0%\tto\t11.3% | 2.0%\tto\t3.2% | 2.9%\tto\t12.1% |
| \t\t\tWeighted\taverage\tdiscount\trate | 8.0% | 2.9% | 5.2% |
| Constant\tprepayment\trate | 5.7%\tto\t34.9% | — | 2.8%\tto\t8.0% |
| \t\t\tWeighted\taverage\tconstant\tprepayment\trate | 11.7% | — | 3.5% |
| Anticipated\tnet\tcredit\tlosses(2) | \t\t\tNM | 40.0% | 38.1%\tto\t92.0% |
| \t\t\tWeighted\taverage\tanticipated\tnet\tcredit\tlosses | \t\t\tNM | 40.0% | 70.6% |

(1) Disclosure	of	non-agency-sponsored	mortgages	as	senior	and	subordinated	interests	is	indicative	of	the	interests'	position	in	the	capital	structure	of	the	securitization.

(2) Anticipated	net	credit	losses	represent	estimated	loss	severity	associated	with	defaulted	mortgage	loans	underlying	the	mortgage	securitizations	disclosed	above.	Anticipated	net	credit	losses,	in	this instance,	do	not	represent	total	credit	losses	incurred	to	date,	nor	do	they	represent	credit	losses	expected	on	retained	interests	in	mortgage	securitizations.

NM Anticipated	net	credit	losses	are	not	meaningful	due	to	U.S.	agency	guarantees.

The	interests	retained	by	the	Company	range	from	highly	rated	and/or	senior in	the	capital	structure	to	unrated	and/or	residual	interests.

The	key	assumptions	used	to	value	retained	interests,	and	the	sensitivity	of	the fair	value	to	adverse	changes	of	10%	and	20%	in	each	of	the	key	assumptions,	are set	forth	in	the	tables

below.	The	negative	effect	of	each	change	is	calculated	independently,	holding	all other	assumptions	constant.	Because	the	key	assumptions	may	not	be	independent, the	net	effect	of	simultaneous	adverse	changes	in	the	key	assumptions	may	be	less than	the	sum	of	the	individual	effects	shown	below.

Note:	Citi	Holdings	held	no	subordinated	interests	in	mortgage	securitizations	as	of	 December	31,	2015	and	2014.

# Non-agency-sponsored	mortgages(1)

Note:	Citi	Holdings	held	no	subordinated	interests	in	mortgage	securitizations	as	of	 December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014.

In	connection	with	the	securitization	of	mortgage	loans,	the	Company's	U.S. consumer	mortgage	business	generally	retains	the	servicing	rights,	which	entitle the	Company	to	a	future	stream	of	cash	flows	based	on	the	outstanding	principal balances	of	the	loans	and	the	contractual	servicing	fee.	Failure	to	service	the	loans in	accordance	with	contractual	requirements	may	lead	to	a	termination	of	the servicing	rights	and	the	loss	of	future	servicing	fees.

These	transactions	create	an	intangible	asset	referred	to	as	mortgage	servicing rights	(MSRs),	which	are	recorded	at	fair	value	on	Citi's	Consolidated	Balance Sheet.	The	fair	value	of	Citi's	capitalized	MSRs	was	$1.8	billion	at	December	31, 2015	and	2014.	Of	these	amounts,	approximately	$1.7	billion	was	specific	to Citicorp,	with	the	remainder	to	Citi	Holdings	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014. The	MSRs	correspond	to	principal	loan	balances	of	$198	billion	and	$224	billion as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.	The	following	table	summarizes the	changes	in	capitalized	MSRs:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Balance,\tbeginning\tof\tyear | $1,845 | $2,718 |
| Originations | 214 | 217 |
| Changes\tin\tfair\tvalue\tof\tMSRs\tdue\tto\tchanges\tin\ninputs\tand\tassumptions | 110 | (344) |
| Other\tchanges(1) | (350) | (429) |
| Sale\tof\tMSRs | (38) | (317) |
| Balance,\tas\tof\tDecember\t31 | $1,781 | $1,845 |

(1) Represents	changes	due	to	customer	payments	and	passage	of	time.

The	fair	value	of	the	MSRs	is	primarily	affected	by	changes	in	prepayments	of mortgages	that	result	from	shifts	in	mortgage	interest	rates.	Specifically,	higher interest	rates	tend	to	lead	to	declining	prepayments,	which	causes	the	fair	value	of the	MSRs	to	increase.	In	managing	this	risk,	the	Company	economically	hedges	a significant	portion	of	the	value	of	its	MSRs	through	the	use	of	interest	rate derivative	contracts,	forward	purchase	and	sale	commitments	of	mortgage-backed securities	and	purchased	securities	all	classified	as	Trading	account	assets.	The Company	receives	fees	during	the	course	of	servicing	previously	securitized mortgages.	The	amounts	of	these	fees	were	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Servicing\tfees | $552 | $638 | $800 |
| Late\tfees | 16 | 25 | 42 |
| Ancillary\tfees | 31 | 56 | 100 |
| Total\tMSR\tfees | $599 | $719 | $942 |

These	fees	and	changes	in	MSR	fair	values	are	classified	in	the	Consolidated Statement	of	Income	as	Other	revenue.

# Re-securitizations

The	Company	engages	in	re-securitization	transactions	in	which	debt	securities	are transferred	to	a	VIE	in	exchange	for	new	beneficial	interests.	During	the	years ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	Citi	transferred	non-agency	(private-label) securities	with	an	original	par	value	of	approximately	$885	million	and	$1.2 billion,	respectively,	to	re-securitization	entities.	These	securities	are	backed	by either	residential	or	commercial	mortgages	and	are	often	structured	on	behalf	of clients.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	the	fair	value	of	Citi-retained	interests	in	private- label	re-securitization	transactions	structured	by	Citi	totaled	approximately	$428 million	(including	$132	million	related	to	re-securitization	transactions	executed	in 2015),	which	has	been	recorded	in	Trading	account	assets.	Of	this	amount, approximately	$18	million	was	related	to	senior	beneficial	interests	and approximately	$410	million	was	related	to	subordinated	beneficial	interests.	As	of December	31,	2014,	the	fair	value	of	Citi-retained	interests	in	private-label	re- securitization	transactions	structured	by	Citi	totaled	approximately	$545	million (including	$194	million	related	to	re-securitization	transactions	executed	in	2014). Of	this	amount,	approximately	$133	million	was	related	to	senior	beneficial interests,	and	approximately	$412	million	was	related	to	subordinated	beneficial interests.	The	original	par	value	of	private-label	re-securitization	transactions	in which	Citi	holds	a	retained	interest	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014	was approximately	$3.7	billion	and	$5.1	billion,	respectively.

The	Company	also	re-securitizes	U.S.	government-agency	guaranteed mortgage-backed	(agency)	securities.	During	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015 and	2014,	Citi	transferred	agency	securities	with	a	fair	value	of	approximately $17.8	billion	and	$22.5	billion,	respectively,	to	re-securitization	entities.

As	of	December	31,	2015,	the	fair	value	of	Citi-retained	interests	in	agency	re- securitization	transactions	structured	by	Citi	totaled	approximately	$1.8	billion (including	$1.5	billion	related	to	re-securitization	transactions	executed	in	2015) compared	to	$1.8	billion	as	of	December	31,	2014	(including	$1.5	billion	related	to re-securitization	transactions	executed	in	2014),	which	is	recorded	in	Trading account	assets.	The	original	fair	value	of	agency	re-securitization	transactions	in which	Citi	holds	a	retained	interest	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014	was approximately	$65.0	billion	and	$73.0	billion,	respectively.

As	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	Company	did	not	consolidate	any private-label	or	agency	re-securitization	entities.

# Citi-Administered	Asset-Backed	Commercial	Paper	Conduits

The	Company	is	active	in	the	asset-backed	commercial	paper	conduit	business	as administrator	of	several	multi-seller	commercial	paper	conduits	and	also	as	a service	provider	to	single-seller	and	other	commercial	paper	conduits	sponsored	by third	parties.

Citi's	multi-seller	commercial	paper	conduits	are	designed	to	provide	the Company's	clients	access	to	low-cost	funding	in	the	commercial	paper	markets. The	conduits	purchase	assets	from	or	provide	financing	facilities	to	clients	and	are funded	by	issuing	commercial	paper	to	third-party	investors.	The	conduits generally	do	not	purchase	assets	originated	by	the	Company.	The	funding	of	the conduits	is	facilitated	by	the	liquidity	support	and	credit	enhancements	provided	by the	Company.

As	administrator	to	Citi's	conduits,	the	Company	is	generally	responsible	for selecting	and	structuring	assets	purchased	or	financed	by	the	conduits,	making decisions	regarding	the	funding	of	the	conduits,	including	determining	the	tenor and	other	features	of	the	commercial	paper	issued,	monitoring	the	quality	and performance	of	the	conduits'	assets,	and	facilitating	the	operations	and	cash	flows of	the	conduits.	In	return,	the	Company	earns	structuring	fees	from	customers	for individual	transactions	and	earns	an	administration	fee	from	the	conduit,	which	is equal	to	the	income	from	the	client	program	and	liquidity	fees	of	the	conduit	after payment	of	conduit	expenses.	This	administration	fee	is	fairly	stable,	since	most risks	and	rewards	of	the	underlying	assets	are	passed	back	to	the	clients.	Once	the asset	pricing	is	negotiated,	most	ongoing	income,	costs	and	fees	are	relatively stable	as	a	percentage	of	the	conduit's	size.

The	conduits	administered	by	the	Company	do	not	generally	invest	in	liquid securities	that	are	formally	rated	by	third	parties.	The	assets	are	privately negotiated	and	structured	transactions	that	are	generally	designed	to	be	held	by	the conduit,	rather	than	actively	traded	and	sold.	The	yield	earned	by	the	conduit	on each	asset	is	generally	tied	to	the	rate	on	the	commercial	paper	issued	by	the conduit,	thus	passing	interest	rate	risk	to	the	client.	Each	asset	purchased	by	the conduit	is	structured	with	transaction-specific	credit	enhancement	features provided	by	the	third-party	client	seller,	including	over	collateralization,	cash	and excess	spread	collateral	accounts,	direct	recourse	or	third-party	guarantees.	These credit	enhancements	are	sized	with	the	objective	of	approximating	a	credit	rating of	A	or	above,	based	on	the

Company's	internal	risk	ratings.	At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	conduits	had approximately	$21.3	billion	and	$29.2	billion	of	purchased	assets	outstanding, respectively,	and	had	incremental	funding	commitments	with	clients	of approximately	$11.6	billion	and	$13.5	billion,	respectively.

Substantially	all	of	the	funding	of	the	conduits	is	in	the	form	of	short-term commercial	paper.	At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	weighted	average remaining	lives	of	the	commercial	paper	issued	by	the	conduits	were approximately	56	and	57	days,	respectively.

The	primary	credit	enhancement	provided	to	the	conduit	investors	is	in	the form	of	transaction-specific	credit	enhancements	described	above.	In	addition	to the	transaction-specific	credit	enhancements,	the	conduits,	other	than	the government	guaranteed	loan	conduit,	have	obtained	a	letter	of	credit	from	the Company,	which	is	equal	to	at	least	8%	to	10%	of	the	conduit's	assets	with	a minimum	of	$200	million.	The	letters	of	credit	provided	by	the	Company	to	the conduits	total	approximately	$1.9	billion	and	$2.3	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015 and	2014,	respectively.	The	net	result	across	multi-seller	conduits	administered	by the	Company,	other	than	the	government	guaranteed	loan	conduit,	is	that,	in	the event	defaulted	assets	exceed	the	transaction-specific	credit	enhancements described	above,	any	losses	in	each	conduit	are	allocated	first	to	the	Company	and then	the	commercial	paper	investors.

The	Company	also	provides	the	conduits	with	two	forms	of	liquidity agreements	that	are	used	to	provide	funding	to	the	conduits	in	the	event	of	a	market disruption,	among	other	events.	Each	asset	of	the	conduits	is	supported	by	a transaction-specific	liquidity	facility	in	the	form	of	an	asset	purchase	agreement (APA).	Under	the	APA,	the	Company	has	generally	agreed	to	purchase	non- defaulted	eligible	receivables	from	the	conduit	at	par.	The	APA	is	not	designed	to provide	credit	support	to	the	conduit,	as	it	generally	does	not	permit	the	purchase	of defaulted	or	impaired	assets.	Any	funding	under	the	APA	will	likely	subject	the underlying	conduit	clients	to	increased	interest	costs.	In	addition,	the	Company provides	the	conduits	with	program-wide	liquidity	in	the	form	of	short-term lending	commitments.	Under	these	commitments,	the	Company	has	agreed	to	lend to	the	conduits	in	the	event	of	a	short-term	disruption	in	the	commercial	paper market,	subject	to	specified	conditions.	The	Company	receives	fees	for	providing both	types	of	liquidity	agreements	and	considers	these	fees	to	be	on	fair	market terms.

Finally,	the	Company	is	one	of	several	named	dealers	in	the	commercial	paper issued	by	the	conduits	and	earns	a	market-based	fee	for	providing	such	services. Along	with	third-party	dealers,	the	Company	makes	a	market	in	the	commercial paper	and	may	from	time	to	time	fund	commercial	paper	pending	sale	to	a	third party.	On	specific	dates	with	less	liquidity	in	the	market,	the	Company	may	hold	in inventory	commercial	paper	issued	by	conduits	administered	by	the	Company,	as well	as	conduits	administered	by	third	parties.	Separately,	in	the	normal	course	of business,	the	Company	invests	in	commercial	paper,	including	commercial	paper issued	by	the	Company's	conduits.	At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	Company owned	$11.4	billion	and	$10.6	billion,	respectively,	of	the	commercial	paper	issued by	its	administered	conduits.	The	Company's	investments	were	not

driven	by	market	illiquidity	and	the	Company	is	not	obligated	under	any	agreement to	purchase	the	commercial	paper	issued	by	the	conduits.

The	asset-backed	commercial	paper	conduits	are	consolidated	by	the Company.	The	Company	has	determined	that,	through	its	roles	as	administrator and	liquidity	provider,	it	has	the	power	to	direct	the	activities	that	most significantly	impact	the	entities'	economic	performance.	These	powers	include	its ability	to	structure	and	approve	the	assets	purchased	by	the	conduits,	its	ongoing surveillance	and	credit	mitigation	activities,	its	ability	to	sell	or	repurchase	assets out	of	the	conduits,	and	its	liability	management.	In	addition,	as	a	result	of	all	the Company's	involvement	described	above,	it	was	concluded	that	the	Company	has an	economic	interest	that	could	potentially	be	significant.	However,	the	assets	and liabilities	of	the	conduits	are	separate	and	apart	from	those	of	Citigroup.	No	assets of	any	conduit	are	available	to	satisfy	the	creditors	of	Citigroup	or	any	of	its	other subsidiaries.

# Collateralized	Loan	Obligations

A	collateralized	loan	obligation	(CLO)	is	a	VIE	that	purchases	a	portfolio	of	assets consisting	primarily	of	non-investment	grade	corporate	loans.	The	CLO	issues multiple	tranches	of	debt	and	equity	to	investors	to	fund	the	asset	purchases	and pay	upfront	expenses	associated	with	forming	the	CLO.	A	third-party	asset manager	is	contracted	by	the	CLO	to	purchase	the	underlying	assets	from	the	open market	and	monitor	the	credit	risk	associated	with	those	assets.	Over	the	term	of the	CLO,	the	asset	manager	directs	purchases	and	sales	of	assets	in	a	manner consistent	with	the	CLO's	asset	management	agreement	and	indenture.	In	general, the	CLO	asset	manager	will	have	the	power	to	direct	the	activities	of	the	entity	that most	significantly	impact	the	economic	performance	of	the	CLO.	Investors	in	the CLO,	through	their	ownership	of	debt	and/or	equity	in	the	CLO,	can	also	direct certain	activities	of	the	CLO,	including	removing	the	CLO	asset	manager	under limited	circumstances,	optionally	redeeming	the	notes,	voting	on	amendments	to the	CLO's	operating	documents	and	other	activities.	The	CLO	has	a	finite	life, typically	12	years.

Citi	serves	as	a	structuring	and	placement	agent	with	respect	to	the	CLO. Typically,	the	debt	and	equity	of	the	CLO	are	sold	to	third-party	investors.	On occasion,	certain	Citi	entities	may	purchase	some	portion	of	the	CLO's	liabilities for	investment	purposes.	In	addition,	Citi	may	purchase,	typically	in	the	secondary market,	certain	securities	issued	by	the	CLO	to	support	its	market	making activities.

The	Company	does	not	generally	have	the	power	to	direct	the	activities	of	the entity	that	most	significantly	impact	the	economic	performance	of	the	CLOs,	as this	power	is	generally	held	by	a	third-party	asset	manager	of	the	CLO.	As	such, those	CLOs	are	not	consolidated.

# Key	Assumptions	and	Retained	Interests

The	key	assumptions	used	to	value	retained	interests	in	CLOs,	and	the	sensitivity of	the	fair	value	to	adverse	changes	of	10%	and	20%	are	set	forth	in	the	tables below:

| Discount	rate | Dec.	31,	2015<br>			1.4%	to	49.6% | Dec.	31,	2014<br>1.4%	to	49.2% |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Dec.\t31,\t2015 | Dec.\t31,\t2014 |
| Carrying\tvalue\tof\tretained\tinterests | $918 | $1,555 |
| Discount\trates |  |  |
| \t\t\tAdverse\tchange\tof\t10% | $(5) | $(10) |
| \t\t\tAdverse\tchange\tof\t20% | (10) | (20) |

# Asset-Based	Financing

The	Company	provides	loans	and	other	forms	of	financing	to	VIEs	that	hold	assets. Those	loans	are	subject	to	the	same	credit	approvals	as	all	other	loans	originated	or purchased	by	the	Company.	Financings	in	the	form	of	debt	securities	or	derivatives are,	in	most	circumstances,	reported	in	Trading	account	assets	and	accounted	for	at fair	value	through	earnings.	The	Company	generally	does	not	have	the	power	to direct	the	activities	that	most	significantly	impact	these	VIEs'	economic performance,	and	thus	it	does	not	consolidate	them.

The	primary	types	of	Citigroup's	asset-based	financings,	total	assets	of	the unconsolidated	VIEs	with	significant	involvement,	and	the	Company's	maximum exposure	to	loss	are	shown	below.	For	the	Company	to	realize	the	maximum	loss, the	VIE	(borrower)	would	have	to	default	with	no	recovery	from	the	assets	held	by the	VIE.

|  | December	31,	2015 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Total\nunconsolidated\nVIE\tassets | Maximum\nexposure\tto\nunconsolidated\tVIEs |
| Type |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tother\treal\testate | $41,695 | $11,454 |
| Corporate\tloans | 1,274 | 1,871 |
| Hedge\tfunds\tand\tequities | 385 | 55 |
| Airplanes,\tships\tand\tother\tassets | 38,679 | 17,140 |
| Total(1) | $82,033 | $30,520 |

|  | December	31,	2014 |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | Total | Maximum |
|  | unconsolidated | exposure\tto |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | VIE\tassets | unconsolidated\tVIEs |
| Type |  |  |
| Commercial\tand\tother\treal\testate | $26,146 | $9,476 |
| Corporate\tloans | 460 | 473 |
| Hedge\tfunds\tand\tequities | — | — |
| Airplanes,\tships\tand\tother\tassets | 36,143 | 15,649 |
| Total | $62,749 | $25,598 |

(1) The	increase	in	the	total	unconsolidated	VIE	assets	and	related	maximum	exposure	to unconsolidated	VIEs	is	due	to	normal,	yet	increased,	client	activity.

The	following	table	summarizes	selected	cash	flow	information	related	to asset-based	financings:

| In	billions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tnew\tsecuritizations | $— $ | 0.5 | $0.5 |
| Cash\tflows\treceived\ton\tretained\tinterests\tand\nother\tnet\tcash\tflows | — | 0.3 | 1.0 |

There	were	no	gains	recognized	on	the	securitizations	of	asset-based financings	for	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013.

# Municipal	Securities	Tender	Option	Bond	(TOB)	Trusts

Municipal	TOB	trusts	may	hold	fixed-	or	floating-rate,	taxable	or	tax-exempt securities	issued	by	state	and	local	governments	and	municipalities.	TOB	trusts	are typically	structured	as	single-issuer	entities	whose	assets	are	purchased	from	either the	Company	or	from	other	investors	in	the	municipal	securities	market.	TOB trusts	finance	the	purchase	of	their	municipal	assets	by	issuing	two	classes	of certificates:	long-dated,	floating	rate	certificates	("Floaters")	that	are	putable pursuant	to	a	liquidity	facility	and	residual	interest	certificates	("Residuals").	The Floaters	are	purchased	by	third-party	investors,	typically	tax-exempt	money	market funds.	The	Residuals	are	purchased	by	the	original	owner	of	the	municipal securities	that	are	being	financed.

From	the	Company's	perspective,	there	are	two	types	of	TOB	trusts:	customer TOB	trusts	and	non-customer	TOB	trusts.	Customer	TOB	trusts	are	those	trusts utilized	by	customers	of	the	Company	to	finance	their	municipal	securities investments.	The	Residuals	issued	by	these	trusts	are	purchased	by	the	customer being	financed.	Non-customer	TOB	trusts	are	trusts	that	are	used	by	the	Company to	finance	its	own	municipal	securities	investments;	the	Residuals	issued	by	non- customer	TOB	trusts	are	purchased	by	the	Company.

With	respect	to	both	customer	and	non-customer	TOB	trusts,	the	Company may	provide	remarketing	agent	services.	If	Floaters	are	optionally	tendered	and	the Company,	in	its	role	as	remarketing	agent,	is	unable	to	find	a	new	investor	to purchase	the	optionally	tendered	Floaters	within	a	specified	period	of	time,	the Company	may,	but	is	not	obligated	to,	purchase	the	tendered	Floaters	into	its	own inventory.	The	level	of	the	Company's	inventory	of	such	Floaters	fluctuates.	At December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	Company	held	$2	million	and	$3	million, respectively,	of	Floaters	related	to	customer	and	non-customer	TOB	trusts.

For	certain	customer	TOB	trusts,	the	Company	may	also	serve	as	a	voluntary advance	provider.	In	this	capacity,	the	Company	may,	but	is	not	obligated	to,	make loan	advances	to	customer	TOB	trusts	to	purchase	optionally	tendered	Floaters	that have	not	otherwise	been	successfully	remarketed	to	new	investors.	Such	loans	are secured	by	pledged	Floaters.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	the	Company	had	no outstanding	voluntary	advances	to	customer	TOB	trusts.

For	certain	non-customer	trusts,	the	Company	also	provides	credit enhancement.	At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	approximately	$82	million	and $198	million,	respectively,	of	the	municipal	bonds	owned	by	non-customer	TOB trusts	are	subject	to	a	credit	guarantee	provided	by	the	Company.

The	Company	also	provides	liquidity	services	to	many	customer	and	non- customer	trusts.	If	a	trust	is	unwound	early	due	to	an	event	other	than	a	credit	event on	the	underlying	municipal	bonds,	the	underlying	municipal	bonds	are	sold	out	of the	Trust	and	bond	sale	proceeds	are	used	to	redeem	the	outstanding	Trust certificates.	If	this	results	in	a	shortfall	between	the	bond	sale	proceeds	and	the redemption	price	of	the	tendered	Floaters,	the	Company,	pursuant	to	the	liquidity agreement,	would	be	obligated	to	make	a	payment	to	the	trust	to	satisfy	that shortfall.	For	certain	customer	TOB	trusts	the	Company	has	also	executed	a reimbursement	agreement	with	the	holder	of	the	Residual,	pursuant	to	which	the Residual	holder	is	obligated	to	reimburse	the	Company	for	any	payment	the Company	makes	under	the	liquidity	arrangement.	These	reimbursement	agreements may	be	subject	to	daily	margining	based	on	changes	in	the	market	value	of	the underlying	municipal	bonds.	In	cases	where	a	third	party	provides	liquidity	to	a non-customer	TOB	trust,	a	similar	reimbursement	arrangement	may	be	executed, whereby	the	Company	(or	a	consolidated	subsidiary	of	the	Company),	as	Residual holder,	would	absorb	any	losses	incurred	by	the	liquidity	provider.

For	certain	other	non-customer	TOB	trusts,	the	Company	serves	as	tender option	provider.	The	tender	option	provider	arrangement	allows	Floater	holders	to put	their	interests	directly	to	the	Company	at	any	time,	subject	to	the	requisite notice	period	requirements,	at	a	price	of	par.

At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	liquidity	agreements	provided	with	respect	to customer	TOB	trusts	totaled	$3.1	billion	and	$3.7	billion,	respectively,	of	which $2.2	billion	and	$2.6	billion,	respectively,	were	offset	by	reimbursement agreements.	For	the	remaining	exposure	related	to	TOB	transactions,	where	the Residual	owned	by	the	customer	was	at	least	25%	of	the	bond	value	at	the inception	of	the	transaction,	no	reimbursement	agreement	was	executed. The	Company	considers	both	customer	and	non-customer	TOB	trusts	to	be VIEs.	Customer	TOB	trusts	are	not	consolidated	by	the	Company,	as	the	power	to direct	the	activities	that	most	significantly	impact	the	trust's	economic performance	rests	with	the	customer	Residual	holder,	which	may	unilaterally	cause the	sale	of	the	trust's	bonds.

Non-customer	TOB	trusts	generally	are	consolidated	because	the	Company holds	the	Residual	interest,	and	thus	has	the	unilateral	power	to	cause	the	sale	of the	trust's	bonds.

The	Company	also	provides	other	liquidity	agreements	or	letters	of	credit	to customer-sponsored	municipal	investment	funds,	which	are	not	variable	interest entities,	and	municipality-related	issuers	that	totaled	$8.1	billion	and	$7.4	billion	as of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.	These	liquidity	agreements	and letters	of	credit	are	offset	by	reimbursement	agreements	with	various	term-out provisions.

# Municipal	Investments

Municipal	investment	transactions	include	debt	and	equity	interests	in	partnerships that	finance	the	construction	and	rehabilitation	of	low-income	housing,	facilitate lending	in	new	or	underserved	markets,	or	finance	the	construction	or	operation	of renewable	municipal	energy	facilities.	The	Company	generally	invests	in	these partnerships	as	a	limited	partner	and	earns	a	return	primarily	through	the	receipt	of tax	credits	and	grants	earned	from	the	investments	made	by	the	partnership.	The Company	may	also	provide	construction	loans	or	permanent	loans	for	the development	or	operation	of	real	estate	properties	held	by	partnerships.	These entities	are	generally	considered	VIEs.	The	power	to	direct	the	activities	of	these entities	is	typically	held	by	the	general	partner.	Accordingly,	these	entities	are	not consolidated	by	the	Company.

# Client	Intermediation

Client	intermediation	transactions	represent	a	range	of	transactions	designed	to provide	investors	with	specified	returns	based	on	the	returns	of	an	underlying security,	referenced	asset	or	index.	These	transactions	include	credit-linked	notes and	equity-linked	notes.	In	these	transactions,	the	VIE	typically	obtains	exposure to	the	underlying	security,	referenced	asset	or	index	through	a	derivative instrument,	such	as	a	total-return	swap	or	a	credit-default	swap.	In	turn	the	VIE issues	notes	to	investors	that	pay	a	return	based	on	the	specified	underlying security,	referenced	asset	or	index.	The	VIE	invests	the	proceeds	in	a	financial	asset or	a	guaranteed	insurance	contract	that	serves	as	collateral	for	the	derivative contract	over	the	term	of	the	transaction.	The	Company's	involvement	in	these transactions	includes	being	the	counterparty	to	the	VIE's	derivative	instruments and	investing	in	a	portion	of	the	notes	issued	by	the	VIE.	In	certain	transactions, the	investor's	maximum	risk	of	loss	is	limited,	and	the	Company	absorbs	risk	of loss	above	a	specified	level.	The	Company	does	not	have	the	power	to	direct	the activities	of	the	VIEs	that	most	significantly	impact	their	economic	performance, and	thus	it	does	not	consolidate	them.

The	Company's	maximum	risk	of	loss	in	these	transactions	is	defined	as	the amount	invested	in	notes	issued	by	the	VIE	and	the	notional	amount	of	any	risk	of loss	absorbed	by	the	Company	through	a	separate	instrument	issued	by	the	VIE. The	derivative	instrument	held	by	the	Company	may	generate	a	receivable	from the	VIE	(for	example,	where	the	Company	purchases	credit	protection	from	the VIE	in	connection	with	the	VIE's	issuance	of	a	credit-linked	note),	which	is collateralized	by	the	assets	owned	by	the	VIE.	These	derivative	instruments	are	not considered	variable	interests,	and	any	associated	receivables	are	not	included	in	the calculation	of	maximum	exposure	to	the	VIE.

The	proceeds	from	new	securitizations	related	to	the	Company's	client intermediation	transactions	for	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014 totaled	approximately	$2.0	billion.

# Investment	Funds

The	Company	is	the	investment	manager	for	certain	investment	funds	and retirement	funds	that	invest	in	various	asset	classes	including	private	equity,	hedge funds,	real	estate,	fixed	income	and	infrastructure.	The	Company	earns	a management	fee,	which	is	a	percentage	of	capital	under	management,	and	may earn	performance	fees.	In	addition,	for	some	of	these	funds	the	Company	has	an ownership	interest	in	the	investment	funds.	The	Company	has	also	established	a number	of	investment	funds	as	opportunities	for	qualified	employees	to	invest	in private	equity	investments.	The	Company	acts	as	investment	manager	to	these funds	and	may	provide	employees	with	financing	on	both	recourse	and	non- recourse	bases	for	a	portion	of	the	employees'	investment	commitments.

The	Company	has	determined	that	a	majority	of	the	investment	entities managed	by	Citigroup	are	provided	a	deferral	from	the	requirements	of	ASC	810, because	they	meet	the	criteria	in	Accounting	Standards	Update	No.	2010-10, Consolidation	(Topic	810),	Amendments	for	Certain	Investment	Funds	(ASU 2010-10).	These	entities	continue	to	be	evaluated	under	the	requirements	of	ASC 810-10,	prior	to	the	implementation	of	SFAS	167	(FIN	46(R),	Consolidation	of Variable	Interest	Entities),	which	required	that	a	VIE	be	consolidated	by	the	party with	a	variable	interest	that	will	absorb	a	majority	of	the	entity's	expected	losses	or residual	returns,	or	both.	See	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	a discussion	of	ASU	2015-02	which	includes	impending	changes	to	targeted	areas	of consolidation	guidance.	When	ASU	2015-02	becomes	effective	on	January	1, 2016,	it	will	eliminate	the	above	noted	deferral	for	certain	investment	entities pursuant	to	ASU	2010-10.

# 23.			DERIVATIVES	ACTIVITIES

In	the	ordinary	course	of	business,	Citigroup	enters	into	various	types	of	derivative transactions.	These	derivative transactions	include:

•Futures	and	forward	contracts,	which	are	commitments	to	buy	or	sell	at	a future	date	a	financial	instrument,	commodity	or	currency	at	a	contracted	price and	may	be	settled	in	cash	or	through	delivery. •Swap	contracts,	which	are	commitments	to	settle	in	cash	at	a	future	date	or dates	that	may	range	from	a	few	days	to	a	number	of	years,	based	on differentials	between	specified	indices	or	financial	instruments,	as	applied	to	a notional	principal	amount.

•Option	contracts,	which	give	the	purchaser,	for	a	premium,	the	right,	but	not the	obligation,	to	buy	or	sell	within	a	specified	time	a	financial	instrument, commodity	or	currency	at	a	contracted	price	that	may	also	be	settled	in	cash, based	on	differentials	between	specified	indices	or	prices.

Swaps	and	forwards	and	some	option	contracts	are	over-the-counter	(OTC) derivatives	that	are	bilaterally	negotiated	with	counterparties	and	settled	with	those counterparties,	except	for	swap	contracts	that	are	novated	and	"cleared"	through central	counterparties	(CCPs).	Futures	contracts	and	other	option	contracts	are standardized	contracts	that	are	traded	on	an	exchange	with	a	CCP	as	the counterparty	from	the	inception	of	the	transaction.	Citigroup	enters	into	these derivative	contracts	relating	to	interest	rate,	foreign	currency,	commodity	and	other market/credit	risks	for	the	following	reasons:

•Trading	Purposes:	Citigroup	trades	derivatives	as	an	active	market	maker. Citigroup	offers	its	customers	derivatives	in	connection	with	their	risk management	actions	to	transfer,	modify	or	reduce	their	interest	rate,	foreign exchange	and	other	market/credit	risks	or	for	their	own	trading	purposes. Citigroup	also	manages	its	derivative	risk	positions	through	offsetting	trade activities,	controls	focused	on	price	verification,	and	daily	reporting	of positions	to	senior	managers.

•Hedging:	Citigroup	uses	derivatives	in	connection	with	its	risk	management activities	to	hedge	certain	risks	or	reposition	the	risk	profile	of	the	Company. For	example,	Citigroup	issues	fixed-rate	long-term	debt	and	then	enters	into	a receive-fixed,	pay-variable-rate	interest	rate	swap	with	the	same	tenor	and notional	amount	to	convert	the	interest	payments	to	a	net	variable-rate	basis. This	strategy	is	the	most	common	form	of	an	interest	rate	hedge,	as	it minimizes	net	interest	cost	in	certain	yield	curve	environments.	Derivatives	are also	used	to	manage	risks	inherent	in	specific	groups	of	on-balance	sheet assets	and	liabilities,	including	AFS	securities	and	borrowings,	as	well	as	other interest-sensitive	assets	and	liabilities.	In	addition,	foreign-exchange	contracts are	used	to	hedge	non-U.S.-dollar-denominated	debt,	foreign-currency- denominated	AFS	securities	and	net	investment	exposures.

Derivatives	may	expose	Citigroup	to	market,	credit	or	liquidity	risks	in	excess of	the	amounts	recorded	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.	Market	risk	on	a derivative	product	is	the	exposure	created	by	potential	fluctuations	in	interest	rates, foreign-exchange	rates	and	other	factors	and	is	a	function	of	the	type	of	product, the	volume	of	transactions,	the	tenor	and	terms	of	the	agreement	and	the underlying	volatility.	Credit	risk	is	the	exposure	to	loss	in	the	event	of nonperformance	by	the	other	party	to	the	transaction	where	the	value	of	any collateral	held	is	not	adequate	to	cover	such	losses.	The	recognition	in	earnings	of unrealized	gains	on	these	transactions	is	subject	to	management's	assessment	of	the probability	of	counterparty	default.	Liquidity	risk	is	the	potential	exposure	that arises	when	the	size	of	a	derivative	position	may	not	be	able	to	be	monetized	in	a reasonable	period	of	time	and	at	a	reasonable	cost	in	periods	of	high	volatility	and financial	stress.

Derivative	transactions	are	customarily	documented	under	industry	standard master	agreements	that	provide	that,	following	an	uncured	payment	default	or other	event	of	default,	the	non-defaulting	party	may	promptly	terminate	all transactions	between	the	parties	and	determine	the	net	amount	due	to	be	paid	to,	or by,	the	defaulting	party.	Events	of	default	include:	(i)	failure	to	make	a	payment	on a	derivatives	transaction	that	remains	uncured	following	applicable	notice	and grace	periods,	(ii)	breach	of	agreement	that	remains	uncured	after	applicable	notice and	grace	periods,	(iii)	breach	of	a	representation,	(iv)	cross	default,	either	to	third- party	debt	or	to	other	derivative	transactions	entered	into	between	the	parties,	or,	in some	cases,	their	affiliates,	(v)	the	occurrence	of	a	merger	or	consolidation	which results	in	a	party's	becoming	a	materially	weaker	credit,	and	(vi)	the	cessation	or repudiation	of	any	applicable	guarantee	or	other	credit	support	document. Obligations	under	master	netting	agreements	are	often	secured	by	collateral	posted under	an	industry	standard	credit	support	annex	to	the	master	netting	agreement. An	event	of	default	may	also	occur	under	a	credit	support	annex	if	a	party	fails	to make	a	collateral	delivery	that	remains	uncured	following	applicable	notice	and grace	periods.

The	netting	and	collateral	rights	incorporated	in	the	master	netting	agreements are	considered	to	be	legally	enforceable	if	a	supportive	legal	opinion	has	been obtained	from	counsel	of	recognized	standing	that	provides	the	requisite	level	of certainty	regarding	enforceability	and	that	the	exercise	of	rights	by	the	non- defaulting	party	to	terminate	and	close-out	transactions	on	a	net	basis	under	these agreements	will	not	be	stayed	or	avoided	under	applicable	law	upon	an	event	of default	including	bankruptcy,	insolvency	or	similar	proceeding.

A	legal	opinion	may	not	be	sought	for	certain	jurisdictions	where	local	law	is silent	or	unclear	as	to	the	enforceability	of	such	rights	or	where	adverse	case	law	or conflicting	regulation	may	cast	doubt	on	the	enforceability	of	such	rights.	In	some jurisdictions	and	for	some	counterparty	types,	the	insolvency	law	may	not	provide the	requisite	level	of	certainty.	For	example,	this	may	be	the	case	for	certain sovereigns,	municipalities,	central	banks	and	U.S.	pension	plans.

Exposure	to	credit	risk	on	derivatives	is	affected	by	market	volatility,	which may	impair	the	ability	of	counterparties	to	satisfy	their	obligations	to	the	Company. Credit	limits	are	established	and	closely	monitored	for	customers	engaged	in derivatives	transactions.	Citi	considers	the	level	of	legal	certainty	regarding enforceability	of	its	offsetting	rights	under	master	netting	agreements	and	credit support	annexes	to	be	an	important	factor	in	its	risk	management	process. Specifically,	Citi	generally	transacts	much	lower	volumes	of	derivatives	under master	netting	agreements	where	Citi	does	not	have	the	requisite	level	of	legal certainty	regarding	enforceability,	because	such	derivatives	consume	greater amounts	of	single	counterparty	credit	limits	than	those	executed	under	enforceable master	netting	agreements.

Cash	collateral	and	security	collateral	in	the	form	of	G10	government	debt securities	is	often	posted	by	a	party	to	a	master	netting	agreement	to	secure	the	net open	exposure	of	the	other	party;	the	receiving	party	is	free	to commingle/rehypothecate	such	collateral	in	the	ordinary	course	of	its	business. Nonstandard	collateral	such	as	corporate	bonds,	municipal	bonds,	U.S.	agency securities	and/or	MBS	may	also	be	pledged	as	collateral	for	derivative	transactions. Security	collateral	posted	to	open	and	maintain	a	master	netting	agreement	with	a counterparty,	in	the	form	of	cash	and/or	securities,	may	from	time	to	time	be segregated	in	an	account	at	a	third-party	custodian	pursuant	to	a	tri-party	account control	agreement.

Information	pertaining	to	Citigroup's	derivative	activity,	based	on	notional amounts	is	presented	in	the	table	below.	Derivative	notional	amounts	are	reference amounts	from	which	contractual	payments	are	derived	and	do	not	represent	a complete	and	accurate	measure	of	Citi's	exposure	to	derivative	transactions. Rather,	as	discussed	above,	Citi's	derivative	exposure	arises	primarily	from	market fluctuations	(i.e.,	market	risk),	counterparty	failure	(i.e.,	credit	risk)	and/or	periods of	high	volatility	or	financial	stress	(i.e.,	liquidity	risk),	as	well	as	any	market valuation	adjustments	that	may	be

required	on	the	transactions.	Moreover,	notional	amounts	do	not	reflect	the	netting of	offsetting	trades	(also	as	discussed	above).	For	example,	if	Citi	enters	into	an interest	rate	swap	with	$100	million	notional,	and	offsets	this	risk	with	an	identical but	opposite	position	with	a	different	counterparty,	$200	million	in	derivative notionals	is	reported,	although	these	offsetting	positions	may	result	in	de	minimis overall	market	risk.	Aggregate	derivative	notional	amounts	can	fluctuate	from period	to	period	in	the	normal	course	of	business	based	on	Citi's	market	share, levels	of	client	activity	and	other	factors.

# Derivative	Notionals

|  | Hedging	instruments	under<br>ASC	815(1)(2) | Hedging	instruments	under<br>ASC	815(1)(2) |  | Other	derivative	instruments | Other	derivative	instruments | Other	derivative	instruments |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  |  | Trading\tderivatives | Trading\tderivatives | Management\thedges(3) | Management\thedges(3) |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | December\t31,\n2015 | December\t31,\n2014 | December\t31,\n2015 | December\t31,\n2014 | December\t31,\n2015 | December\t31,\n2014 |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Swaps | $166,576 | $163,348 | $22,208,794 | $31,906,549 | $28,969 | $31,945 |
| Futures\tand\tforwards | — | — | 6,868,340 | 7,044,990 | 38,421 | 42,305 |
| Written\toptions | — | — | 3,033,617 | 3,311,904 | 2,606 | 3,913 |
| Purchased\toptions | — | — | 2,887,605 | 3,171,184 | 4,575 | 4,910 |
| Total\tinterest\trate\tcontract\tnotionals | $166,576 | $163,348 | $34,998,356 | $45,434,627 | $74,571 | $83,073 |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Swaps | $23,007 | $25,157 | $4,765,687 | $4,567,977 | $23,960 | $23,990 |
| Futures,\tforwards\tand\tspot(4) | 72,124 | 73,219 | 2,563,649 | 3,003,295 | 3,034 | 7,069 |
| Written\toptions | 448 | — | 1,125,664 | 1,343,520 | — | 432 |
| Purchased\toptions | 819 | — | 1,131,816 | 1,363,382 | — | 432 |
| Total\tforeign\texchange\tcontract\tnotionals | $96,398 | $98,376 | $9,586,816 | $10,278,174 | $26,994 | $31,923 |
| Equity\tcontracts |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Swaps | $— | $— | $180,963 | $131,344 | $— | $— |
| Futures\tand\tforwards | — | — | 33,735 | 30,510 | — | — |
| Written\toptions | — | — | 298,876 | 305,627 | — | — |
| Purchased\toptions | — | — | 265,062 | 275,216 | — | — |
| Total\tequity\tcontract\tnotionals | $— | $— | $778,636 | $742,697 | $— | $— |
| Commodity\tand\tother\tcontracts |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Swaps | $— | $— | $70,561 | $90,817 | $— | $— |
| Futures\tand\tforwards | 789 | 1,089 | 106,474 | 106,021 | — | — |
| Written\toptions | — | — | 72,648 | 104,581 | — | — |
| Purchased\toptions | — | — | 66,051 | 95,567 | — | — |
| Total\tcommodity\tand\tother\tcontract\tnotionals | $789 | $1,089 | $315,734 | $396,986 | $— | $— |
| Credit\tderivatives(5) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Protection\tsold | $— | $— | $950,922 | $1,063,858 | $— | $— |
| Protection\tpurchased | — | — | 981,586 | 1,100,369 | 23,628 | 16,018 |
| Total\tcredit\tderivatives | $— | $— | $1,932,508 | $2,164,227 | $23,628 | $16,018 |
| Total\tderivative\tnotionals | $263,763 | $262,813 | $47,612,050 | $59,016,711 | $125,193 | $131,014 |

(1) The	notional	amounts	presented	in	this	table	do	not	include	hedge	accounting	relationships	under	ASC	815	where	Citigroup	is	hedging	the	foreign	currency	risk	of	a	net	investment	in	a	foreign operation	by	issuing	a	foreign-currency-denominated	debt	instrument.	The	notional	amount	of	such	debt	was	$2,102	million	and	$3,752	million	at	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014, respectively.

(2) Derivatives	in	hedge	accounting	relationships	accounted	for	under	ASC	815	are	recorded	in	either	 Other	assets/Other	liabilities	or	Trading	account	assets/Trading	account	liabilities	on	the Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

(3) Management	hedges	represent	derivative	instruments	used	to	mitigate	certain	economic	risks,	but	for	which	hedge	accounting	is	not	applied.	These	derivatives	are	recorded	in	either	 Other assets/Other	liabilities	or	Trading	account	assets/Trading	account	liabilities	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

(4) Foreign	exchange	notional	contracts	include	spot	contract	notionals	of	$335	billion	and	$849	billion	at	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	respectively.	Previous	presentations	of	foreign exchange	derivative	notional	contracts	did	not	include	spot	contracts.	There	was	no	impact	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	related	to	this	updated	presentation.

(5) Credit	derivatives	are	arrangements	designed	to	allow	one	party	(protection	buyer)	to	transfer	the	credit	risk	of	a	"reference	asset"	to	another	party	(protection	seller).	These	arrangements	allow	a protection	seller	to	assume	the	credit	risk	associated	with	the	reference	asset	without	directly	purchasing	that	asset.	The	Company	enters	into	credit	derivative	positions	for	purposes	such	as	risk management,	yield	enhancement,	reduction	of	credit	concentrations	and	diversification	of	overall	risk.

The	following	tables	present	the	gross	and	net	fair	values	of	the	Company's derivative	transactions,	and	the	related	offsetting	amounts	permitted	under ASC	210-20-45	and	ASC	815-10-45,	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31, 2014.	Under	ASC	210-20-45,	gross	positive	fair	values	are	offset	against	gross negative	fair	values	by	counterparty	pursuant	to	enforceable	master	netting agreements.	Under	ASC	815-10-45,	payables	and	receivables	in	respect	of	cash collateral	received	from	or	paid	to	a	given	counterparty	pursuant	to	a	credit	support annex	are	included	in	the	offsetting	amount	if	a	legal	opinion	supporting enforceability	of	netting	and	collateral	rights	has	been	obtained.	GAAP	does	not permit	similar	offsetting	for	security	collateral.	The	tables	also	include	amounts that	are	not	permitted	to	be	offset	under	ASC	210-20-45	and	ASC	815-10-45,	such as	security	collateral	posted	or	cash	collateral	posted	at	third-party	custodians,	but which	would	be	eligible	for	offsetting	to	the	extent	an	event	of	default	occurred and	a	legal	opinion	supporting	enforceability	of	the	netting	and	collateral	rights	has been	obtained.

# Derivative	Mark-to-Market	(MTM)	Receivables/Payables

|  | Derivatives	classified | Derivatives	classified | Derivatives	classified |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | in\tTrading\taccount\nassets\t/\tliabilities(1)(2)(3) | in\tTrading\taccount\nassets\t/\tliabilities(1)(2)(3) | in\tOther\nassets\t/\tliabilities(2)(3) |  |
| Derivatives\tinstruments\tdesignated\tas\tASC\t815\thedges | Assets | Liabilities | Assets | Liabilities |
| Over-the-counter | $262 | $105 | $2,328 | $106 |
| Cleared | 4,607 | 1,471 | 5 | — |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $4,869 | $1,576 | $2,333 | $106 |
| Over-the-counter | $2,688 | $364 | $95 | $677 |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | $2,688 | $364 | $95 | $677 |
| Total\tderivative\tinstruments\tdesignated\tas\tASC\t815\thedges | $7,557 | $1,940 | $2,428 | $783 |
| Derivatives\tinstruments\tnot\tdesignated\tas\tASC\t815\thedges |  |  |  |  |
| Over-the-counter | $289,124 | $267,761 | $182 | $12 |
| Cleared | 120,848 | 126,532 | 244 | 216 |
| Exchange\ttraded | 53 | 35 | — | — |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $410,025 | $394,328 | $426 | $228 |
| Over-the-counter | $126,474 | $133,361 | $— | $66 |
| Cleared | 134 | 152 | — | — |
| Exchange\ttraded | 21 | 36 | — | — |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | $126,629 | $133,549 | $— | $66 |
| Over-the-counter | $14,560 | $20,107 | $— | $— |
| Cleared | 28 | 3 | — | — |
| Exchange\ttraded | 7,297 | 6,406 | — | — |
| Equity\tcontracts | $21,885 | $26,516 | $— | $— |
| Over-the-counter | $16,794 | $18,641 | $— | $— |
| Exchange\ttraded | 1,216 | 1,912 | — | — |
| Commodity\tand\tother\tcontracts | $18,010 | $20,553 | $— | $— |
| Over-the-counter | $31,072 | $30,608 | $711 | $245 |
| Cleared | 3,803 | 3,560 | 131 | 318 |
| Credit\tderivatives(4) | $34,875 | $34,168 | $842 | $563 |
| Total\tderivatives\tinstruments\tnot\tdesignated\tas\tASC\t815\thedges | $611,424 | $609,114 | $1,268 | $857 |
| Total\tderivatives | $618,981 | $611,054 | $3,696 | $1,640 |
| Cash\tcollateral\tpaid/received(5)(6) | $4,911 | $13,628 | $8 | $37 |
| Less:\tNetting\tagreements(7) | (524,481) | (524,481) | — | — |
| Less:\tNetting\tcash\tcollateral\treceived/paid(8) | (43,227) | (42,609) | (1,949) | (53) |
| Net\treceivables/payables\tincluded\ton\tthe\tconsolidated\tbalance\tsheet(9) | $56,184 | $57,592 | $1,755 | $1,624 |
| Additional\tamounts\tsubject\tto\tan\tenforceable\tmaster\tnetting\tagreement\tbut\tnot\toffset\ton\tthe\nConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet |  |  |  |  |
| Less:\tCash\tcollateral\treceived/paid | $(779) | $(2) | $— | $— |
| Less:\tNon-cash\tcollateral\treceived/paid | (9,855) | (5,131) | (270) | — |
| Total\tnet\treceivables/payables(9) | $45,550 | $52,459 | $1,485 | $1,624 |

(1) The	trading	derivatives	fair	values	are	presented	in	Note	13	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(2) Derivative	mark-to-market	receivables/payables	related	to	management	hedges	are	recorded	in	either	 Other	assets/Other	liabilities	or	Trading	account	assets/Trading	account	liabilities.

(3) Over-the-counter	(OTC)	derivatives	are	derivatives	executed	and	settled	bilaterally	with	counterparties	without	the	use	of	an	organized	exchange	or	central	clearing	house.	Cleared	derivatives	include derivatives	executed	bilaterally	with	a	counterparty	in	the	OTC	market	but	then	novated	to	a	central	clearing	house,	whereby	the	central	clearing	house	becomes	the	counterparty	to	both	of	the	original counterparties.	Exchange	traded	derivatives	include	derivatives	executed	directly	on	an	organized	exchange	that	provides	pre-trade	price	transparency.

(4) The	credit	derivatives	trading	assets	comprise	$17,957	million	related	to	protection	purchased	and	 $16,918	million	related	to	protection	sold	as	of	December	31,	2015.	The	credit	derivatives	trading liabilities	comprise	$16,968	million	related	to	protection	purchased	and	 $17,200	million	related	to	protection	sold	as	of	December	31,	2015.

(5) For	the	trading	account	assets/liabilities,	reflects	the	net	amount	of	the	$47,520	million	and	$56,855	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	paid	and	received,	respectively.	Of	the	gross	cash	collateral	paid, $42,609	million	was	used	to	offset	trading	derivative	liabilities	and,	of	the	gross	cash	collateral	received,	 $43,227	million	was	used	to	offset	trading	derivative	assets.

(6) For	cash	collateral	paid	with	respect	to	non-trading	derivative	assets,	reflects	the	net	amount	of	 $61	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	paid,	of	which	 $53	million	is	netted	against	non-trading	derivative positions	within	Other	liabilities.	For	cash	collateral	received	with	respect	to	non-trading	derivative	liabilities,	reflects	the	net	amount	of	 $1,986	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	received,	of	which $1,949	million	is	netted	against	OTC	non-trading	derivative	positions	within	Other	assets.

(7) Represents	the	netting	of	derivative	receivable	and	payable	balances	with	the	same	counterparty	under	enforceable	netting	agreements.	Approximately $391	billion,	$126	billion	and	$7	billion	of	the netting	against	trading	account	asset/liability	balances	is	attributable	to	each	of	the	OTC,	cleared	and	exchange-traded	derivatives,	respectively.

(8) Represents	the	netting	of	cash	collateral	paid	and	received	by	counterparty	under	enforceable	credit	support	agreements.	Substantially	all	cash	collateral	received	and	paid	is	netted	against	OTC derivative	assets	and	liabilities,	respectively.

(9) The	net	receivables/payables	include	approximately	$10	billion	of	derivative	asset	and	$10	billion	of	derivative	liability	fair	values	not	subject	to	enforceable	master	netting	agreements,	respectively.

| In	millions	of	dollars	at	December	31,	2014 | account	assets	/	liabilities(1)(2)(3) | Derivatives	classified	in	Trading | Derivatives	classified	in	Other<br>assets	/	liabilities(2)(3) | Derivatives	classified	in	Other<br>assets	/	liabilities(2)(3) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Derivatives\tinstruments\tdesignated\tas\tASC\t815\thedges | Assets | Liabilities | Assets | Liabilities |
| Over-the-counter | $1,508 | $204 | $3,117 | $414 |
| Cleared | 4,300 | 868 | — | 25 |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $5,808 | $1,072 | $3,117 | $439 |
| Over-the-counter | $3,885 | $743 | $678 | $588 |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | $3,885 | $743 | $678 | $588 |
| Total\tderivative\tinstruments\tdesignated\tas\tASC\t815\thedges | $9,693 | $1,815 | $3,795 | $1,027 |
| Derivatives\tinstruments\tnot\tdesignated\tas\tASC\t815\thedges |  |  |  |  |
| Over-the-counter | $376,778 | $359,689 | $106 | $— |
| Cleared | 255,847 | 261,499 | 6 | 21 |
| Exchange\ttraded | 20 | 22 | 141 | 164 |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $632,645 | $621,210 | $253 | $185 |
| Over-the-counter | $151,736 | $157,650 | $— | $17 |
| Cleared | 366 | 387 | — | — |
| Exchange\ttraded | 7 | 46 | — | — |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | $152,109 | $158,083 | $— | $17 |
| Over-the-counter | $20,425 | $28,333 | $— | $— |
| Cleared | 16 | 35 | — | — |
| Exchange\ttraded | 4,311 | 4,101 | — | — |
| Equity\tcontracts | $24,752 | $32,469 | $— | $— |
| Over-the-counter | $19,943 | $23,103 | $— | $— |
| Exchange\ttraded | 3,577 | 3,083 | — | — |
| Commodity\tand\tother\tcontracts | $23,520 | $26,186 | $— | $— |
| Over-the-counter | $39,412 | $39,439 | $265 | $384 |
| Cleared | 4,106 | 3,991 | 13 | 171 |
| Credit\tderivatives(4) | $43,518 | $43,430 | $278 | $555 |
| Total\tderivatives\tinstruments\tnot\tdesignated\tas\tASC\t815\thedges | $876,544 | $881,378 | $531 | $757 |
| Total\tderivatives | $886,237 | $883,193 | $4,326 | $1,784 |
| Cash\tcollateral\tpaid/received(5)(6) | $6,523 | $9,846 | $123 | $7 |
| Less:\tNetting\tagreements(7) | (777,178) | (777,178) | — | — |
| Less:\tNetting\tcash\tcollateral\treceived/paid(8) | (47,625) | (47,769) | (1,791) | (15) |
| Net\treceivables/payables\tincluded\ton\tthe\tConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet(9) | $67,957 | $68,092 | $2,658 | $1,776 |
| Additional\tamounts\tsubject\tto\tan\tenforceable\tmaster\tnetting\tagreement\tbut\tnot\toffset\ton\tthe\nConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet |  |  |  |  |
| Less:\tCash\tcollateral\treceived/paid | $(867) | $(11) | $— | $— |
| Less:\tNon-cash\tcollateral\treceived/paid | (10,043) | (6,264) | (1,293) | — |
| Total\tnet\treceivables/payables(9) | $57,047 | $61,817 | $1,365 | $1,776 |

(3) Over-the-counter	(OTC)	derivatives	include	derivatives	executed	and	settled	bilaterally	with	counterparties	without	the	use	of	an	organized	exchange	or	central	clearing	house.	Cleared	derivatives include	derivatives	executed	bilaterally	with	a	counterparty	in	the	OTC	market	but	then	novated	to	a	central	clearing	house,

whereby	the	central	clearing	house	becomes	the	counterparty	to	both	of	the	original	counterparties.	Exchange	traded	derivatives	include	derivatives	executed	directly	on	an	organized	exchange	that provides	pre-trade	price	transparency.

(4) The	credit	derivatives	trading	assets	comprise	$18,430	million	related	to	protection	purchased	and	 $25,088	million	related	to	protection	sold	as	of	December	31,	2014.	The	credit	derivatives	trading liabilities	comprise	$25,972	million	related	to	protection	purchased	and	 $17,458	million	related	to	protection	sold	as	of	December	31,	2014.

(5) For	the	trading	account	assets/liabilities,	reflects	the	net	amount	of	the	$54,292	million	and	$57,471	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	paid	and	received,	respectively.	Of	the	gross	cash	collateral	paid, $47,769	million	was	used	to	offset	derivative	liabilities	and,	of	the	gross	cash	collateral	received,	 $47,625	million	was	used	to	offset	derivative	assets.

(6) For	cash	collateral	paid	with	respect	to	non-trading	derivative	assets,	reflects	the	net	amount	of	 $138	million	of	the	gross	cash	collateral	paid,	of	which	 $15	million	is	netted	against	non-trading derivative	positions	within	Other	liabilities.	For	cash	collateral	received	with	respect	to	non-trading	derivative	liabilities,	reflects	the	net	amount	of	 $1,798	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	received	of which	$1,791	million	is	netted	against	non-trading	derivative	positions	within	Other	assets.

(7) Represents	the	netting	of	derivative	receivable	and	payable	balances	with	the	same	counterparty	under	enforceable	netting	agreements.	Approximately $510	billion,	$264	billion	and	$3	billion	of	the netting	against	trading	account	asset/liability	balances	is	attributable	to	each	of	the	OTC,	cleared	and	exchange-traded	derivatives,	respectively.

(8) Represents	the	netting	of	cash	collateral	paid	and	received	by	counterparty	under	enforceable	credit	support	agreements.	Substantially	all	cash	collateral	received	is	netted	against	OTC	derivative assets.	Cash	collateral	paid	of	approximately	$46	billion	and	$2	billion	is	netted	against	OTC	and	cleared	derivative	liabilities,	respectively.

(9) The	net	receivables/payables	include	approximately	$11	billion	of	derivative	asset	and	$10	billion	of	liability	fair	values	not	subject	to	enforceable	master	netting	agreements.

For	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013,	the	amounts recognized	in	Principal	transactions	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income related	to	derivatives	not	designated	in	a	qualifying	hedging	relationship,	as	well	as the	underlying	non-derivative	instruments,	are	presented	in	Note	6	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements.	Citigroup	presents	this	disclosure	by	business classification,	showing	derivative	gains	and	losses	related	to	its	trading	activities together	with	gains	and	losses	related	to	non-derivative	instruments	within	the same	trading	portfolios,	as	this	represents	the	way	these	portfolios	are	risk managed.

The	amounts	recognized	in	Other	revenue	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of Income	related	to	derivatives	not	designated	in	a	qualifying	hedging	relationship are	shown	below.	The	table	below	does	not	include	any	offsetting	gains/losses	on the	economically	hedged	items	to	the	extent	such	amounts	are	also	recorded	in Other	revenue.

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $117 | $(227) | $208 |
| Foreign\texchange | (39) | 14 | (41) |
| Credit\tderivatives | 476 | (150) | (594) |
| Total\tCitigroup | $554 | $(363) | $(427) |

# Accounting	for	Derivative	Hedging

Citigroup	accounts	for	its	hedging	activities	in	accordance	with	ASC	815, Derivatives	and	Hedging.	As	a	general	rule,	hedge	accounting	is	permitted	where the	Company	is	exposed	to	a	particular	risk,	such	as	interest-rate	or	foreign- exchange	risk,	that	causes	changes	in	the	fair	value	of	an	asset	or	liability	or variability	in	the	expected	future	cash	flows	of	an	existing	asset,	liability	or	a forecasted	transaction	that	may	affect	earnings.

Derivative	contracts	hedging	the	risks	associated	with	changes	in	fair	value	are referred	to	as	fair	value	hedges,	while	contracts	hedging	the	variability	of	expected future	cash	flows	are	cash	flow	hedges.	Hedges	that	utilize	derivatives	or	debt instruments	to	manage	the	foreign	exchange	risk	associated	with	equity investments	in	non-U.S.-dollar-functional-currency	foreign	subsidiaries	(net investment	in	a	foreign	operation)	are	net	investment	hedges.

If	certain	hedging	criteria	specified	in	ASC	815	are	met,	including	testing	for hedge	effectiveness,	hedge	accounting	may	be	applied.	The	hedge	effectiveness assessment	methodologies	for	similar	hedges	are	performed	in	a	similar	manner and	are	used	consistently	throughout	the	hedging	relationships.	For	fair	value hedges,	changes	in	the	value	of	the	hedging	derivative,	as	well	as	changes	in	the value	of	the	related	hedged	item	due	to	the	risk	being	hedged,	are	reflected	in current	earnings.	For	cash	flow	hedges	and	net	investment	hedges,	changes	in	the value	of	the	hedging	derivative	are	reflected	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive income	(loss)	in	Citigroup's	stockholders'	equity	to	the	extent	the	hedge	is	highly effective.	Hedge	ineffectiveness,	in	either	case,	is	reflected	in	current	earnings. For	asset/liability	management	hedging,	fixed-rate	long-term	debt	is	recorded at	amortized	cost	under	GAAP.	However,	by	designating	an	interest	rate	swap contract	as	a	hedging	instrument	and	electing	to	apply	ASC	815	fair	value	hedge accounting,	the	carrying	value	of	the	debt	is	adjusted	for	changes	in	the	benchmark interest	rate,	with	such	changes	in	value	recorded	in	current	earnings.	The	related interest-rate	swap	also	is	recorded	on	the	balance	sheet	at	fair	value,	with	any changes	in	fair	value	also	reflected	in	earnings.	Thus,	any	ineffectiveness	resulting from	the	hedging	relationship	is	captured	in	current	earnings.

Alternatively,	for	management	hedges	that	do	not	meet	the	ASC	815	hedging criteria,	the	derivative	is	recorded	at	fair	value	on	the	balance	sheet,	with	the associated	changes	in	fair	value	recorded	in	earnings,	while	the	debt	continues	to be	carried	at	amortized	cost.	Therefore,	current	earnings	are	affected	only	by	the interest	rate	shifts	and	other	factors	that	cause	a	change	in	the	swap's	value.	This type	of	hedge	is	undertaken	when	hedging	requirements	cannot	be	achieved	or management	decides	not	to	apply	ASC	815	hedge	accounting.

Another	alternative	is	to	elect	to	carry	the	debt	at	fair	value	under	the	fair value	option.	Once	the	irrevocable	election	is	made	upon	issuance	of	the	debt,	the full	change	in	fair	value	of	the	debt	is	reported	in	earnings.	The	related	interest	rate swap,	with	changes	in	fair	value,	is	also	reflected	in	earnings,	which	provides	a natural	offset	to	the	debt's	fair	value	change.	To	the	extent	the	two	offsets	are	not exactly	equal	because	the	full	change	in	the	fair	value	of	the	debt

includes	risks	not	offset	by	the	interest	rate	swap,	the	difference	is	captured	in current	earnings.

The	key	requirements	to	achieve	ASC	815	hedge	accounting	are documentation	of	a	hedging	strategy	and	specific	hedge	relationships	at	hedge inception	and	substantiating	hedge	effectiveness	on	an	ongoing	basis.	A	derivative must	be	highly	effective	in	accomplishing	the	hedge	objective	of	offsetting	either changes	in	the	fair	value	or	cash	flows	of	the	hedged	item	for	the	risk	being	hedged. Any	ineffectiveness	in	the	hedge	relationship	is	recognized	in	current	earnings.	The assessment	of	effectiveness	may	exclude	changes	in	the	value	of	the	hedged	item that	are	unrelated	to	the	risks	being	hedged.	Similarly,	the	assessment	of effectiveness	may	exclude	changes	in	the	fair	value	of	a	derivative	related	to	time value	that,	if	excluded,	are	recognized	in	current	earnings.

# Fair	Value	Hedges

# Hedging	of	Benchmark	Interest	Rate	Risk

Citigroup	hedges	exposure	to	changes	in	the	fair	value	of	outstanding	fixed-rate issued	debt.	These	hedges	are	designated	as	fair	value	hedges	of	the	benchmark interest	rate	risk	associated	with	the	currency	of	the	hedged	liability.	The	fixed cash	flows	of	the	hedged	items	are	converted	to	benchmark	variable-rate	cash	flows by	entering	into	receive-fixed,	pay-variable	interest	rate	swaps.	These	fair	value hedge	relationships	use	either	regression	or	dollar-offset	ratio	analysis	to	assess whether	the	hedging	relationships	are	highly	effective	at	inception	and	on	an ongoing	basis.

Citigroup	also	hedges	exposure	to	changes	in	the	fair	value	of	fixed-rate	assets due	to	changes	in	benchmark	interest	rates,	including	available-for-sale	debt securities	and	loans.	The	hedging	instruments	used	are	receive-variable,	pay-fixed interest	rate	swaps.	These	fair	value	hedging	relationships	use	either	regression	or dollar-offset	ratio	analysis	to	assess	whether	the	hedging	relationships	are	highly effective	at	inception	and	on	an	ongoing	basis.

# Hedging	of	Foreign	Exchange	Risk

Citigroup	hedges	the	change	in	fair	value	attributable	to	foreign-exchange	rate movements	in	available-for-sale	securities	that	are	denominated	in	currencies	other than	the	functional	currency	of	the	entity	holding	the	securities,	which	may	be within	or	outside	the	U.S.	The	hedging	instrument	employed	is	generally	a	forward foreign-exchange	contract.	In	this	hedge,	the	change	in	fair	value	of	the	hedged available-for-sale	security	attributable	to	the	portion	of	foreign	exchange	risk hedged	is	reported	in	earnings,	and	not	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income (loss)—which	serves	to	offset	the	change	in	fair	value	of	the	forward	contract	that is	also	reflected	in	earnings.	Citigroup	considers	the	premium	associated	with forward	contracts	(i.e.,	the	differential	between	spot	and	contractual	forward	rates) as	the	cost	of	hedging;	this	is	excluded	from	the	assessment	of	hedge	effectiveness and	reflected	directly	in	earnings.	The	dollar-offset	method	is	used	to	assess	hedge effectiveness.	Since	that	assessment	is	based	on	changes	in	fair	value	attributable	to changes	in	spot	rates	on	both	the	available-for-sale	securities	and	the	forward contracts	for	the	portion	of	the	relationship	hedged,	the	amount	of	hedge ineffectiveness	is	not	significant.

The	following	table	summarizes	the	gains	(losses)	on	the	Company's	fair	value	hedges:

|  | Year	ended	December	31, | Year	ended	December	31, |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Gain\t(loss)\ton\tthe\tderivatives\tin\tdesignated\tand\tqualifying\tfair\tvalue\thedges |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $(847) | $1,546 | $(3,288) |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | 1,315 | 1,367 | 265 |
| Commodity\tcontracts | 41 | (221) | — |
| Total\tgain\t(loss)\ton\tthe\tderivatives\tin\tdesignated\tand\tqualifying\tfair\tvalue\thedges | $509 | $2,692 | $(3,023) |
| Gain\t(loss)\ton\tthe\thedged\titem\tin\tdesignated\tand\tqualifying\tfair\tvalue\thedges |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\thedges | $792 | $(1,496) | $3,204 |
| Foreign\texchange\thedges | (1,258) | (1,422) | (185) |
| Commodity\thedges | (35) | 250 | — |
| Total\tgain\t(loss)\ton\tthe\thedged\titem\tin\tdesignated\tand\tqualifying\tfair\tvalue\thedges | $(501) | $(2,668) | $3,019 |
| Hedge\tineffectiveness\trecognized\tin\tearnings\ton\tdesignated\tand\tqualifying\tfair\tvalue\thedges |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\thedges | $(47) | $53 | $(84) |
| Foreign\texchange\thedges | (23) | (16) | (4) |
| Total\thedge\tineffectiveness\trecognized\tin\tearnings\ton\tdesignated\tand\tqualifying\tfair\tvalue\thedges | $(70) | $37 | $(88) |
| Net\tgain\t(loss)\texcluded\tfrom\tassessment\tof\tthe\teffectiveness\tof\tfair\tvalue\thedges |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $(8) | $(3) | $— |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts(2) | 80 | (39) | 84 |
| Commodity\thedges(2) | 6 | 29 | — |
| Total\tnet\tgain\t(loss)\texcluded\tfrom\tassessment\tof\tthe\teffectiveness\tof\tfair\tvalue\thedges | $78 | $(13) | $84 |

(1) Amounts	are	included	in	Other	revenue	on	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.	The	accrued	interest	income	on	fair	value	hedges	is	recorded	in	 Net	interest	revenue	and	is	excluded	from	this	table.

(2) Amounts	relate	to	the	premium	associated	with	forward	contracts	(differential	between	spot	and	contractual	forward	rates).	These	amounts	are	excluded	from	the	assessment	of	hedge	effectiveness	and are	reflected	directly	in	earnings.

# Cash	Flow	Hedges

Citigroup	hedges	variable	cash	flows	associated	with	floating-rate	liabilities	and the	rollover	(re-issuance)	of	liabilities.	Variable	cash	flows	from	those	liabilities are	converted	to	fixed-rate	cash	flows	by	entering	into	receive-variable,	pay-fixed interest	rate	swaps	and	receive-variable,	pay-fixed	forward-starting	interest	rate swaps.	Citi	also	hedges	variable	cash	flows	from	recognized	and	forecasted floating-rate	assets.	Variable	cash	flows	from	those	assets	are	converted	to	fixed- rate	cash	flows	by	entering	into	receive-fixed,	pay-variable	interest	rate	swaps. These	cash-flow	hedging	relationships	use	either	regression	analysis	or	dollar- offset	ratio	analysis	to	assess	whether	the	hedging	relationships	are	highly	effective at	inception	and	on	an	ongoing	basis.	When	certain	variable	interest	rates, associated	with	hedged	items,	do	not	qualify	as	benchmark	interest	rates,	Citigroup designates	the	risk	being	hedged	as	the	risk	of	overall	changes	in	the	hedged	cash flows.	Since	efforts	are	made	to	match	the	terms	of	the	derivatives	to	those	of	the hedged	forecasted	cash	flows	as	closely	as	possible,	the	amount	of	hedge ineffectiveness	is	not	significant.

Citigroup	locks	in	the	functional	currency	equivalent	cash	flows	of	long-term	debt and	short-term	borrowings	that	are	denominated	in	currencies	other	than	the functional	currency	of	the	issuing	entity.	Depending	on	the	risk	management objectives,	these	types	of	hedges	are	designated	as	either	cash	flow	hedges	of	only foreign	exchange	risk	or	cash	flow	hedges	of	both	foreign	exchange	and	interest rate	risk,	and	the	hedging	instruments	used	are	foreign	exchange	cross-currency swaps	and	forward	contracts.	These	cash	flow	hedge	relationships	use	dollar-offset ratio	analysis	to	determine	whether	the	hedging	relationships	are	highly	effective	at inception	and	on	an	ongoing	basis.

# Hedging	Total	Return

Citigroup	generally	manages	the	risk	associated	with	leveraged	loans	it	has originated	or	in	which	it	participates	by	transferring	a	majority	of	its	exposure	to the	market	through	SPEs	prior	to	or	shortly	after	funding.	Retained	exposures	to leveraged	loans	receivable	are	generally	hedged	using	total	return	swaps.

The	amount	of	hedge	ineffectiveness	on	the	cash	flow	hedges	recognized	in earnings	for	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013	is	not	significant. The	pretax	change	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	from	cash flow	hedges	is	presented	below:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Effective\tportion\tof\tcash\tflow\thedges\tincluded\tin\tAOCI |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $357 | $299 | $749 |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | (220) | (167) | 34 |
| Credit\tderivatives | — | 2 | 14 |
| Total\teffective\tportion\tof\tcash\tflow\thedges\tincluded\tin\tAOCI | $137 | $134 | $797 |
| Effective\tportion\tof\tcash\tflow\thedges\treclassified\tfrom\tAOCI\tto\tearnings |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $(186) | $(260) | $(700) |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | (146) | (149) | (176) |
| Total\teffective\tportion\tof\tcash\tflow\thedges\treclassified\tfrom\tAOCI\tto\tearnings(1) | $(332) | $(409) | $(876) |

(1) Included	primarily	in	Other	revenue	and	Net	interest	revenue	on	the	Consolidated	Income	Statement.

For	cash	flow	hedges,	the	changes	in	the	fair	value	of	the	hedging	derivative remaining	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	on	the	Consolidated Balance	Sheet	will	be	included	in	the	earnings	of	future	periods	to	offset	the variability	of	the	hedged	cash	flows	when	such	cash	flows	affect	earnings.	The	net loss	associated	with	cash	flow	hedges	expected	to	be	reclassified	from Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	within	12	months	of December	31,	2015	is	approximately	$0.3	billion.	The	maximum	length	of	time over	which	forecasted	cash	flows	are	hedged	is	10	years.

The	after-tax	impact	of	cash	flow	hedges	on	AOCI	is	shown	in	Note	20	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Net	Investment	Hedges

Consistent	with	ASC	830-20,	Foreign	Currency	Matters—Foreign	Currency Transactions,	ASC	815	allows	hedging	of	the	foreign	currency	risk	of	a	net investment	in	a	foreign	operation.	Citigroup	uses	foreign	currency	forwards, options	and	foreign-currency-denominated	debt	instruments	to	manage	the	foreign exchange	risk	associated	with	Citigroup's	equity	investments	in	several	non-U.S.- dollar-functional-currency	foreign	subsidiaries.	Citigroup	records	the	change	in	the carrying	amount	of	these	investments	in	the	Foreign	currency	translation adjustment	account	within	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss).

Simultaneously,	the	effective	portion	of	the	hedge	of	this	exposure	is	also	recorded in	the	Foreign	currency	translation	adjustment	account	and	the	ineffective	portion, if	any,	is	immediately	recorded	in	earnings.

For	derivatives	designated	as	net	investment	hedges,	Citigroup	follows	the forward-rate	method	outlined	in	ASC	815-35-35-16	through	35-26.	According	to that	method,	all	changes	in	fair	value,	including	changes	related	to	the	forward-rate component	of	the	foreign	currency	forward	contracts	and	the	time	value	of	foreign currency	options,	are	recorded	in	the	Foreign	currency	translation	adjustment account	within	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss).

For	foreign-currency-denominated	debt	instruments	that	are	designated	as hedges	of	net	investments,	the	translation	gain	or	loss	that	is	recorded	in	the Foreign	currency	translation	adjustment	account	is	based	on	the	spot	exchange rate	between	the	functional	currency	of	the	respective	subsidiary	and	the	U.S. dollar,	which	is	the	functional	currency	of	Citigroup.	To	the	extent	the	notional amount	of	the	hedging	instrument	exactly	matches	the	hedged	net	investment	and the	underlying	exchange	rate	of	the	derivative	hedging	instrument	relates	to	the exchange	rate	between	the	functional	currency	of	the	net	investment	and Citigroup's	functional	currency	(or,	in	the	case	of	a	non-derivative	debt	instrument, such	instrument	is	denominated	in	the	functional	currency	of	the	net	investment), no	ineffectiveness	is	recorded	in	earnings.

The	pretax	gain	(loss)	recorded	in	the	Foreign	currency	translation	adjustment account	within	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss),	related	to	the effective	portion	of	the	net	investment	hedges,	is	$2,475	million,	$2,890	million and	$2,370	million	for	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015	2014	and	2013, respectively.

# Credit	Derivatives

Citi	is	a	market	maker	and	trades	a	range	of	credit	derivatives.	Through	these contracts,	Citi	either	purchases	or	writes	protection	on	either	a	single	name	or	a portfolio	of	reference	credits.	Citi	also	uses	credit	derivatives	to	help	mitigate credit	risk	in	its	corporate	and	consumer	loan	portfolios	and	other	cash	positions, and	to	facilitate	client	transactions.

Citi	monitors	its	counterparty	credit	risk	in	credit	derivative	contracts.	As	of December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	approximately	98%	of	the	gross receivables	are	from	counterparties	with	which	Citi	maintains	collateral agreements.	A	majority	of	Citi's	top	15	counterparties	(by	receivable	balance	owed to	Citi)	are	banks,	financial	institutions	or	other	dealers.	Contracts	with	these counterparties	do	not	include	ratings-based	termination	events.	However, counterparty	ratings	downgrades	may	have	an	incremental	effect	by	lowering	the threshold	at	which	Citi	may call	for	additional	collateral.

The	range	of	credit	derivatives	entered	into	includes	credit	default	swaps,	total return	swaps,	credit	options	and	credit-linked	notes.

A	credit	default	swap	is	a	contract	in	which,	for	a	fee,	a	protection	seller	agrees to	reimburse	a	protection	buyer	for	any	losses	that	occur	due	to	a	predefined	credit event	on	a	reference	entity.	These	credit	events	are	defined	by	the	terms	of	the derivative	contract	and	the	reference	credit	and	are	generally	limited	to	the	market standard	of	failure	to	pay	on	indebtedness	and	bankruptcy	of	the	reference	credit and,	in	a	more	limited	range	of	transactions,	debt	restructuring.	Credit

derivative	transactions	that	reference	emerging	market	entities	will	also	typically include	additional	credit	events	to	cover	the	acceleration	of	indebtedness	and	the risk	of	repudiation	or	a	payment	moratorium.	In	certain	transactions,	protection may	be	provided	on	a	portfolio	of	reference	entities	or	asset-backed	securities.	If there	is	no	credit	event,	as	defined	by	the	specific	derivative	contract,	then	the protection	seller	makes	no	payments	to	the	protection	buyer	and	receives	only	the contractually	specified	fee.	However,	if	a	credit	event	occurs	as	defined	in	the specific	derivative	contract	sold,	the	protection	seller	will	be	required	to	make	a payment	to	the	protection	buyer.	Under	certain	contracts,	the	seller	of	protection may	not	be	required	to	make	a	payment	until	a	specified	amount	of	losses	has occurred	with	respect	to	the	portfolio	and/or	may	only	be	required	to	pay	for	losses up	to	a	specified	amount.

A	total	return	swap	typically	transfers	the	total	economic	performance	of	a reference	asset,	which	includes	all	associated	cash	flows,	as	well	as	capital appreciation	or	depreciation.	The	protection	buyer	receives	a	floating	rate	of interest	and	any	depreciation	on	the	reference	asset	from	the	protection	seller	and, in	return,	the	protection	seller	receives	the	cash	flows	associated	with	the	reference asset	plus	any	appreciation.	Thus,	according	to	the	total	return	swap	agreement,	the protection	seller	will	be	obligated	to	make	a	payment	any	time	the	floating	interest rate	payment	plus	any	depreciation	of	the	reference	asset	exceeds	the	cash	flows associated	with	the	underlying	asset.	A	total	return	swap	may	terminate	upon	a default	of	the	reference	asset	or	a	credit	event	with	respect	to	the	reference	entity subject	to	the	provisions	of	the	related	total	return	swap	agreement	between	the protection	seller	and	the	protection	buyer.

A	credit	option	is	a	credit	derivative	that	allows	investors	to	trade	or	hedge changes	in	the	credit	quality	of	a	reference	entity.	For	example,	in	a	credit	spread option,	the	option	writer	assumes	the	obligation	to	purchase	or	sell	credit	protection on	the	reference	entity	at	a	specified	"strike"	spread	level.	The	option	purchaser buys	the	right	to	sell	credit	default	protection	on	the	reference	entity	to,	or	purchase it	from,	the	option	writer	at	the	strike	spread	level.	The	payments	on	credit	spread options	depend	either	on	a	particular	credit	spread	or	the	price	of	the	underlying credit-sensitive	asset	or	other	reference.	The	options	usually	terminate	if	a	credit event	occurs	with	respect	to	the	underlying	reference	entity.

A	credit-linked	note	is	a	form	of	credit	derivative	structured	as	a	debt	security with	an	embedded	credit	default	swap.	The	purchaser	of	the	note	effectively provides	credit	protection	to	the	issuer	by	agreeing	to	receive	a	return	that	could	be negatively	affected	by	credit	events	on	the	underlying	reference	credit.	If	the reference	entity	defaults,	the	note	may	be	cash	settled	or	physically	settled	by delivery	of	a	debt	security	of	the	reference	entity.	Thus,	the	maximum	amount	of the	note	purchaser's	exposure	is	the	amount	paid	for	the	credit-linked	note.

The	following	tables	summarize	the	key	characteristics	of	Citi's	credit	derivatives	portfolio	by	counterparty	and	derivative	form:

|  | Fair	values | Fair	values | Notionals |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | Receivable(1) | Payable(2) | Protection\npurchased | Protection\nsold |
| By\tindustry/counterparty |  |  |  |  |
| Banks | $18,377 | $16,988 | $513,335 | $508,459 |
| Broker-dealers | 5,895 | 6,697 | 155,195 | 152,604 |
| Non-financial | 128 | 123 | 3,969 | 2,087 |
| Insurance\tand\tother\tfinancial\tinstitutions | 11,317 | 10,923 | 332,715 | 287,772 |
| Total\tby\tindustry/counterparty | $35,717 | $34,731 | $1,005,214 | $950,922 |
| By\tinstrument |  |  |  |  |
| Credit\tdefault\tswaps\tand\toptions | $34,849 | $34,158 | $981,999 | $940,650 |
| Total\treturn\tswaps\tand\tother | 868 | 573 | 23,215 | 10,272 |
| Total\tby\tinstrument | $35,717 | $34,731 | $1,005,214 | $950,922 |
| By\trating |  |  |  |  |
| Investment\tgrade | $12,694 | $13,142 | $764,040 | $720,521 |
| Non-investment\tgrade | 23,023 | 21,589 | 241,174 | 230,401 |
| Total\tby\trating | $35,717 | $34,731 | $1,005,214 | $950,922 |
| By\tmaturity |  |  |  |  |
| Within\t1\tyear | $3,871 | $3,559 | $265,632 | $254,225 |
| From\t1\tto\t5\tyears | 27,991 | 27,488 | 669,834 | 639,460 |
| After\t5\tyears | 3,855 | 3,684 | 69,748 | 57,237 |
| Total\tby\tmaturity | $35,717 | $34,731 | $1,005,214 | $950,922 |

(1) The	fair	value	amount	receivable	is	composed	of	$ 18,799	million	under	protection	purchased	and	$ 16,918	million	under	protection	sold.

(2) The	fair	value	amount	payable	is	composed	of	$ 17,531	million	under	protection	purchased	and	$ 17,200	million	under	protection	sold.

|  | Fair	values | Fair	values | Notionals |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2014 | Receivable(1) | Payable(2) | Protection\npurchased | Protection\nsold |
| By\tindustry/counterparty |  |  |  |  |
| Banks | $24,828 | $23,189 | $574,764 | $604,700 |
| Broker-dealers | 8,093 | 9,309 | 204,542 | 199,693 |
| Non-financial | 91 | 113 | 3,697 | 1,595 |
| Insurance\tand\tother\tfinancial\tinstitutions | 10,784 | 11,374 | 333,384 | 257,870 |
| Total\tby\tindustry/counterparty | $43,796 | $43,985 | $1,116,387 | $1,063,858 |
| By\tinstrument |  |  |  |  |
| Credit\tdefault\tswaps\tand\toptions | $42,930 | $42,201 | $1,094,199 | $1,054,671 |
| Total\treturn\tswaps\tand\tother | 866 | 1,784 | 22,188 | 9,187 |
| Total\tby\tinstrument | $43,796 | $43,985 | $1,116,387 | $1,063,858 |
| By\trating |  |  |  |  |
| Investment\tgrade | $17,432 | $17,182 | $824,831 | $786,848 |
| Non-investment\tgrade | 26,364 | 26,803 | 291,556 | 277,010 |
| Total\tby\trating | $43,796 | $43,985 | $1,116,387 | $1,063,858 |
| By\tmaturity |  |  |  |  |
| Within\t1\tyear | $4,356 | $4,278 | $250,489 | $229,502 |
| From\t1\tto\t5\tyears | 34,692 | 35,160 | 790,251 | 772,001 |
| After\t5\tyears | 4,748 | 4,547 | 75,647 | 62,355 |
| Total\tby\tmaturity | $43,796 | $43,985 | $1,116,387 | $1,063,858 |

(1) The	fair	value	amount	receivable	is	composed	of	$ 18,708	million	under	protection	purchased	and	$ 25,088	million	under	protection	sold.

(2) The	fair	value	amount	payable	is	composed	of	$ 26,527	million	under	protection	purchased	and	$ 17,458	million	under	protection	sold.

Fair	values	included	in	the	above	tables	are	prior	to	application	of	any	netting agreements	and	cash	collateral.	For	notional	amounts,	Citi	generally	has	a mismatch	between	the	total	notional	amounts	of	protection	purchased	and	sold,	and it	may	hold	the	reference	assets	directly,	rather	than	entering	into	offsetting	credit derivative	contracts	as	and	when	desired.	The	open	risk	exposures	from	credit derivative	contracts	are	largely	matched	after	certain	cash	positions	in	reference assets	are	considered	and	after	notional	amounts	are	adjusted,	either	to	a	duration- based	equivalent	basis	or	to	reflect	the	level	of	subordination	in	tranched	structures. The	ratings	of	the	credit	derivatives	portfolio	presented	in	the	tables	and	used	to evaluate	payment/performance	risk	are	based	on	the	assigned	internal	or	external ratings	of	the	referenced	asset	or	entity.	Where	external	ratings	are	used, investment-grade	ratings	are	considered	to	be	'Baa/BBB'	and	above,	while anything	below	is	considered	non-investment	grade.	Citi's	internal	ratings	are	in line	with	the	related	external	rating	system.

Citigroup	evaluates	the	payment/performance	risk	of	the	credit	derivatives	for which	it	stands	as	a	protection	seller	based	on	the	credit	rating	assigned	to	the underlying	referenced	credit.	Credit	derivatives	written	on	an	underlying	non- investment	grade	reference	credit	represent	greater	payment	risk	to	the	Company. The	non-investment	grade	category	in	the	table	above	also	includes	credit derivatives	where	the	underlying	referenced	entity	has	been	downgraded subsequent	to	the	inception	of	the	derivative.

The	maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments	under	credit	derivative contracts	presented	in	the	table	above	is	based	on	the	notional	value	of	the derivatives.	The	Company	believes	that	the	notional	amount	for	credit	protection sold	is	not	representative	of	the	actual	loss	exposure	based	on	historical	experience. This	amount	has	not	been	reduced	by	the	value	of	the	reference	assets	and	the related	cash	flows.	In	accordance	with	most	credit	derivative	contracts,	should	a credit	event	occur,	the	Company	usually	is	liable	for	the	difference	between	the protection	sold	and	the	value	of	the	reference	assets.	Furthermore,	the	notional amount	for	credit	protection	sold	has	not	been	reduced	for	any	cash	collateral	paid to	a	given	counterparty,	as	such	payments	would	be	calculated	after	netting	all derivative	exposures,	including	any	credit	derivatives	with	that	counterparty	in accordance	with	a	related	master	netting	agreement.	Due	to	such	netting	processes, determining	the	amount	of	collateral	that	corresponds	to	credit	derivative exposures	alone	is	not	possible.	The	Company	actively	monitors	open	credit-risk exposures	and	manages	this	exposure	by	using	a	variety	of	strategies,	including purchased	credit	derivatives,	cash	collateral	or	direct	holdings	of	the	referenced assets.	This	risk	mitigation	activity	is	not	captured	in	the	table	above.

# Credit-Risk-Related	Contingent	Features	in	Derivatives

Certain	derivative	instruments	contain	provisions	that	require	the	Company	to either	post	additional	collateral	or	immediately	settle	any	outstanding	liability balances	upon	the	occurrence	of	a	specified	event	related	to	the	credit	risk	of	the Company.	These	events,	which	are	defined	by	the	existing	derivative	contracts,	are primarily	downgrades	in	the	credit	ratings	of	the	Company	and	its	affiliates.	The fair	value	(excluding	CVA)	of	all	derivative	instruments	with	credit-risk-related contingent	features	that	were	in	a	net	liability	position	at	both	December	31,	2015 and	December	31,	2014	was	$22	billion	and	$30	billion,	respectively.	The Company	had	posted	$19	billion	and	$27	billion	as	collateral	for	this	exposure	in the	normal	course	of	business	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014, respectively.

A	downgrade	could	trigger	additional	collateral	or	cash	settlement requirements	for	the	Company	and	certain	affiliates.	In	the	event	that	Citigroup	and Citibank	were	downgraded	a	single	notch	by	all	three	major	rating	agencies	as	of December	31,	2015,	the	Company	could	be	required	to	post	an	additional	$1.8 billion	as	either	collateral	or	settlement	of	the	derivative	transactions.	Additionally, the	Company	could	be	required	to	segregate	with	third-party	custodians	collateral previously	received	from	existing	derivative	counterparties	in	the	amount	of	$0.1 billion	upon	the	single	notch	downgrade,	resulting	in	aggregate	cash	obligations and	collateral	requirements	of	approximately	$1.9	billion.

transaction.	These	transactions	generally	do	not	result	in	a	gain	or	loss	on	the	sale of	the	security,	because	the	transferred	security	was	held	at	fair	value	in	the Company's	trading	portfolio.	For	transfers	of	financial	assets	accounted	for	by	the Company	as	a	sale,	where	the	Company	has	retained	substantially	all	of	the economic	exposure	to	the	transferred	asset	through	a	total	return	swap	executed	in contemplation	of	the	initial	sale	with	the	same	counterparty	and	still	outstanding	as of	December	31,	2015,	both	the	asset	carrying	amounts	derecognized	and	gross cash	proceeds	received	as	of	the	date	of	derecognition	were	$1.0	billion.	At December	31,	2015,	the	fair	value	of	these	previously	derecognized	assets	was	$1.0 billion	and	the	fair	value	of	the	total	return	swaps	was	$7	million	recorded	as	gross derivative	assets	and	$35	million	recorded	as	gross	derivative	liabilities.	The balances	for	the	total	return	swaps	are	on	a	gross	basis,	before	the	application	of counterparty	and	cash	collateral	netting,	and	are	included	primarily	as	equity derivatives	in	the	tabular	disclosures	in	this	Note.

# Derivatives	Accompanied	by	Financial	Asset	Transfers

The	Company	executes	total	return	swaps	which	provide	it	with	synthetic	exposure to	substantially	all	of	the	economic	return	of	the	securities	or	other	financial	assets referenced	in	the	contract.	In	certain	cases,	the	derivative	transaction	is accompanied	by	the	Company's	transfer	of	the	referenced	financial	asset	to	the derivative	counterparty,	most	typically	in	response	to	the	derivative	counterparty's desire	to	hedge,	in	whole	or	in	part,	its	synthetic	exposure	under	the	derivative contract	by	holding	the	referenced	asset	in	funded	form.	In	certain	jurisdictions these	transactions	qualify	as	sales,	resulting	in	derecognition	of	the	securities transferred	(see	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	further discussion	of	the	related	sale	conditions	for	transfers	of	financial	assets).	For	a significant	portion	of	the	transactions,	the	Company	has	also	executed	another	total return	swap	where	the	Company	passes	on	substantially	all	of	the	economic	return of	the	referenced	securities	to	a	different	third	party	seeking	the	exposure.	In	those cases,	the	Company	is	not	exposed,	on	a	net	basis,	to	changes	in	the	economic return	of	the	referenced	securities.

These	transactions	generally	involve	the	transfer	of	the	Company's	liquid government	bonds,	convertible	bonds,	or	publicly	traded	corporate	equity securities	from	the	trading	portfolio	and	are	executed	with	third-party	financial institutions.	The	accompanying	derivatives	are	typically	total	return	swaps.	The derivatives	are	cash	settled	and	subject	to	ongoing	margin	requirements. When	the	conditions	for	sale	accounting	are	met,	the	Company	reports	the transfer	of	the	referenced	financial	asset	as	a	sale	and	separately	reports	the accompanying	derivative

# 24.	CONCENTRATIONS	OF	CREDIT	RISK

Concentrations	of	credit	risk	exist	when	changes	in	economic,	industry	or geographic	factors	similarly	affect	groups	of	counterparties	whose	aggregate	credit exposure	is	material	in	relation	to	Citigroup's	total	credit	exposure.	Although Citigroup's	portfolio	of	financial	instruments	is	broadly	diversified	along	industry, product,	and	geographic	lines,	material	transactions	are	completed	with	other financial	institutions,	particularly	in	the	securities	trading,	derivatives	and	foreign exchange	businesses.

In	connection	with	the	Company's	efforts	to	maintain	a	diversified	portfolio, the	Company	limits	its	exposure	to	any	one	geographic	region,	country	or individual	creditor	and	monitors	this	exposure	on	a	continuous	basis.	At December	31,	2015,	Citigroup's	most	significant	concentration	of	credit	risk	was with	the	U.S.	government	and	its	agencies.	The	Company's	exposure,	which primarily	results	from	trading	assets	and	investments	issued	by	the	U.S. government	and	its	agencies,	amounted	to	$223.0	billion	and	$216.3	billion	at December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.	The	Mexican	and	United	Kingdom governments	and	their	agencies,	which	are	rated	investment	grade	by	both	Moody's and	S&P,	were	the	next	largest	exposures.	The	Company's	exposure	to	Mexico amounted	to	$22.5	billion	and	$29.7	billion	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014, respectively,	and	was	composed	of	investment	securities,	loans	and	trading	assets. The	Company's	exposure	to	the	United	Kingdom	amounted	to	$20.4	billion	and $18.0	billion	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	and	was	composed	of investment	securities,	loans	and	trading	assets.

The	Company's	exposure	to	states	and	municipalities	amounted	to	$29.3 billion	and	$31.0	billion	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	and	was composed	of	trading	assets,	investment	securities,	derivatives	and	lending activities.

# 25.			FAIR	VALUE	MEASUREMENT

ASC	820-10	Fair	Value	Measurement,	defines	fair	value,	establishes	a	consistent framework	for	measuring	fair	value	and	requires	disclosures	about	fair	value measurements.	Fair	value	is	defined	as	the	price	that	would	be	received	to	sell	an asset	or	paid	to	transfer	a	liability	in	an	orderly	transaction	between	market participants	at	the	measurement	date.	Among	other	things,	the	standard	requires	the Company	to	maximize	the	use	of	observable	inputs	and	minimize	the	use	of unobservable	inputs	when	measuring	fair	value.

Under	ASC	820-10,	the	probability	of	default	of	a	counterparty	is	factored	into the	valuation	of	derivative	and	other	positions	as	well	as	the	impact	of	Citigroup's own	credit	risk	on	derivatives	and	other	liabilities	measured	at	fair	value.

# Fair	Value	Hierarchy

ASC	820-10	specifies	a	hierarchy	of	inputs	based	on	whether	the	inputs	are observable	or	unobservable.	Observable	inputs	are	developed	using	market	data and	reflect	market	participant	assumptions,	while	unobservable	inputs	reflect	the Company's	market	assumptions.	These	two	types	of	inputs	have	created	the following	fair	value	hierarchy:

•Level	1:	Quoted	prices	for	identical	instruments	in	active markets.

•Level	2:	Quoted	prices	for	similar	instruments	in	active	markets;	quoted	prices for	identical	or	similar	instruments	in	markets	that	are	not	active;	and	model- derived	valuations	in	which	all	significant	inputs	and	significant	value	drivers are	observable	in	active	markets.

•Level	3:	Valuations	derived	from	valuation	techniques	in	which	one	or	more significant	inputs	or	significant	value	drivers	are	unobservable.

As	required	under	the	fair	value	hierarchy,	the	Company	considers	relevant and	observable	market	inputs	in	its	valuations	where	possible.	The	frequency	of transactions,	the	size	of	the	bid-ask	spread	and	the	amount	of	adjustment	necessary when	comparing	similar	transactions	are	all	factors	in	determining	the	liquidity	of markets	and	the	relevance	of	observed	prices	in	those	markets.

The	Company's	policy	with	respect	to	transfers	between	levels	of	the	fair value	hierarchy	is	to	recognize	transfers	into	and	out	of	each	level	as	of	the	end	of the	reporting	period.

# Determination	of	Fair	Value

For	assets	and	liabilities	carried	at	fair	value,	the	Company	measures	fair	value using	the	procedures	set	out	below,	irrespective	of	whether	the	assets	and	liabilities are	measured	at	fair	value	as	a	result	of	an	election	or	whether	they	are	required	to be	measured	at	fair	value.

When	available,	the	Company	uses	quoted	market	prices	to	determine	fair value	and	classifies	such	items	as	Level	1.	In	some	cases	where	a	market	price	is available,	the

Company	will	make	use	of	acceptable	practical	expedients	(such	as	matrix	pricing) to	calculate	fair	value,	in	which	case	the	items	are	classified	as	Level	2.

The	Company	may	also	apply	a	price-based	methodology,	which	utilizes, where	available,	quoted	prices	or	other	market	information	obtained	from	recent trading	activity	in	positions	with	the	same	or	similar	characteristics	to	the	position being	valued.	The	market	activity	and	the	amount	of	the	bid-ask	spread	are	among the	factors	considered	in	determining	the	liquidity	of	markets	and	the	observability of	prices	from	those	markets.	If	relevant	and	observable	prices	are	available,	those valuations	may	be	classified	as	Level	2.	When	less	liquidity	exists	for	a	security	or loan,	a	quoted	price	is	stale,	a	significant	adjustment	to	the	price	of	a	similar security	is	necessary	to	reflect	differences	in	the	terms	of	the	actual	security	or	loan being	valued,	or	prices	from	independent	sources	are	insufficient	to	corroborate	the valuation,	the	"price"	inputs	are	considered	unobservable	and	the	fair	value measurements	are	classified	as	Level	3.

If	quoted	market	prices	are	not	available,	fair	value	is	based	upon	internally developed	valuation	techniques	that	use,	where	possible,	current	market-based parameters,	such	as	interest	rates,	currency	rates	and	option	volatilities.	Items valued	using	such	internally	generated	valuation	techniques	are	classified according	to	the	lowest	level	input	or	value	driver	that	is	significant	to	the valuation.	Thus,	an	item	may	be	classified	as	Level	3	even	though	there	may	be some	significant	inputs	that	are	readily	observable.

Fair	value	estimates	from	internal	valuation	techniques	are	verified,	where possible,	to	prices	obtained	from	independent	vendors	or	brokers.	Vendors'	and brokers'	valuations	may	be	based	on	a	variety	of	inputs	ranging	from	observed prices	to	proprietary	valuation	models.

The	following	section	describes	the	valuation	methodologies	used	by	the Company	to	measure	various	financial	instruments	at	fair	value,	including	an indication	of	the	level	in	the	fair	value	hierarchy	in	which	each	instrument	is generally	classified.	Where	appropriate,	the	description	includes	details	of	the valuation	models,	the	key	inputs	to	those	models	and	any	significant	assumptions.

# Market	Valuation	Adjustments

Generally,	the	unit	of	account	for	a	financial	instrument	is	the	individual	financial instrument.	The	Company	applies	market	valuation	adjustments	that	are	consistent with	the	unit	of	account,	which	does	not	include	adjustment	due	to	the	size	of	the Company's	position,	except	as	follows.	ASC	820-10	permits	an	exception,	through an	accounting	policy	election,	to	measure	the	fair	value	of	a	portfolio	of	financial assets	and	financial	liabilities	on	the	basis	of	the	net	open	risk	position	when certain	criteria	are	met.	Citi	has	elected	to	measure	certain	portfolios	of	financial instruments,	such	as	derivatives,	that	meet	those	criteria	on	the	basis	of	the	net open	risk	position.	The	Company	applies	market	valuation	adjustments,	including adjustments	to	account	for	the	size	of	the	net	open	risk	position,	consistent	with market	participant	assumptions	and	in	accordance	with	the	unit	of	account.

Liquidity	adjustments	are	applied	to	items	in	Level	2	or	Level	3	of	the	fair- value	hierarchy	in	an	effort	to	ensure	that	the	fair	value	reflects	the	price	at	which the	net	open	risk	position	could	be	liquidated.	The	liquidity	adjustment	is	based	on the	bid/offer	spread	for	an	instrument.	When	Citi	has	elected	to	measure	certain portfolios	of	financial	investments,	such	as	derivatives,	on	the	basis	of	the	net	open risk	position,	the	liquidity	adjustment	may	be	adjusted	to	take	into	account	the	size of	the	position.

Credit	valuation	adjustments	(CVA)	and,	effective	in	the	third	quarter	of	2014, funding	valuation	adjustments	(FVA),	are	applied	to	over-the-counter	(OTC) derivative	instruments	in	which	the	base	valuation	generally	discounts	expected cash	flows	using	the	relevant	base	interest	rate	curve	for	the	currency	of	the derivative	(e.g.,	LIBOR	for	uncollateralized	U.S.-dollar	derivatives).	As	not	all counterparties	have	the	same	credit	risk	as	that	implied	by	the	relevant	base	curve, a	CVA	is	necessary	to	incorporate	the	market	view	of	both	counterparty	credit	risk and	Citi's	own	credit	risk	in	the	valuation.	FVA	reflects	a	market	funding	risk premium	inherent	in	the	uncollateralized	portion	of	derivative	portfolios,	and	in collateralized	derivatives	where	the	terms	of	the	agreement	do	not	permit	the	reuse of	the	collateral	received.

Citi's	CVA	and	FVA	methodology	is	composed	of	two	steps.

•First,	the	exposure	profile	for	each	counterparty	is	determined	using	the	terms of	all	individual	derivative	positions	and	a	Monte	Carlo	simulation	or	other quantitative	analysis	to	generate	a	series	of	expected	cash	flows	at	future points	in	time.	The	calculation	of	this	exposure	profile	considers	the	effect	of credit	risk	mitigants	and	sources	of	funding,	including	pledged	cash	or	other collateral	and	any	legal	right	of	offset	that	exists	with	a	counterparty	through arrangements	such	as	netting	agreements.	Individual	derivative	contracts	that are	subject	to	an	enforceable	master	netting	agreement	with	a	counterparty	are aggregated	as	a	netting	set	for	this	purpose,	since	it	is	those	aggregate	net	cash flows	that	are	subject	to	nonperformance	risk.	This	process	identifies	specific, point-in-time	future	cash	flows	that	are	subject	to	nonperformance	risk	and unsecured	funding,	rather	than	using	the	current	recognized	net	asset	or liability	as	a	basis	to	measure	the	CVA	and	FVA. •Second,	for	CVA,	market-based	views	of	default	probabilities	derived	from observed	credit	spreads	in	the	credit	default	swap	(CDS)	market	are	applied	to the	expected	future	cash	flows	determined	in	step	one.	Citi's	own-credit	CVA is	determined	using	Citi-specific	CDS	spreads	for	the	relevant	tenor. Generally,	counterparty	CVA	is	determined	using	CDS	spread	indices	for	each credit	rating	and	tenor.	For	certain	identified	netting	sets	where	individual analysis	is	practicable	(e.g.,	exposures	to	counterparties	with	liquid	CDSs), counterparty-specific	CDS	spreads	are	used.	For	FVA,	a	term	structure	of future	liquidity	spreads	is	applied	to	the	expected	future	funding	requirement.

The	CVA	and	FVA	are	designed	to	incorporate	a	market	view	of	the	credit	and funding	risk,	respectively,	inherent	in	the	derivative	portfolio.	However,	most unsecured	derivative	instruments	are	negotiated	bilateral	contracts	and	are	not commonly	transferred	to	third	parties.	Derivative	instruments	are	normally	settled contractually	or,	if	terminated	early,	are	terminated	at	a	value	negotiated	bilaterally between	the	counterparties.	Thus,	the	CVA	and	FVA	may	not	be	realized	upon	a settlement	or	termination	in	the	normal	course	of	business.	In	addition,	all	or	a portion	of	these	adjustments	may	be	reversed	or	otherwise	adjusted	in	future periods	in	the	event	of	changes	in	the	credit	or	funding	risk	associated	with	the derivative	instruments.

The	table	below	summarizes	the	CVA	and	FVA	applied	to	the	fair	value	of derivative	instruments	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014:

|  | Credit	and	funding	valuation	adjustments<br>contra-liability	(contra-asset) | Credit	and	funding	valuation	adjustments<br>contra-liability	(contra-asset) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | December\t31,\n2015 | December\t31,\n2014 |
| Counterparty\tCVA | $(1,470) | $(1,853) |
| Asset\tFVA | (584) | (518) |
| Citigroup\t(own-credit)\tCVA | 471 | 580 |
| Liability\tFVA | 106 | 19 |
| Total\tCVA—derivative\ninstruments(1) | $(1,477) | $(1,772) |

(1) FVA	is	included	with	CVA	for	presentation	purposes.

The	table	below	summarizes	pretax	gains	(losses)	related	to	changes	in	CVA on	derivative	instruments,	net	of	hedges,	FVA	on	derivatives	and	debt	valuation adjustments	(DVA)	on	Citi's	own	fair	value	option	(FVO)	liabilities	for	the	years indicated:

|  | Credit/funding/debt	valuation | adjustments	gain	(loss) |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| Counterparty\tCVA | $(115) | $(43) | $291 |
| Asset\tFVA | (66) | (518) | — |
| Own-credit\tCVA | (28) | (65) | (223) |
| Liability\tFVA | 98 | 19 | — |
| Total\tCVA—derivative\ninstruments | $(111) | $(607) | $68 |
| DVA\trelated\tto\town\tFVO\tliabilities | $366 | $217 | $(410) |
| Total\tCVA\tand\tDVA(1) | $255 | $(390) | $(342) |

# Valuation	Process	for	Fair	Value	Measurements

Price	verification	procedures	and	related	internal	control	procedures	are	governed by	the	Citigroup	Pricing	and	Price	Verification	Policy	and	Standards,	which	is jointly	owned	by	Finance	and	Risk	Management.

For	fair	value	measurements	of	substantially	all	assets	and	liabilities	held	by the	Company,	individual	business	units	are	responsible	for	valuing	the	trading account	assets	and	liabilities,	and	Product	Control	within	Finance	performs independent	price	verification	procedures	to	evaluate	those	fair	value measurements.	Product	Control	is	independent	of	the	individual	business	units	and reports	to	the	Global	Head	of	Product	Control.	It	has	authority	over	the	valuation of	financial	assets	and	liabilities.	Fair	value	measurements	of	assets	and	liabilities are	determined	using	various	techniques,	including,	but	not	limited	to,	discounted cash	flows	and	internal	models,	such	as	option	and	correlation	models. Based	on	the	observability	of	inputs	used,	Product	Control	classifies	the inventory	as	Level	1,	Level	2	or	Level	3	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy.	When	a position	involves	one	or	more	significant	inputs	that	are	not	directly	observable, price	verification	procedures	are	performed	that	may	include	reviewing	relevant historical	data,	analyzing	profit	and	loss,	valuing	each	component	of	a	structured trade	individually,	and	benchmarking,	among	others.

Reports	of	inventory	that	is	classified	within	Level	3	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy are	distributed	to	senior	management	in	Finance,	Risk	and	the	business.	This inventory	is	also	discussed	in	Risk	Committees	and	in	monthly	meetings	with senior	trading	management.	As	deemed	necessary,	reports	may	go	to	the	Audit Committee	of	the	Board	of	Directors	or	to	the	full	Board	of	Directors.	Whenever an	adjustment	is	needed	to	bring	the	price	of	an	asset	or	liability	to	its	exit	price, Product	Control	reports	it	to	management	along	with	other	price	verification results.

In	addition,	the	pricing	models	used	in	measuring	fair	value	are	governed	by an	independent	control	framework.	Although	the	models	are	developed	and	tested by	the	individual	business	units,	they	are	independently	validated	by	the	Model Validation	Group	within	Risk	Management	and	reviewed	by	Finance	with	respect to	their	impact	on	the	price	verification	procedures.	The	purpose	of	this independent	control	framework	is	to	assess	model	risk	arising	from	models' theoretical	soundness,	calibration	techniques	where	needed,	and	the appropriateness	of	the	model	for	a	specific	product	in	a	defined	market.	To	ensure their	continued	applicability,	models	are	independently	reviewed	annually.	In addition,	Risk	Management	approves	and	maintains	a	list	of	products	permitted	to be	valued	under	each	approved	model	for	a	given	business.

# Securities	Purchased	Under	Agreements	to	Resell	and	Securities	Sold	Under Agreements	to	Repurchase

No	quoted	prices	exist	for	these	instruments,	so	fair	value	is	determined	using	a discounted	cash-flow	technique.	Cash	flows	are	estimated	based	on	the	terms	of	the contract,	taking	into	account	any	embedded	derivative	or	other	features.	These	cash flows	are	discounted	using	interest	rates	appropriate	to	the	maturity	of	the instrument	as	well	as	the	nature	of	the	underlying	collateral.	Generally,	when	such instruments	are	recorded	at	fair	value,	they	are	classified	within	Level	2	of	the	fair value	hierarchy,	as	the	inputs	used	in	the	valuation	are	readily	observable. However,	certain

long-dated	positions	are	classified	within	Level	3	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy.

# Trading	Account	Assets	and	Liabilities—Trading	Securities	and	Trading	Loans

When	available,	the	Company	uses	quoted	market	prices	in	active	markets	to determine	the	fair	value	of	trading	securities;	such	items	are	classified	as	Level	1	of the	fair	value	hierarchy.	Examples	include	government	securities	and	exchange- traded	equity	securities.

For	bonds	and	secondary	market	loans	traded	over	the	counter,	the	Company generally	determines	fair	value	utilizing	valuation	techniques,	including	discounted cash	flows,	price-based	and	internal	models,	such	as	Black-Scholes	and	Monte Carlo	simulation.	Fair	value	estimates	from	these	internal	valuation	techniques	are verified,	where	possible,	to	prices	obtained	from	independent	sources,	including third-party	vendors.	Vendors	compile	prices	from	various	sources	and	may	apply matrix	pricing	for	similar	bonds	or	loans	where	no	price	is	observable.	A	price- based	methodology	utilizes,	where	available,	quoted	prices	or	other	market information	obtained	from	recent	trading	activity	of	assets	with	similar characteristics	to	the	bond	or	loan	being	valued.	The	yields	used	in	discounted	cash flow	models	are	derived	from	the	same	price	information.	Trading	securities	and loans	priced	using	such	methods	are	generally	classified	as	Level	2.	However, when	less	liquidity	exists	for	a	security	or	loan,	a	quoted	price	is	stale,	a	significant adjustment	to	the	price	of	a	similar	security	or	loan	is	necessary	to	reflect differences	in	the	terms	of	the	actual	security	or	loan	being	valued,	or	prices	from independent	sources	are	insufficient	to	corroborate	valuation,	a	loan	or	security	is generally	classified	as	Level	3.	The	price	input	used	in	a	price-based	methodology may	be	zero	for	a	security,	such	as	a	subprime	CDO,	that	is	not	receiving	any principal	or	interest	and	is	currently	written	down	to	zero.

When	the	Company's	principal	market	for	a	portfolio	of	loans	is	the securitization	market,	the	Company	uses	the	securitization	price	to	determine	the fair	value	of	the	portfolio.	The	securitization	price	is	determined	from	the	assumed proceeds	of	a	hypothetical	securitization	in	the	current	market,	adjusted	for transformation	costs	(i.e.,	direct	costs	other	than	transaction	costs)	and securitization	uncertainties	such	as	market	conditions	and	liquidity.	As	a	result	of the	severe	reduction	in	the	level	of	activity	in	certain	securitization	markets	since the	second	half	of	2007,	observable	securitization	prices	for	certain	directly comparable	portfolios	of	loans	have	not	been	readily	available.	Therefore,	such portfolios	of	loans	are	generally	classified	as	Level	3	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy. However,	for	other	loan	securitization	markets,	such	as	commercial	real	estate loans,	price	verification	of	the	hypothetical	securitizations	has	been	possible,	since these	markets	have	remained	active.	Accordingly,	this	loan	portfolio	is	classified as	Level	2	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy.

For	most	of	the	lending	and	structured	direct	subprime	exposures,	fair	value	is determined	utilizing	observable	transactions	where	available,	other	market	data	for similar	assets	in	markets	that	are	not	active	and	other	internal

valuation	techniques.	The	valuation	of	certain	asset-backed	security	(ABS)	CDO positions	utilizes	prices	based	on	the	underlying	assets	of	the	ABS	CDO.

# Trading	Account	Assets	and	Liabilities—Derivatives

Exchange-traded	derivatives,	measured	at	fair	value	using	quoted	(i.e.,	exchange) prices	in	active	markets,	where	available,	are	classified	as	Level	1	of	the	fair	value hierarchy.

Derivatives	without	a	quoted	price	in	an	active	market	and	derivatives executed	over	the	counter	are	valued	using	internal	valuation	techniques.	These derivative	instruments	are	classified	as	either	Level	2	or	Level	3	depending	upon the	observability	of	the	significant	inputs	to	the	model.

The	valuation	techniques	and	inputs	depend	on	the	type	of	derivative	and	the nature	of	the	underlying	instrument.	The	principal	techniques	used	to	value	these instruments	are	discounted	cash	flows	and	internal	models,	including	Black- Scholes	and	Monte	Carlo	simulation.

The	key	inputs	depend	upon	the	type	of	derivative	and	the	nature	of	the underlying	instrument	and	include	interest	rate	yield	curves,	foreign-exchange rates,	volatilities	and	correlation.	The	Company	uses	overnight	indexed	swap	(OIS) curves	as	fair	value	measurement	inputs	for	the	valuation	of	certain	collateralized derivatives.	Citi	uses	the	relevant	benchmark	curve	for	the	currency	of	the derivative	(e.g.,	the	London	Interbank	Offered	Rate	for	U.S.	dollar	derivatives)	as the	discount	rate	for	uncollateralized	derivatives.

As	referenced	above,	during	the	third	quarter	of	2014,	Citi	incorporated	FVA into	the	fair	value	measurements	due	to	what	it	believes	to	be	an	industry	migration toward	incorporating	the	market's	view	of	funding	risk	premium	in	OTC derivatives.	The	charge	incurred	in	connection	with	the	implementation	of	FVA was	reflected	in	Principal	transactions	as	a	change	in	accounting	estimate.	Citi's FVA	methodology	leverages	the	existing	CVA	methodology	to	estimate	a	funding exposure	profile.	The	calculation	of	this	exposure	profile	considers	collateral agreements	where	the	terms	do	not	permit	the	firm	to	reuse	the	collateral	received, including	where	counterparties	post	collateral	to	third-party	custodians.

# Investments

The	investments	category	includes	available-for-sale	debt	and	marketable	equity securities	whose	fair	values	are	generally	determined	by	utilizing	similar procedures	described	for	trading	securities	above	or,	in	some	cases,	using	vendor pricing	as	the	primary	source.

Also	included	in	investments	are	nonpublic	investments	in	private	equity	and real	estate	entities.	Determining	the	fair	value	of	nonpublic	securities	involves	a significant	degree	of	management	judgment,	as	no	quoted	prices	exist	and	such securities	are	generally	thinly	traded.	In	addition,	there	may	be	transfer	restrictions on	private	equity	securities.	The	Company's	process	for	determining	the	fair	value of	such	securities	utilizes	commonly	accepted	valuation	techniques,	including comparables	analysis.	In	determining	the	fair	value	of	nonpublic	securities,	the Company	also	considers	events

such	as	a	proposed	sale	of	the	investee	company,	initial	public	offerings,	equity issuances	or	other	observable	transactions.

Private	equity	securities	are	generally	classified	as	Level	3	of	the	fair	value hierarchy.

In	addition,	the	Company	holds	investments	in	certain	alternative	investment funds	that	calculate	NAV	per	share,	including	hedge	funds,	private	equity	funds and	real	estate	funds.	Investments	in	funds	are	generally	classified	as	non- marketable	equity	securities	carried	at	fair	value.	The	fair	values	of	these investments	are	estimated	using	the	NAV	per	share	of	the	Company's	ownership interest	in	the	funds	where	it	is	not	probable	that	the	investment	will	be	realized	at a	price	other	than	the	NAV.	Consistent	with	the	provisions	of	ASU	No.	2015-07 these	investments	have	not	been	categorized	within	the	fair	value	hierarchy	and	are not	included	in	the	tables	below.	See	Note	13	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements	for	additional	information.

# Short-Term	Borrowings	and	Long-Term	Debt

Where	fair	value	accounting	has	been	elected,	the	fair	value	of	non-structured liabilities	is	determined	by	utilizing	internal	models	using	the	appropriate	discount rate	for	the	applicable	maturity.	Such	instruments	are	generally	classified	as Level	2	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy	when	all	significant	inputs	are	readily observable.

The	Company	determines	the	fair	value	of	hybrid	financial	instruments, including	structured	liabilities,	using	the	appropriate	derivative	valuation methodology	(described	above	in	"Trading	account	assets	and	liabilities— derivatives")	given	the	nature	of	the	embedded	risk	profile.	Such	instruments	are classified	as	Level	2	or	Level	3	depending	on	the	observability	of	significant	inputs to	the	model.

# Alt-A	Mortgage	Securities

The	Company	classifies	its	Alt-A	mortgage	securities	as	held-to-maturity, available-for-sale	or	trading	investments.	The	securities	classified	as	trading	and available-for-sale	are	recorded	at	fair	value	with	changes	in	fair	value	reported	in current	earnings	and	AOCI,	respectively.	For	these	purposes,	Citi	defines	Alt-A mortgage	securities	as	non-agency	residential	mortgage-backed	securities	(RMBS) where	(i)	the	underlying	collateral	has	weighted	average	FICO	scores	between	680 and	720	or	(ii)	for	instances	where	FICO	scores	are	greater	than	720,	RMBS	have 30%	or	less	of	the	underlying	collateral	composed	of	full	documentation	loans.

Similar	to	the	valuation	methodologies	used	for	other	trading	securities	and trading	loans,	the	Company	generally	determines	the	fair	values	of	Alt-A	mortgage securities	utilizing	internal	valuation	techniques.	Fair	value	estimates	from	internal valuation	techniques	are	verified,	where	possible,	to	prices	obtained	from independent	vendors.	Consensus	data	providers	compile	prices	from	various sources.	Where	available,	the	Company	may	also	make	use	of	quoted	prices	for recent	trading	activity	in	securities	with	the	same	or	similar	characteristics	to	the security	being	valued.

The	valuation	techniques	used	for	Alt-A	mortgage	securities,	as	with	other mortgage	exposures,	are	price-based	and	yield	analysis.	The	primary	market- derived	input	is	yield.	Cash	flows	are	based	on	current	collateral	performance	with prepayment	rates	and	loss	projections	reflective	of	current	economic	conditions	of housing	price	change,	unemployment	rates,	interest	rates,	borrower	attributes	and other	market	indicators.

Alt-A	mortgage	securities	that	are	valued	using	these	methods	are	generally classified	as	Level	2.	However,	Alt-A	mortgage	securities	backed	by	Alt-A mortgages	of	lower	quality	or	subordinated	tranches	in	the	capital	structure	are mostly	classified	as	Level	3	due	to	the	reduced	liquidity	that	exists	for	such positions,	which	reduces	the	reliability	of	prices	available	from	independent sources.

# Items	Measured	at	Fair	Value	on	a	Recurring	Basis

The	following	tables	present	for	each	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy	levels	the Company's	assets	and	liabilities	that	are	measured	at	fair	value	on	a	recurring	basis at	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014.	The	Company's	hedging	of positions	that	have	been	classified	in	the	Level	3	category	is	not	limited	to	other financial	instruments	(hedging

instruments)	that	have	been	classified	as	Level	3,	but	also	instruments	classified	as Level	1	or	Level	2	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy.	The	effects	of	these	hedges	are presented	gross	in	the	following	tables:

# Fair	Value	Levels

| In	millions	of	dollars	at	December	31,	2015 | Level	1(1) | Level	2(1) | Level	3 | Gross<br>inventory | Netting(2) | Net<br>balance |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\nresell | $— | $177,538 | $1,337 | $178,875 | $(40,911) | $137,964 |
| Trading\tnon-derivative\tassets |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Trading\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\tagency\tguaranteed | — | 24,023 | 744 | 24,767 | — | 24,767 |
| Residential | — | 1,059 | 1,326 | 2,385 | — | 2,385 |
| Commercial | — | 2,338 | 517 | 2,855 | — | 2,855 |
| Total\ttrading\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $— | $27,420 | $2,587 | $30,007 | $— | $30,007 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities | $14,208 | $3,587 | $1 | $17,796 | $— | $17,796 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | — | 2,345 | 351 | 2,696 | — | 2,696 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 35,715 | 20,697 | 197 | 56,609 | — | 56,609 |
| Corporate | 302 | 13,759 | 376 | 14,437 | — | 14,437 |
| Equity\tsecurities | 50,429 | 2,382 | 3,684 | 56,495 | — | 56,495 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | — | 1,217 | 2,739 | 3,956 | — | 3,956 |
| Other\ttrading\tassets | — | 9,293 | 2,483 | 11,776 | — | 11,776 |
| Total\ttrading\tnon-derivative\tassets | $100,654 | $80,700 | $12,418 | $193,772 | $— | $193,772 |
| Trading\tderivatives |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $9 | $412,802 | $2,083 | $414,894 |  |  |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | 5 | 128,189 | 1,123 | 129,317 |  |  |
| Equity\tcontracts | 2,422 | 17,866 | 1,597 | 21,885 |  |  |
| Commodity\tcontracts | 204 | 16,706 | 1,100 | 18,010 |  |  |
| Credit\tderivatives | — | 31,082 | 3,793 | 34,875 |  |  |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives | $2,640 | $606,645 | $9,696 | $618,981 |  |  |
| Cash\tcollateral\tpaid(3) |  |  |  | $4,911 |  |  |
| Netting\tagreements |  |  |  |  | $(524,481) |  |
| Netting\tof\tcash\tcollateral\treceived |  |  |  |  | (43,227) |  |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives | $2,640 | $606,645 | $9,696 | $623,892 | $(567,708) | $56,184 |
| Investments |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\tagency\tguaranteed | $— | $39,575 | $139 | $39,714 | $— | $39,714 |
| Residential | — | 5,982 | 4 | 5,986 | — | 5,986 |
| Commercial | — | 569 | 2 | 571 | — | 571 |
| Total\tinvestment\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $— | $46,126 | $145 | $46,271 | $— | $46,271 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities | $111,536 | $11,375 | $4 | $122,915 | $— | $122,915 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | — | 9,267 | 2,192 | 11,459 | — | 11,459 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 42,073 | 49,868 | 260 | 92,201 | — | 92,201 |
| Corporate | 3,605 | 11,595 | 603 | 15,803 | — | 15,803 |
| Equity\tsecurities | 430 | 71 | 124 | 625 | — | 625 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | — | 8,578 | 596 | 9,174 | — | 9,174 |
| Other\tdebt\tsecurities | — | 688 | — | 688 | — | 688 |
| Non-marketable\tequity\tsecurities(4) | — | 58 | 1,135 | 1,193 | — | 1,193 |
| Total\tinvestments | $157,644 | $137,626 | $5,059 | $300,329 | $— | $300,329 |

| In	millions	of	dollars	at	December	31,	2015 | Level	1(1) | Level	2(1) | Level	3 | Gross<br>inventory | Netting(2) | Net<br>balance |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Loans(5) | $— | $2,839 | $2,166 | $5,005 | $— | $5,005 |
| Mortgage\tservicing\trights | — | — | 1,781 | 1,781 | — | 1,781 |
| Non-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial\tassets\tmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\nbasis,\tgross | $— | $7,882 | $180 | $8,062 |  |  |
| Cash\tcollateral\tpaid(6) |  |  |  | 8 |  |  |
| Netting\tof\tcash\tcollateral\treceived |  |  |  |  | $(1,949) |  |
| Non-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial\tassets\tmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\nbasis | $— | $7,882 | $180 | $8,070 | $(1,949) | $6,121 |
| Total\tassets | $260,938 | $1,013,230 | $32,637 | $1,311,724 | $(610,568) | $701,156 |
| Total\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\tgross\tassets(7) | 20.0% | 77.5% | 2.5% |  |  |  |
| Liabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest-bearing\tdeposits | $— | $1,156 | $434 | $1,590 | $— | $1,590 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\nrepurchase | — | 76,507 | 1,247 | 77,754 | (40,911) | 36,843 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Securities\tsold,\tnot\tyet\tpurchased | $48,452 | $9,176 | $199 | $57,827 | $— | $57,827 |
| Other\ttrading\tliabilities | — | 2,093 | — | 2,093 | — | 2,093 |
| Total\ttrading\tliabilities | $48,452 | $11,269 | $199 | $59,920 | $— | $59,920 |
| Trading\tderivatives |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $5 | $393,321 | $2,578 | $395,904 |  |  |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | 6 | 133,404 | 503 | 133,913 |  |  |
| Equity\tcontracts | 2,244 | 21,875 | 2,397 | 26,516 |  |  |
| Commodity\tcontracts | 263 | 17,329 | 2,961 | 20,553 |  |  |
| Credit\tderivatives | — | 30,682 | 3,486 | 34,168 |  |  |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives | $2,518 | $596,611 | $11,925 | $611,054 |  |  |
| Cash\tcollateral\treceived(8) |  |  |  | $13,628 |  |  |
| Netting\tagreements |  |  |  |  | $(524,481) |  |
| Netting\tof\tcash\tcollateral\tpaid |  |  |  |  | (42,609) |  |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives | $2,518 | $596,611 | $11,925 | $624,682 | $(567,090) | $57,592 |
| Short-term\tborrowings | $— | $1,198 | $9 | $1,207 | $— | $1,207 |
| Long-term\tdebt | — | 18,342 | 6,951 | 25,293 | — | 25,293 |
| Non-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial\tliabilities\tmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\nbasis,\tgross | $— | $1,626 | $14 | $1,640 |  |  |
| Cash\tcollateral\treceived(9) |  |  |  | 37 |  |  |
| Netting\tof\tcash\tcollateral\tpaid |  |  |  |  | $(53) |  |
| Total\tnon-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial\tliabilities\tmeasured\ton\ta\nrecurring\tbasis | $— | $1,626 | $14 | $1,677 | $(53) | $1,624 |
| Total\tliabilities | $50,970 | $706,709 | $20,779 | $792,123 | $(608,054) | $184,069 |
| Total\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\tgross\tliabilities(7) | 6.5% | 90.8% | 2.7% |  |  |  |

(1) In	2015,	the	Company	transferred	assets	of	approximately	$3.3	billion	from	Level	1	to	Level	2,	respectively,	primarily	related	to	foreign	government	securities	and	equity	securities	not	traded	in	active markets.	In	2015,	the	Company	transferred	assets	of	approximately	$4.4	billion	from	Level	2	to	Level	1,	respectively,	primarily	related	to	foreign	government	bonds	and	equity	securities	traded	with sufficient	frequency	to	constitute	a	liquid	market.	In	2015,	the	Company	transferred	liabilities	of	approximately	$0.6	billion	from	Level	2	to	Level	1.	In	2015,	the	Company	transferred	liabilities	of approximately	$0.4	billion	from	Level	1	to	Level	2.

(2) Represents	netting	of:	(i)	the	amounts	due	under	securities	purchased	under	agreements	to	resell	and	the	amounts	owed	under	securities	sold	under	agreements	to	repurchase;	and	(ii)	derivative exposures	covered	by	a	qualifying	master	netting	agreement	and	cash	collateral	offsetting.

(3) Reflects	the	net	amount	of	$47,520	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	paid,	of	which	 $42,609	million	was	used	to	offset	trading	derivative	liabilities.

(4) Amounts	exclude	$0.9	billion	investments	measured	at	Net	Asset	Value	(NAV)	in	accordance	with	ASU	No.	2015-07,	 Fair	Value	Measurement	(Topic	820):	Disclosures	for	Investments	in	Certain Entities	That	Calculate	Net	Asset	Value	per	Share	(or	Its	Equivalent).	See	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

(5) There	is	no	allowance	for	loan	losses	recorded	for	loans	reported	at	fair	value.

(6) Reflects	the	net	amount	of	$61	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	paid,	of	which	$ 53	million	was	used	to	offset	non-trading	derivative	liabilities.

(7) Because	the	amount	of	the	cash	collateral	paid/received	has	not	been	allocated	to	the	Level	1,	2	and	3	subtotals,	these	percentages	are	calculated	based	on	total	assets	and	liabilities	measured	at	fair value	on	a	recurring	basis,	excluding	the	cash	collateral	paid/received	on	derivatives.

(8) Reflects	the	net	amount	of	$56,855	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	received,	of	which	 $43,227	million	was	used	to	offset	trading	derivative	assets.

(9) Reflects	the	net	amount	of	$1,986	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	received,	of	which	 $1,949	million	was	used	to	offset	non-trading	derivative	assets.

| In	millions	of	dollars	at	December	31,	2014 | Level	1(1) | Level	2(1) | Level	3 | Gross<br>inventory | Netting(2) | Net<br>balance |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | $— | $187,922 | $3,398 | $191,320 | $(47,129) | $144,191 |
| Trading\tnon-derivative\tassets |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Trading\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\tagency\tguaranteed | — | 25,968 | 1,085 | 27,053 | — | 27,053 |
| Residential | — | 2,158 | 2,680 | 4,838 | — | 4,838 |
| Commercial | — | 3,903 | 440 | 4,343 | — | 4,343 |
| Total\ttrading\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $— | $32,029 | $4,205 | $36,234 | $— | $36,234 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities | $15,991 | $4,483 | $— | $20,474 | $— | $20,474 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | — | 3,161 | 241 | 3,402 | — | 3,402 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 37,995 | 26,736 | 206 | 64,937 | — | 64,937 |
| Corporate | 1,337 | 25,640 | 820 | 27,797 | — | 27,797 |
| Equity\tsecurities | 51,346 | 4,281 | 2,219 | 57,846 | — | 57,846 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | — | 1,252 | 3,294 | 4,546 | — | 4,546 |
| Other\ttrading\tassets | — | 9,221 | 4,372 | 13,593 | — | 13,593 |
| Total\ttrading\tnon-derivative\tassets | $106,669 | $106,803 | $15,357 | $228,829 | $— | $228,829 |
| Trading\tderivatives |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $74 | $634,318 | $4,061 | $638,453 |  |  |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | — | 154,744 | 1,250 | 155,994 |  |  |
| Equity\tcontracts | 2,748 | 19,969 | 2,035 | 24,752 |  |  |
| Commodity\tcontracts | 647 | 21,850 | 1,023 | 23,520 |  |  |
| Credit\tderivatives | — | 40,618 | 2,900 | 43,518 |  |  |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives | $3,469 | $871,499 | $11,269 | $886,237 |  |  |
| Cash\tcollateral\tpaid(3) |  |  |  | $6,523 |  |  |
| Netting\tagreements |  |  |  |  | $(777,178) |  |
| Netting\tof\tcash\tcollateral\treceived(4)(8) |  |  |  |  | (47,625) |  |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives | $3,469 | $871,499 | $11,269 | $892,760 | $(824,803) | $67,957 |
| Investments |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\tagency\tguaranteed | $— | $36,053 | $38 | $36,091 | $— | $36,091 |
| Residential | — | 8,355 | 8 | 8,363 | — | 8,363 |
| Commercial | — | 553 | 1 | 554 | — | 554 |
| Total\tinvestment\tmortgage-backed\tsecurities | $— | $44,961 | $47 | $45,008 | $— | $45,008 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\tagency\tsecurities | $110,710 | $12,974 | $6 | $123,690 | $— | $123,690 |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | — | 10,519 | 2,180 | 12,699 | — | 12,699 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 37,280 | 52,739 | 678 | 90,697 | — | 90,697 |
| Corporate | 1,739 | 9,746 | 672 | 12,157 | — | 12,157 |
| Equity\tsecurities | 1,770 | 274 | 681 | 2,725 | — | 2,725 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | — | 11,957 | 549 | 12,506 | — | 12,506 |
| Other\tdebt\tsecurities | — | 661 | — | 661 | — | 661 |
| Non-marketable\tequity\tsecurities(5) | — | 233 | 1,460 | 1,693 | — | 1,693 |
| Total\tinvestments | $151,499 | $144,064 | $6,273 | $301,836 | $— | $301,836 |

| In	millions	of	dollars	at	December	31,	2014 | Level	1(1) | Level	2(1) | Level	3 | Gross<br>inventory | Netting(2) | Net<br>balance |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Loans(6) | $— | $2,793 | $3,108 | $5,901 | $— | $5,901 |
| Mortgage\tservicing\trights | — | — | 1,845 | 1,845 | — | 1,845 |
| Non-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial\tassets\tmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\tbasis,\ngross | $— | $9,352 | $78 | $9,430 |  |  |
| Cash\tcollateral\tpaid(7) |  |  |  | 123 |  |  |
| Netting\tof\tcash\tcollateral\treceived(8) |  |  |  |  | $(1,791) |  |
| Non-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial\tassets\tmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\tbasis | $— | $9,352 | $78 | $9,553 | $(1,791) | $7,762 |
| Total\tassets | $261,637 | $1,322,433 | $41,328 | $1,632,044 | $(873,723) | $758,321 |
| Total\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\tgross\tassets(7) | 16.1% | 81.4% | 2.5% |  |  |  |
| Liabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest-bearing\tdeposits | $— | $1,198 | $486 | $1,684 | $— | $1,684 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\nrepurchase | — | 82,811 | 1,043 | 83,854 | (47,129) | 36,725 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Securities\tsold,\tnot\tyet\tpurchased | 59,463 | 11,057 | 424 | 70,944 | — | 70,944 |
| Other\ttrading\tliabilities | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total\ttrading\tliabilities | $59,463 | $11,057 | $424 | $70,944 | $— | $70,944 |
| Trading\taccount\tderivatives |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $77 | $617,933 | $4,272 | $622,282 |  |  |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | — | 158,354 | 472 | 158,826 |  |  |
| Equity\tcontracts | 2,955 | 26,616 | 2,898 | 32,469 |  |  |
| Commodity\tcontracts | 669 | 22,872 | 2,645 | 26,186 |  |  |
| Credit\tderivatives | — | 39,787 | 3,643 | 43,430 |  |  |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives | $3,701 | $865,562 | $13,930 | $883,193 |  |  |
| Cash\tcollateral\treceived(8) |  |  |  | $9,846 |  |  |
| Netting\tagreements |  |  |  |  | $(777,178) |  |
| Netting\tof\tcash\tcollateral\tpaid(3) |  |  |  |  | (47,769) |  |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives | $3,701 | $865,562 | $13,930 | $893,039 | $(824,947) | $68,092 |
| Short-term\tborrowings | $— | $1,152 | $344 | $1,496 | $— | $1,496 |
| Long-term\tdebt | — | 18,890 | 7,290 | 26,180 | — | 26,180 |
| Non-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial\tliabilities\tmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\tbasis,\ngross | $— | $1,777 | $7 | $1,784 |  |  |
| Cash\tcollateral\treceived(9) |  |  |  | 7 |  |  |
| Netting\tof\tcash\tcollateral\tpaid(7) |  |  |  |  | $(15) |  |
| Non-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial\tliabilities\tmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\tbasis | $— | $1,777 | $7 | $1,791 | $(15) | $1,776 |
| Total\tliabilities | $63,164 | $982,447 | $23,524 | $1,078,988 | $(872,091) | $206,897 |
| Total\tas\ta\tpercentage\tof\tgross\tliabilities(4) | 5.9% | 91.9% | 2.2% |  |  |  |

(1) In	2014,	the	Company	transferred	assets	of	approximately	$4.1	billion	from	Level	1	to	Level	2,	primarily	related	to	foreign	government	securities	not	traded	with	sufficient	frequency	to	constitute	an active	market	and	Citi	refining	its	methodology	for	certain	equity	contracts	to	reflect	the	prevalence	of	off-exchange	trading.	In	2014,	the	Company	transferred	assets	of	approximately	$4.2	billion from	Level	2	to	Level	1,	primarily	related	to	foreign	government	bonds	traded	with	sufficient	frequency	to	constitute	a	liquid	market.	In	2014,	the	Company	transferred	liabilities	of	approximately	$1.4 billion	from	Level	1	to	Level	2,	as	Citi	refined	its	methodology	for	certain	equity	contracts	to	reflect	the	prevalence	of	off-exchange	trading.	In	2014,	there	were	 no	material	liability	transfers	from Level	2	to	Level	1.

(3) Reflects	the	net	amount	of	$54,292	million	of	gross	cash	collateral	paid,	of	which	 $47,769	million	was	used	to	offset	trading	derivative	liabilities.

(5) Amounts	exclude	$1.1	billion	investments	measured	at	Net	Asset	Value	(NAV)	in	accordance	with	ASU	No.	2015-07,	 Fair	Value	Measurement	(Topic	820):	Disclosures	for	Investments	in	Certain Entities	That	Calculate	Net	Asset	Value	per	Share	(or	Its	Equivalent).	See	Note	1	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

# Changes	in	Level	3	Fair	Value	Category

The	following	tables	present	the	changes	in	the	Level	3	fair	value	category	for	the years	ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014.	As	discussed	above,	the	Company classifies	financial	instruments	as	Level	3	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy	when	there	is reliance	on	at	least	one	significant	unobservable	input	to	the	valuation	model.	In addition	to	these	unobservable	inputs,	the	valuation	models	for	Level	3	financial instruments	typically	also	rely	on	a	number	of	inputs	that	are	readily	observable either	directly	or	indirectly.	The	gains	and	losses	presented	below	include	changes in	the	fair	value	related	to	both	observable	and	unobservable	inputs.

The	Company	often	hedges	positions	with	offsetting	positions	that	are classified	in	a	different	level.	For	example,	the	gains	and	losses	for	assets	and liabilities	in	the	Level	3	category	presented	in	the	tables	below	do	not	reflect	the effect	of	offsetting	losses	and	gains	on	hedging	instruments	that	have	been classified	by	the	Company	in	the	Level	1	and	Level	2	categories.	In	addition,	the Company	hedges	items	classified	in	the	Level	3	category	with	instruments	also classified	in	Level	3	of	the	fair	value	hierarchy.	The	effects	of	these	hedges	are presented	gross	in	the	following	tables:

# Level	3	Fair	Value	Rollforward

| In	millions	of	dollars | Dec.	31,<br>2014 | Net	realized/unrealized<br>gains	(losses)	incl.	in<br>Principal<br>transactions | Other(1)(2) | Transfers<br>into<br>Level	3 | out	of<br>Level	3 | Purchases | Issuances | Sales | Settlements | Dec.	31,<br>2015 | Unrealized<br>gains<br>(losses)<br>still	held(3) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| securities\tborrowed\tor |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| purchased\tunder |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| agreements\tto\tresell | $3,398 | $(147) | $— | $279 | $(2,856) | $784 | $— | $— | $(121) | $1,337 | $(5) |
| Trading\tnon-derivative\nassets |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Trading\tmortgage-\nbacked\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| sponsored\tagency |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| guaranteed | 1,085 | 24 | — | 872 | (1,277) | 796 | — | (756) | — | 744 | (4) |
| Residential | 2,680 | 254 | — | 370 | (480) | 1,574 | — | (3,072) | — | 1,326 | (101) |
| Commercial | 440 | 18 | — | 252 | (157) | 697 | — | (733) | — | 517 | (7) |
| Total\ttrading\tmortgage-\nbacked\tsecurities | $4,205 | $296 | $— | $1,494 | $(1,914) | $3,067 | $— | $(4,561) | $— | $2,587 | $(112) |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\nagency\tsecurities | $— | $— | $— | $2 | $(1) | $1 | $— | $(1) | $— | $1 | $— |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | 241 | — | — | 67 | (35) | 183 | — | (105) | — | 351 | (7) |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 206 | (10) | — | 53 | (100) | 271 | — | (169) | (54) | 197 | 6 |
| Corporate | 820 | 111 | — | 186 | (288) | 802 | — | (1,244) | (11) | 376 | (29) |
| Equity\tsecurities | 2,219 | 547 | — | 344 | (371) | 1,377 | — | (432) | — | 3,684 | 464 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 3,294 | 141 | — | 663 | (282) | 4,426 | — | (5,503) | — | 2,739 | (174) |
| Other\ttrading\tassets | 4,372 | 180 | — | 968 | (3,290) | 2,504 | 51 | (2,110) | (192) | 2,483 | (45) |
| Total\ttrading\tnon-\nderivative\tassets | $15,357 | $1,265 | $— | $3,777 | $(6,281) | $12,631 | $51 | $(14,125) | $(257) | $12,418 | $103 |
| Trading\tderivatives,\tnet(4) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $(211) | $(492) | $— | $(124) | $15 | $24 | $— | $141 | $152 | $(495) | $553 |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | 778 | (245) | — | (11) | 27 | 393 | — | (381) | 59 | 620 | (12) |
| Equity\tcontracts | (863) | 148 | — | (126) | 66 | 496 | — | (334) | (187) | (800) | 41 |
| Commodity\tcontracts | (1,622) | (753) | — | 214 | (28) | — | — | — | 328 | (1,861) | (257) |
| Credit\tderivatives | (743) | 555 | — | 9 | 61 | 1 | — | (3) | 427 | 307 | 442 |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives,\nnet(4) | $(2,661) | $(787) | $— | $(38) | $141 | $914 | $— | $(577) | $779 | $(2,229) | $767 |

| In	millions	of	dollars | Dec.	31,<br>2014 | Net	realized/unrealized<br>gains	(losses)	incl.	in<br>Principal<br>transactions | Other(1)(2) | Transfers<br>into<br>Level	3 | out	of<br>Level	3 | Purchases | Issuances | Sales | Settlements | Dec.	31,<br>2015 | Unrealized<br>gains<br>(losses)<br>still	held(3) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Investments |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| sponsored\tagency |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| guaranteed | $38 | $— | $29 | $171 | $(118) | $62 | $— | $(43) | $— | $139 | $(2) |
| Residential | 8 | — | (1) | 4 | — | 11 | — | (18) | — | 4 | — |
| Commercial | 1 | — | — | 4 | (3) | — | — | — | — | 2 | — |
| Total\tinvestment\tmortgage-\nbacked\tsecurities | $47 | $— | $28 | $179 | $(121) | $73 | $— | $(61) | $— | $145 | $(2) |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\nagency\tsecurities | $6 | $— | $— | $— | $— | $6 | $— | $(8) | $— | $4 | $— |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | 2,180 | — | (23) | 834 | (721) | 842 | — | (671) | (249) | 2,192 | 9 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 678 | — | 45 | (5) | (270) | 601 | — | (519) | (270) | 260 | (1) |
| Corporate | 672 | — | (7) | 15 | (52) | 144 | — | (134) | (35) | 603 | (4) |
| Equity\tsecurities | 681 | — | (22) | 12 | (14) | 7 | — | (540) | — | 124 | (120) |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 549 | — | (17) | 45 | (58) | 202 | — | (125) | — | 596 | 14 |
| Other\tdebt\tsecurities | — | — | — | — | — | 10 | — | (10) | — | — | — |
| Non-marketable\tequity\nsecurities | 1,460 | — | (50) | 76 | 6 | 5 | — | (58) | (304) | 1,135 | 26 |
| Total\tinvestments | $6,273 | $— | $(46) | $1,156 | $(1,230) | $1,890 | $— | $(2,126) | $(858) | $5,059 | $(78) |
| Loans | $3,108 | $— | $(303) | $689 | $(805) | $1,190 | $461 | $(807) | $(1,367) | $2,166 | $24 |
| Mortgage\tservicing\trights | 1,845 | — | 110 | — | — | — | 214 | (38) | (350) | 1,781 | (390) |
| Other\tfinancial\tassets\nmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\tbasis | 78 | — | 100 | 201 | (66) | 6 | 208 | (85) | (262) | 180 | 582 |
| Liabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest-bearing\tdeposits | $486 | $— | $10 | $1 | $(1) | $— | $36 | $— | $(78) | $434 | $(154) |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| securities\tloaned\tor\tsold |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| under\tagreements\tto |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| repurchase | 1,043 | (23) | — | — | — | — | — | 302 | (121) | 1,247 | 134 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Securities\tsold,\tnot\tyet\npurchased | 424 | 88 | — | 311 | (231) | — | — | 385 | (602) | 199 | (25) |
| Short-term\tborrowings | 344 | 11 | — | 23 | (30) | — | 1 | — | (318) | 9 | (4) |
| Long-term\tdebt | 7,290 | 539 | — | 2,311 | (3,958) | — | 3,407 | — | (1,560) | 6,951 | (347) |
| Other\tfinancial\tliabilities\nmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\tbasis | 7 | — | (11) | 10 | (4) | (5) | 5 | 2 | (12) | 14 | (4) |

(1) Changes	in	fair	value	for	available-for-sale	investments	are	recorded	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss),	unless	related	to	other-than-temporary	impairment,	while	gains	and	losses from	sales	are	recorded	in	Realized	gains	(losses)	from	sales	of	investments 	on	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

(2) Unrealized	gains	(losses)	on	MSRs	are	recorded	in	Other	revenue	on	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

(3) Represents	the	amount	of	total	gains	or	losses	for	the	period,	included	in	earnings	(and	 Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss)	for	changes	in	fair	value	of	available-for-sale	investments), attributable	to	the	change	in	fair	value	relating	to	assets	and	liabilities	classified	as	Level	3	that	are	still	held	at	December	31,	2015.

(4) Total	Level	3	derivative	assets	and	liabilities	have	been	netted	in	these	tables	for	presentation	purposes	only.

| In	millions	of	dollars | Dec.	31,<br>2013 | Net	realized/unrealized<br>gains	(losses)	incl.	in<br>Principal<br>transactions | Other(1)(2) | Transfers<br>into<br>Level	3 | out	of<br>Level	3 | Purchases | Issuances | Sales | Settlements | Dec.	31,<br>2014 | Unrealized<br>gains<br>(losses)<br>still	held(3) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| borrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| agreements\tto\tresell | $3,566 | $(61) | $— | $84 | $(8) | $75 | $— | $— | $(258) | $3,398 | $133 |
| Trading\tnon-derivative\tassets |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Trading\tmortgage-backed\nsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\nagency\tguaranteed | 1,094 | 117 | — | 854 | (966) | 714 | 26 | (695) | (59) | 1,085 | 8 |
| Residential | 2,854 | 457 | — | 442 | (514) | 2,582 | — | (3,141) | — | 2,680 | 132 |
| Commercial | 256 | 17 | — | 187 | (376) | 758 | — | (402) | — | 440 | (4) |
| Total\ttrading\tmortgage-backed\nsecurities | $4,204 | $591 | $— | $1,483 | $(1,856) | $4,054 | $26 | $(4,238) | $(59) | $4,205 | $136 |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\nagency\tsecurities | $— | $3 | $— | $— | $— | $7 | $— | $(10) | $— | $— | $— |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | 222 | 10 | — | 150 | (105) | 34 | — | (70) | — | 241 | 1 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 416 | (56) | — | 130 | (253) | 676 | — | (707) | — | 206 | 5 |
| Corporate | 1,835 | (127) | — | 465 | (502) | 1,988 | — | (2,839) | — | 820 | (139) |
| Equity\tsecurities | 1,057 | 87 | — | 142 | (209) | 1,437 | — | (295) | — | 2,219 | 337 |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 4,342 | 876 | — | 158 | (332) | 3,893 | — | (5,643) | — | 3,294 | 3 |
| Other\ttrading\tassets | 3,184 | 269 | — | 2,637 | (2,278) | 5,427 | — | (4,490) | (377) | 4,372 | 31 |
| Total\ttrading\tnon-derivative\nassets | $15,260 | $1,653 | $— | $5,165 | $(5,535) | $17,516 | $26 | $ (18,292) | $(436) | $15,357 | $374 |
| Trading\tderivatives,\tnet(4) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts | $839 | $(818) | $— | $24 | $(98) | $113 | $— | $(162) | $(109) | $(211) | $(414) |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts | 695 | 92 | — | 47 | (39) | 59 | — | (59) | (17) | 778 | 56 |
| Equity\tcontracts | (858) | 482 | — | (916) | 766 | 435 | — | (279) | (493) | (863) | (274) |
| Commodity\tcontracts | (1,393) | (338) | — | 92 | (12) | — | — | — | 29 | (1,622) | (174) |
| Credit\tderivatives | (274) | (567) | — | 4 | (156) | 103 | — | (3) | 150 | (743) | (369) |
| Total\ttrading\tderivatives,\tnet(4) | $(991) | $(1,149) | $— | $(749) | $461 | $710 | $— | $(503) | $(440) | $(2,661) | $(1,175) |
| Investments |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| U.S.\tgovernment-sponsored\nagency\tguaranteed | $187 | $— | $52 | $60 | $(203) | $17 | $— | $(73) | $(2) | $38 | $(8) |
| Residential | 102 | — | 33 | 31 | (2) | 17 | — | (173) | — | 8 | — |
| Commercial | — | — | (6) | 4 | (7) | 10 | — | — | — | 1 | — |
| Total\tinvestment\tmortgage-\nbacked\tsecurities | $289 | $— | $79 | $95 | $(212) | $44 | $— | $(246) | $(2) | $47 | $(8) |
| U.S.\tTreasury\tand\tfederal\nagency\tsecurities | $8 | $— | $— | $— | $— | $— | $— | $(2) | $— | $6 | $— |
| State\tand\tmunicipal | 1,643 | — | (64) | 811 | (584) | 923 | — | (549) | — | 2,180 | 49 |
| Foreign\tgovernment | 344 | — | (27) | 286 | (105) | 851 | — | (490) | (181) | 678 | (17) |
| Corporate | 285 | — | (6) | 26 | (143) | 728 | — | (218) | — | 672 | (4) |
| Equity\tsecurities | 815 | — | 111 | 19 | (19) | 10 | — | (255) | — | 681 | (78) |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | 1,960 | — | 41 | — | (47) | 95 | — | (195) | (1,305) | 549 | (18) |
| Other\tdebt\tsecurities | 50 | — | (1) | — | — | 116 | — | (115) | (50) | — | — |
| Non-marketable\tequity\nsecurities | 2,508 | — | 211 | 67 | — | 416 | — | (768) | (974) | 1,460 | 81 |
| Total\tinvestments | $7,902 | $— | $344 | $1,304 | $(1,110) | $3,183 | $— | $(2,838) | $(2,512) | $6,273 | $5 |

|  |  | Net	realized/unrealized |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Unrealized |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  |  | gains\t(losses)\tincl.\tin |  | Transfers |  |  |  |  |  |  | gains |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Dec.\t31,\n2013 | Principal\ntransactions | Other(1)(2) | into\nLevel\t3 | out\tof\nLevel\t3 | Purchases | Issuances | Sales | Settlements | Dec.\t31,\n2014 | (losses)\nstill\theld(3) |
| Loans | $4,143 | $— | $(233) | $92 | $6 | $951 | $197 | $(895) | $(1,153) | $3,108 | $37 |
| Mortgage\tservicing\trights | 2,718 | — | (390) | — | — | — | 217 | (317) | (383) | 1,845 | (390) |
| Other\tfinancial\tassets\tmeasured\non\ta\trecurring\tbasis | 181 | — | 100 | (83) | — | 3 | 178 | (18) | (283) | 78 | 14 |
| Liabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interest-bearing\tdeposits | $890 | $— | $357 | $5 | $(12) | $— | $127 | $— | $(167) | $486 | $(69) |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| securities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| agreements\tto\trepurchase | 902 | (6) | — | 54 | — | 78 | — | 220 | (217) | 1,043 | (34) |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Securities\tsold,\tnot\tyet\npurchased | 590 | (81) | — | 79 | (111) | — | — | 534 | (749) | 424 | (58) |
| Short-term\tborrowings | 29 | (31) | — | 323 | (12) | — | 49 | — | (76) | 344 | (8) |
| Long-term\tdebt | 7,621 | 109 | 49 | 2,701 | (4,206) | — | 3,893 | — | (2,561) | 7,290 | (446) |
| Other\tfinancial\tliabilities\nmeasured\ton\ta\trecurring\tbasis | 10 | — | (5) | 7 | (3) | (2) | 1 | (3) | (8) | 7 | (4) |

(1) Changes	in	fair	value	of	available-for-sale	investments	are	recorded	in	Accumulated	other	comprehensive	income	(loss),	unless	related	to	other-than-temporary	impairment,	while	gains	and	losses	from sales	are	recorded	in	Realized	gains	(losses)	from	sales	of	investments 	on	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

The	following	were	the	significant	Level	3	transfers	for	the	period	December	31, 2014	to	December	31,	2015:

•Transfers	of	Federal	Funds	sold	and	securities	borrowed	or	purchased	under agreements	to	resell	of	$2.9	billion	from	Level	3	to	Level	2	related	to shortening	of	the	remaining	tenor	of	certain	reverse	repos.	There	is	more transparency	and	observability	for	repo	curves	used	in	the	valuation	of structured	reverse	repos	with	tenors	up	to	five	years;	thus,	these	positions	are generally	classified	as	Level	2.

•Transfers	of	U.S.	government-sponsored	agency	guaranteed	MBS	in	Trading account	assets	of	$0.9	billion	from	Level	2	to	Level	3,	and	of	$1.3	billion from	Level	3	to	Level	2	primarily	related	to	changes	in	observability	due	to market	trading	activity.

•Transfers	of	other	trading	assets	of	$1.0	billion	from	Level	2	to	Level	3,	and of	$3.3	billion	from	Level	3	to	Level	2	primarily	related	to	trading	loans	for which	there	were	changes	in	volume	of	and	transparency	into	market quotations.

•Transfers	of	Long-term	debt	of	$2.3	billion	from	Level	2	to	Level	3,	and	of $4.0	billion	from	Level	3	to	Level	2,	mainly	related	to	structured	debt, reflecting	certain	unobservable	inputs	becoming	less	significant	and	certain underlying	market	inputs	being	more	observable.

•Transfers	of	Long-term	debt	of	$2.7	billion	from	Level	2	to	Level	3,	and	of $4.2	billion	from	Level	3	to	Level	2,	mainly	related	to	structured	debt, reflecting	changes	in	the	significance	of	unobservable	inputs	as	well	as	certain underlying	market	inputs	becoming	less	or	more	observable.

•Transfers	of	other	trading	assets	of	$2.6	billion	from	Level	2	to	Level	3,	and of	$2.3	billion	from	Level	3	to	Level	2,	related	to	trading	loans,	reflecting changes	in	the	volume	of	market	quotations.

# Valuation	Techniques	and	Inputs	for	Level	3	Fair	Value	Measurements

The	Company's	Level	3	inventory	consists	of	both	cash	securities	and	derivatives of	varying	complexity.	The	valuation	methodologies	used	to	measure	the	fair	value of	these	positions	include	discounted	cash	flow	analysis,	internal	models	and comparative	analysis.	A	position	is	classified	within	Level	3	of	the	fair	value hierarchy	when	at	least	one	input	is	unobservable	and	is	considered	significant	to its	valuation.	The	specific	reason	an	input	is	deemed	unobservable	varies.	For example,	at	least	one	significant	input	to	the	pricing	model	is	not	observable	in	the market,	at	least	one	significant	input	has	been	adjusted	to	make	it	more representative	of	the	position	being	valued,	or	the	price	quote	available	does	not reflect	sufficient	trading	activities.

The	following	tables	present	the	valuation	techniques	covering	the	majority	of Level	3	inventory	and	the	most	significant	unobservable	inputs	used	in	Level	3	fair value	measurements.	Differences	between	this	table	and	amounts	presented	in	the Level	3	Fair	Value	Rollforward	table	represent	individually	immaterial	items	that have	been	measured	using	a	variety	of	valuation	techniques	other	than	those	listed.

| Methodology | Input | Low(2)(3) | High(2)(3) | Weighted<br>average(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Model-based | IR\tlog-normal\tvolatility | 29.02\t% | 137.02% | 37.90\t% |
|  | Interest\trate | —\t% | 2.03% | 0.27\t% |
| Price-based | Price | $3.45 | $109.21 | $78.25 |
| Yield\tanalysis | Yield | 0.50\t% | 14.07% | 4.83\t% |
| Price-based | Price | $— | $217.00 | $79.41 |
| Cash\tflow | Credit\tspread | 20\tbps | 600\tbps | 251\tbps |
| Model-based | WAL | 1.5\tyears | 1.5\tyears | 1.5\tyears |
|  | Redemption\trate | 41.21\t% | 41.21% | 41.21\t% |
| Price-based | Price | $5.55 | $100.21 | $71.57 |
| Comparables\tanalysis | EBITDA\tmultiples | 6.80x | 10.80x | 9.05x |
| Price-based | Discount\tto\tprice | —\t% | 90.00% | 10.89\t% |
|  | Price-to-book\tratio | 0.19x | 1.09x | 0.60x |
|  | Price | $— | $132.78 | $46.66 |
| Model-based | IR\tlog-normal\tvolatility | 17.41\t% | 137.02% | 37.60\t% |
|  | Mean\treversion | (5.52)% | 20.00% | 0.71\t% |
|  | Foreign\texchange\t(FX) |  |  |  |
| Model-based | volatility | 0.38\t% | 25.73% | 11.63\t% |
| Cash\tflow | Interest\trate | 7.50\t% | 7.50% | 7.50\t% |
|  | Forward\tprice | 1.48\t% | 138.09% | 56.80\t% |
|  | Credit\tspread | 3\tbps | 515\tbps | 235\tbps |
|  | IR-IR\tcorrelation | (51.00)% | 77.94% | 32.91\t% |
|  | IR-FX\tcorrelation | (20.30)% | 60.00% | 48.85\t% |
| Model-based | Equity\tvolatility | 11.87\t% | 49.57% | 27.33\t% |
|  | Equity-FX\tcorrelation | (88.17)% | 65.00% | (21.09)% |
|  | Equity\tforward | 82.72\t% | 100.53% | 95.20\t% |
|  | Equity-equity\tcorrelation | (80.54)% | 100.00% | 49.54\t% |
| Model-based | Forward\tprice | 35.09\t% | 299.32% | 112.98\t% |
|  | Commodity\tvolatility | 5.00\t% | 83.00% | 24.00\t% |
|  | Commodity\tcorrelation | (57.00)% | 91.00% | 30.00\t% |
| Model-based | Recovery\trate | 1.00\t% | 75.00% | 32.49\t% |

| Methodology | Input | Low(2)(3) | High(2)(3) | Weighted<br>average(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Price-based | Credit\tcorrelation | 5.00\t% | 90.00% | 43.48\t% |
|  | Price | $0.33 | $101.00 | $61.52 |
|  | Credit\tspread | 1\tbps | 967\tbps | 133\tbps |
|  | Upfront\tpoints | 7.00\t% | 99.92% | 66.75\t% |
| Model-based | Recovery\trate | 7.00\t% | 40.00% | 10.72\t% |
|  | Redemption\trate | 27.00\t% | 99.50% | 74.80\t% |
|  | Interest\trate | 5.26\t% | 5.28% | 5.27\t% |
| Price-based | Yield | 1.50\t% | 4.50% | 2.52\t% |
| Model-based | Price | $— | $106.98 | $40.69 |
| Cash\tflow | Credit\tspread | 29\tbps | 500\tbps | 105\tbps |
| Cash\tflow | Yield | —\t% | 23.32% | 6.83\t% |
|  | WAL | 3.38\tyears | 7.48\tyears | 5.5\tyears |
| Model-based | Equity-IR\tcorrelation | 23.00\t% | 39.00% | 34.51\t% |
|  | Forward\tprice | 35.09\t% | 299.32% | 112.72\t% |
|  | Commodity\tcorrelation | (57.00)% | 91.00% | 30.00\t% |
|  | Commodity\tvolatility | 5.00\t% | 83.00% | 24.00\t% |
| Model-based | Interest\trate | 1.27\t% | 2.02% | 1.92\t% |
| Price-based | Price | $— | $217.00 | $87.78 |
| Model-based | Mean\treversion | (5.52)% | 20.00% | 7.80\t% |
|  | Equity\tvolatility | 9.55\t% | 42.56% | 22.26\t% |
|  | Equity\tforward | 82.72\t% | 100.80% | 94.48\t% |
|  | Equity-equity\tcorrelation | (80.54)% | 100.00% | 49.16\t% |
|  | Forward\tprice | 35.09\t% | 299.32% | 106.32\t% |
|  | Equity-FX\tcorrelation | (88.20)% | 56.85% | (31.76)% |

|  | Fair	value(1) |  |  |  |  | Weighted |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| As\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2014 | \t(in\tmillions) | Methodology | Input | Low(2)(3) | High(2)(3) | average(4) |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\nor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | $3,156 | Model-based | Interest\trate | 1.27\t% | 1.97% | 1.80\t% |
| Mortgage-backed\tsecurities | $2,874 | Price-based | Price | $— | $127.87 | $81.43 |
|  | 1,117 | Yield\tanalysis | Yield | 0.01\t% | 19.91% | 5.89\t% |
| State\tand\tmunicipal,\tforeign\tgovernment,\ncorporate\tand\tother\tdebt\tsecurities | $5,937 | Price-based | Price | $— | $124.00 | $90.62 |
|  | 1,860 | Cash\tflow | Credit\tspread | 25\tbps | 600\tbps | 233\tbps |
| Equity\tsecurities(5) | $2,163 | Price-based | Price\t(5) | $— | $141.00 | $91.00 |
|  | 679 | Cash\tflow | Yield | 4.00\t% | 5.00% | 4.50\t% |
|  |  |  | WAL | 0.01\tyears | 3.14\tyears | 1.07\tyears |
| Asset-backed\tsecurities | $3,607 | Price-based | Price | $— | $105.50 | $67.01 |
| Non-marketable\tequity | $1,224 | Price-based | Discount\tto\tprice | —\t% | 90.00% | 4.04\t% |
|  | 1,055 | Comparables\tanalysis | EBITDA\tmultiples | 2.90x | 13.10x | 9.77x |
|  |  |  | PE\tratio | 8.10x | 13.10x | 8.43x |
|  |  |  | Price-to-book\tratio | 0.99x | 1.56x | 1.15x |
| Derivatives—gross(6) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  | Interest\trate\t(IR)\tlog-normal |  |  |  |
| Interest\trate\tcontracts\t(gross) | $8,309 | Model-based | volatility | 18.05\t% | 90.65% | 30.21\t% |
|  |  |  | Mean\treversion | 1.00\t% | 20.00% | 10.50\t% |
|  |  |  | Foreign\texchange\t(FX) |  |  |  |
| Foreign\texchange\tcontracts\t(gross) | $1,428 | Model-based | volatility | 0.37\t% | 58.40% | 8.57\t% |
|  | 294 | Cash\tflow | Interest\trate | 3.72\t% | 8.27% | 5.02\t% |
|  |  |  | IR-FX\tcorrelation | 40.00\t% | 60.00% | 50.00\t% |
| Equity\tcontracts\t(gross)(7) | $4,431 | Model-based | Equity\tvolatility | 9.56\t% | 82.44% | 24.61\t% |
|  | 502 | Price-based | Equity\tforward | 84.10\t% | 100.80% | 94.10\t% |
|  |  |  | Equity-FX\tcorrelation | (88.20)% | 48.70% | (25.17)% |
|  |  |  | Equity-equity\tcorrelation | (66.30)% | 94.80% | 36.87\t% |
|  |  |  | Price | $0.01 | $144.50 | $93.05 |
| Commodity\tcontracts\t(gross) | $3,606 | Model-based | Commodity\tvolatility | 5.00\t% | 83.00% | 24.00\t% |
|  |  |  | Commodity\tcorrelation | (57.00)% | 91.00% | 30.00\t% |
|  |  |  | Forward\tprice | 35.34\t% | 268.77% | 101.74\t% |
| Credit\tderivatives\t(gross) | $4,944 | Model-based | Recovery\trate | 13.97\t% | 75.00% | 37.62\t% |
|  | 1,584 | Price-based | Credit\tcorrelation | —\t% | 95.00% | 58.76\t% |
|  |  |  | Price | $1.00 | $144.50 | $53.86 |
|  |  |  | Credit\tspread | 1\tbps | 3,380\tbps | 180\tbps |
|  |  |  | Upfront\tpoints | 0.39 | 100.00 | 52.26 |
| Non-trading\tderivatives\tand\tother\tfinancial |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| assets\tand\tliabilities\tmeasured\ton\ta |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| recurring\tbasis\t(gross)(6) | $74 | Model-based | Redemption\trate | 13.00\t% | 99.50% | 68.73\t% |
|  |  |  | Forward\tPrice | 107.00\t% | 107.10% | 107.05\t% |
| Loans | $1,095 | Cash\tflow | Yield | 1.60\t% | 4.50% | 2.23\t% |
|  | 832 | Model-based | Price | $4.72 | $106.55 | $98.56 |
|  | 740 | Price-based | Credit\tspread | 35\tbps | 500\tbps | 199\tbps |

| Methodology | Input | Low(2)(3) | High(2)(3) | Weighted<br>average(4) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Cash\tflow | Yield | 5.19\t% | 21.40% | 10.25\t% |
|  | WAL | 3.31\tyears | 7.89\tyears | 5.17\tyears |
| Model-based | Equity-IR\tcorrelation | 34.00\t% | 37.00% | 35.43\t% |
|  | Commodity\tcorrelation | (57.00)% | 91.00% | 30.00\t% |
|  | Commodity\tvolatility | 5.00\t% | 83.00% | 24.00\t% |
|  | Forward\tprice | 35.34\t% | 268.77% | 101.74\t% |
| Model-based | Interest\trate | 0.74\t% | 2.26% | 1.90\t% |
| Model-based | Credit-IR\tcorrelation | (70.49)% | 8.81% | 47.17\t% |
| Price-based | Price | $— | $117.00 | $70.33 |
| Model-based | IR\tlog-normal\tvolatility | 18.05\t% | 90.65% | 30.21\t% |
|  | Mean\treversion | 1.00\t% | 20.00% | 10.50\t% |
|  | Equity\tvolatility | 10.18\t% | 69.65% | 23.72\t% |
|  | Credit\tcorrelation | 87.50\t% | 87.50% | 87.50\t% |
|  | Equity\tforward | 89.50\t% | 100.80% | 95.80\t% |
|  | Forward\tprice | 35.34\t% | 268.77% | 101.80\t% |
|  | Commodity\tcorrelation | (57.00)% | 91.00% | 30.00\t% |
|  | Commodity\tvolatility | 5.00\t% | 83.00% | 24.00\t% |

(1) The	fair	value	amounts	presented	in	these	tables	represent	the	primary	valuation	technique	or	techniques	for	each	class	of	assets	or	liabilities.

(2) Some	inputs	are	shown	as	zero	due	to	rounding.

(3) When	the	low	and	high	inputs	are	the	same,	there	is	either	a	constant	input	applied	to	all	positions,	or	the	methodology	involving	the	input	applies	to	only	one	large	position.

(4) Weighted	averages	are	calculated	based	on	the	fair	values	of	the	instruments.

(5) For	equity	securities,	the	price	and	fund	NAV	inputs	are	expressed	on	an	absolute	basis,	not	as	a	percentage	of	the	notional	amount.

(6) Both	trading	and	nontrading	account	derivatives—assets	and	liabilities—are	presented	on	a	gross	absolute	value	basis.

(7) Includes	hybrid	products.

# Sensitivity	to	Unobservable	Inputs	and	Interrelationships	between Unobservable	Inputs

The	impact	of	key	unobservable	inputs	on	the	Level	3	fair	value	measurements may	not	be	independent	of	one	another.	In	addition,	the	amount	and	direction	of	the impact	on	a	fair	value	measurement	for	a	given	change	in	an	unobservable	input depends	on	the	nature	of	the	instrument	as	well	as	whether	the	Company	holds	the instrument	as	an	asset	or	a	liability.	For	certain	instruments,	the	pricing,	hedging and	risk	management	are	sensitive	to	the	correlation	between	various	inputs	rather than	on	the	analysis	and	aggregation	of	the	individual	inputs.

The	following	section	describes	the	sensitivities	and	interrelationships	of	the most	significant	unobservable	inputs	used	by	the	Company	in	Level	3	fair	value measurements.

# Correlation

Correlation	is	a	measure	of	the	extent	to	which	two	or	more	variables	change	in relation	to	each	other.	A	variety	of	correlation-related	assumptions	are	required	for a	wide	range	of	instruments,	including	equity	and	credit	baskets,	foreign-exchange options,	CDOs	backed	by	loans	or	bonds,	mortgages,	subprime	mortgages	and many	other	instruments.	For	almost	all	of	these	instruments,	correlations	are	not observable	in	the	market	and	must	be	calculated	using	historical	information. Estimating	correlation	can	be	especially	difficult	where	it	may	vary	over	time. Calculating	correlation	information	from	market	data	requires	significant assumptions	regarding	the	informational	efficiency	of	the	market	(for	example, swaption	markets).	Changes	in	correlation	levels	can	have	a	major	impact, favorable	or	unfavorable,	on	the	value	of	an	instrument,	depending	on	its	nature.	A change	in	the	default	correlation	of	the	fair	value	of	the	underlying	bonds comprising	a	CDO	structure	would	affect	the	fair	value	of	the	senior	tranche.	For example,	an	increase	in	the	default	correlation	of	the	underlying	bonds	would reduce	the	fair	value	of	the	senior	tranche,	because	highly	correlated	instruments produce	larger	losses	in	the	event	of	default	and	a	part	of	these	losses	would become	attributable	to	the	senior	tranche.	That	same	change	in	default	correlation would	have	a	different	impact	on	junior	tranches	of	the	same	structure.

# Volatility

Volatility	represents	the	speed	and	severity	of	market	price	changes	and	is	a	key factor	in	pricing	options.	Typically,	instruments	can	become	more	expensive	if volatility	increases.	For	example,	as	an	index	becomes	more	volatile,	the	cost	to Citi	of	maintaining	a	given	level	of	exposure	increases	because	more	frequent rebalancing	of	the	portfolio	is	required.	Volatility	generally	depends	on	the	tenor of	the	underlying	instrument	and	the	strike	price	or	level	defined	in	the	contract. Volatilities	for	certain	combinations	of	tenor	and	strike	are	not	observable.	The general	relationship	between	changes	in	the	value	of	a	portfolio	to	changes	in volatility	also	depends	on	changes	in	interest	rates	and	the	level	of	the	underlying index.	Generally,	long	option	positions	(assets)	benefit	from	increases	in	volatility, whereas	short	option	positions	(liabilities)	will	suffer	losses.	Some	instruments	are more	sensitive	to	changes	in	volatility	than	others.	For	example,	an

at-the-money	option	would	experience	a	larger	percentage	change	in	its	fair	value than	a	deep-in-the-money	option.	In	addition,	the	fair	value	of	an	option	with	more than	one	underlying	security	(for	example,	an	option	on	a	basket	of	bonds)	depends on	the	volatility	of	the	individual	underlying	securities	as	well	as	their	correlations.

# Yield

Adjusted	yield	is	generally	used	to	discount	the	projected	future	principal	and interest	cash	flows	on	instruments,	such	as	asset-backed	securities.	Adjusted	yield is	impacted	by	changes	in	the	interest	rate	environment	and	relevant	credit	spreads. In	some	circumstances,	the	yield	of	an	instrument	is	not	observable	in	the market	and	must	be	estimated	from	historical	data	or	from	yields	of	similar securities.	This	estimated	yield	may	need	to	be	adjusted	to	capture	the characteristics	of	the	security	being	valued.	In	other	situations,	the	estimated	yield may	not	represent	sufficient	market	liquidity	and	must	be	adjusted	as	well. Whenever	the	amount	of	the	adjustment	is	significant	to	the	value	of	the	security, the	fair	value	measurement	is	classified	as	Level	3.

# Prepayment

Voluntary	unscheduled	payments	(prepayments)	change	the	future	cash	flows	for the	investor	and	thereby	change	the	fair	value	of	the	security.	The	effect	of prepayments	is	more	pronounced	for	residential	mortgage-backed	securities.	An increase	in	prepayments—in	speed	or	magnitude—generally	creates	losses	for	the holder	of	these	securities.	Prepayment	is	generally	negatively	correlated	with delinquency	and	interest	rate.	A	combination	of	low	prepayment	and	high delinquencies	amplify	each	input's	negative	impact	on	mortgage	securities' valuation.	As	prepayment	speeds	change,	the	weighted	average	life	of	the	security changes,	which	impacts	the	valuation	either	positively	or	negatively,	depending upon	the	nature	of	the	security	and	the	direction	of	the	change	in	the	weighted average	life.

# Recovery

Recovery	is	the	proportion	of	the	total	outstanding	balance	of	a	bond	or	loan	that	is expected	to	be	collected	in	a	liquidation	scenario.	For	many	credit	securities	(such as	asset-backed	securities),	there	is	no	directly	observable	market	input	for recovery,	but	indications	of	recovery	levels	are	available	from	pricing	services. The	assumed	recovery	of	a	security	may	differ	from	its	actual	recovery	that	will	be observable	in	the	future.	The	recovery	rate	impacts	the	valuation	of	credit securities.	Generally,	an	increase	in	the	recovery	rate	assumption	increases	the	fair value	of	the	security.	An	increase	in	loss	severity,	the	inverse	of	the	recovery	rate, reduces	the	amount	of	principal	available	for	distribution	and,	as	a	result,	decreases the	fair	value	of	the	security.

# Credit	Spread

Credit	spread	is	a	component	of	the	security	representing	its	credit	quality.	Credit spread	reflects	the	market	perception	of	changes	in	prepayment,	delinquency	and recovery	rates,	therefore	capturing	the	impact	of	other	variables	on	the	fair	value. Changes	in	credit	spread	affect	the	fair	value	of

securities	differently	depending	on	the	characteristics	and	maturity	profile	of	the security.	For	example,	credit	spread	is	a	more	significant	driver	of	the	fair	value measurement	of	a	high	yield	bond	as	compared	to	an	investment	grade	bond. Generally,	the	credit	spread	for	an	investment	grade	bond	is	also	more	observable and	less	volatile	than	its	high	yield	counterpart.

# Qualitative	Discussion	of	the	Ranges	of	Significant	Unobservable	Inputs

The	following	section	describes	the	ranges	of	the	most	significant	unobservable inputs	used	by	the	Company	in	Level	3	fair	value	measurements.	The	level	of aggregation	and	the	diversity	of	instruments	held	by	the	Company	lead	to	a	wide range	of	unobservable	inputs	that	may	not	be	evenly	distributed	across	the	Level	3 inventory.

There	are	many	different	types	of	correlation	inputs,	including	credit	correlation, cross-asset	correlation	(such	as	equity-interest	rate	correlation),	and	same-asset correlation	(such	as	interest	rate-interest	rate	correlation).	Correlation	inputs	are generally	used	to	value	hybrid	and	exotic	instruments.	Generally,	same-asset correlation	inputs	have	a	narrower	range	than	cross-asset	correlation	inputs. However,	due	to	the	complex	and	unique	nature	of	these	instruments,	the	ranges for	correlation	inputs	can	vary	widely	across	portfolios.

Similar	to	correlation,	asset-specific	volatility	inputs	vary	widely	by	asset	type.	For example,	ranges	for	foreign	exchange	volatility	are	generally	lower	and	narrower than	equity	volatility.	Equity	volatilities	are	wider	due	to	the	nature	of	the	equities market	and	the	terms	of	certain	exotic	instruments.	For	most	instruments,	the interest	rate	volatility	input	is	on	the	lower	end	of	the	range;	however,	for	certain structured	or	exotic	instruments	(such	as	market-linked	deposits	or	exotic	interest rate	derivatives),	the	range	is	much	wider.

Ranges	for	the	yield	inputs	vary	significantly	depending	upon	the	type	of	security. For	example,	securities	that	typically	have	lower	yields,	such	as	municipal	bonds, will	fall	on	the	lower	end	of	the	range,	while	more	illiquid	securities	or	securities with	lower	credit	quality,	such	as	certain	residual	tranche	asset-backed	securities, will	have	much	higher	yield	inputs.

Credit	spread	is	relevant	primarily	for	fixed	income	and	credit	instruments; however,	the	ranges	for	the	credit	spread	input	can	vary	across	instruments.	For example,	certain	fixed	income	instruments,	such	as	certificates	of	deposit,	typically have	lower	credit	spreads,	whereas	certain	derivative	instruments	with	high-risk counterparties	are	typically	subject	to	higher	credit	spreads	when	they	are uncollateralized	or	have	a	longer	tenor.	Other	instruments,	such	as	credit	default swaps,	also	have	credit	spreads	that	vary	with	the	attributes	of	the

underlying	obligor.	Stronger	companies	have	tighter	credit	spreads,	and	weaker companies	have	wider	credit	spreads.

# Price

The	price	input	is	a	significant	unobservable	input	for	certain	fixed	income instruments.	For	these	instruments,	the	price	input	is	expressed	as	a	percentage	of the	notional	amount,	with	a	price	of	$100	meaning	that	the	instrument	is	valued	at par.	For	most	of	these	instruments,	the	price	varies	between	zero	to	$100,	or slightly	above	$100.	Relatively	illiquid	assets	that	have	experienced	significant losses	since	issuance,	such	as	certain	asset-backed	securities,	are	at	the	lower	end of	the	range,	whereas	most	investment	grade	corporate	bonds	will	fall	in	the	middle to	the	higher	end	of	the	range.	For	certain	structured	debt	instruments	with embedded	derivatives,	the	price	input	may	be	above	$100	to	reflect	the	embedded features	of	the	instrument	(for	example,	a	step-up	coupon	or	a	conversion	option). The	price	input	is	also	a	significant	unobservable	input	for	certain	equity securities;	however,	the	range	of	price	inputs	varies	depending	on	the	nature	of	the position,	the	number	of	shares	outstanding	and	other	factors.

# Mean	Reversion

A	number	of	financial	instruments	require	an	estimate	of	the	rate	at	which	the interest	rate	reverts	to	its	long	term	average.	Changes	in	this	estimate	can significantly	affect	the	fair	value	of	these	instruments.	However,	sometimes	there	is insufficient	external	market	data	to	calibrate	this	parameter,	especially	when pricing	more	complex	instruments.	The	level	of	mean	reversion	affects	the correlation	between	short	and	long	term	interest	rates.	The	fair	values	of	more complex	instruments,	such	as	Bermudan	swaptions	(options	with	multiple	exercise dates)	and	constant	maturity	spread	options	or	structured	debts	with	these embedded	features,	are	more	sensitive	to	the	changes	in	this	correlation	as compared	to	less	complex	instruments,	such	as	caps	and	floors.

# Items	Measured	at	Fair	Value	on	a	Nonrecurring	Basis

Certain	assets	and	liabilities	are	measured	at	fair	value	on	a	nonrecurring	basis	and therefore	are	not	included	in	the	tables	above.	These	include	assets	measured	at cost	that	have	been	written	down	to	fair	value	during	the	periods	as	a	result	of	an impairment.	In	addition,	these	assets	include	loans	held-for-sale	and	other	real estate	owned	that	are	measured	at	the	lower	of	cost	or	market.

The	following	table	presents	the	carrying	amounts	of	all	assets	that	were	still held	for	which	a	nonrecurring	fair	value	measurement	was	recorded:

| In	millions	of	dollars | Fair	value | Level	2 | Level	3 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| December\t31,\t2015 |  |  |  |
| Loans\theld-for-sale | $10,326 | $6,752 | $3,574 |
| Other\treal\testate\towned | 107 | 15 | 92 |
| Loans(1) | 1,173 | 836 | 337 |
| Total\tassets\tat\tfair\tvalue\ton\ta\nnonrecurring\tbasis | $11,606 | $7,603 | $4,003 |

The	fair	value	of	loans-held-for-sale	is	determined	where	possible	using quoted	secondary-market	prices.	If	no	such	quoted	price	exists,	the	fair	value	of	a loan	is	determined	using	quoted	prices	for	a	similar	asset	or	assets,	adjusted	for	the specific	attributes	of	that	loan.	Fair	value	for	the	other	real	estate	owned	is	based on	appraisals.	For	loans	whose	carrying	amount	is	based	on	the	fair	value	of	the underlying	collateral,	the	fair	values	depend	on	the	type	of	collateral.	Fair	value	of the	collateral	is	typically	estimated	based	on	quoted	market	prices	if	available, appraisals	or	other	internal	valuation	techniques.

Where	the	fair	value	of	the	related	collateral	is	based	on	an	unadjusted appraised	value,	the	loan	is	generally	classified	as	Level	2.	Where	significant adjustments	are	made	to	the	appraised	value,	the	loan	is	classified	as	Level	3. Additionally,	for	corporate	loans,	appraisals	of	the	collateral	are	often	based	on sales	of	similar	assets;	however,	because	the	prices	of	similar	assets	require significant	adjustments	to	reflect	the	unique	features	of	the	underlying	collateral, these	fair	value	measurements	are	generally	classified	as	Level	3.

| In	millions	of	dollars | Fair	value | Level	2 | Level	3 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| December\t31,\t2014 |  |  |  |
| Loans\theld-for-sale | $4,152 | $1,084 | $3,068 |
| Other\treal\testate\towned | 102 | 21 | 81 |
| Loans(1) | 3,367 | 2,881 | 486 |
| Total\tassets\tat\tfair\tvalue\ton\ta\nnonrecurring\tbasis | $7,621 | $3,986 | $3,635 |

(1) Represents	impaired	loans	held	for	investment	whose	carrying	amount	is	based	on	the	fair value	of	the	underlying	collateral,	primarily	real	estate	secured	loans.

# Valuation	Techniques	and	Inputs	for	Level	3	Nonrecurring	Fair	Value	Measurements

The	following	tables	present	the	valuation	techniques	covering	the	majority	of	Level	3	nonrecurring	fair	value	measurements	and	the	most	significant	unobservable	inputs used	in	those	measurements:

(1) The	fair	value	amounts	presented	in	this	table	represent	the	primary	valuation	technique	or	techniques	for	each	class	of	assets	or	liabilities.

(3) Represents	loans	held	for	investment	whose	carrying	amounts	are	based	on	the	fair	value	of	the	underlying	collateral.

(4) Includes	estimated	costs	to	sell.

(2) Weighted	averages	are	based	on	the	fair	values	of	the	instruments.

# Nonrecurring	Fair	Value	Changes

The	following	table	presents	total	nonrecurring	fair	value	measurements	for	the period,	included	in	earnings,	attributable	to	the	change	in	fair	value	relating	to assets	that	were	still	held:

|  | Year	ended	December	31, |
| :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2014 |
| Loans\theld-for-sale | $34 |
| Other\treal\testate\towned | (16) |
| Loans(1) | (533) |
| Total\tnonrecurring\tfair\tvalue\tgains\t(losses) | $(515) |

(1) Represents	loans	held	for	investment	whose	carrying	amount	is	based	on	the	fair	value	of	the underlying	collateral,	primarily	real	estate	loans.

# Estimated	Fair	Value	of	Financial	Instruments	Not	Carried	at	Fair	Value

The	table	below	presents	the	carrying	value	and	fair	value	of	Citigroup's	financial instruments	that	are	not	carried	at	fair	value.	The	table	below	therefore	excludes items	measured	at	fair	value	on	a	recurring	basis	presented	in	the	tables	above. The	disclosure	also	excludes	leases,	affiliate	investments,	pension	and	benefit obligations	and	insurance	policy	claim	reserves.	In	addition,	contract-holder	fund amounts	exclude	certain	insurance	contracts.	Also,	as	required,	the	disclosure excludes	the	effect	of	taxes,	any	premium	or	discount	that	could	result	from offering	for	sale	at	one	time	the	entire	holdings	of	a	particular	instrument,	excess fair	value	associated	with	deposits	with	no	fixed	maturity,	and	other	expenses	that would	be	incurred	in	a	market	transaction.	In	addition,	the	table	excludes	the values	of	non-financial	assets	and	liabilities,	as	well	as	a	wide	range	of	franchise, relationship	and	intangible	values,	which	are	integral	to	a	full	assessment	of Citigroup's	financial	position	and	the	value	of	its	net	assets.

carrying	value	of	short-term	financial	instruments	not	accounted	for	at	fair	value, as	well	as	receivables	and	payables	arising	in	the	ordinary	course	of	business, approximates	fair	value	because	of	the	relatively	short	period	of	time	between	their origination	and	expected	realization.	Quoted	market	prices	are	used	when	available for	investments	and	for	liabilities,	such	as	long-term	debt	not	carried	at	fair	value. For	loans	not	accounted	for	at	fair	value,	cash	flows	are	discounted	at	quoted secondary	market	rates	or	estimated	market	rates	if	available.	Otherwise,	sales	of comparable	loan	portfolios	or	current	market	origination	rates	for	loans	with similar	terms	and	risk	characteristics	are	used.	Expected	credit	losses	are	either embedded	in	the	estimated	future	cash	flows	or	incorporated	as	an	adjustment	to the	discount	rate	used.	The	value	of	collateral	is	also	considered.	For	liabilities such	as	long-term	debt	not	accounted	for	at	fair	value	and	without	quoted	market prices,	market	borrowing	rates	of	interest	are	used	to	discount	contractual	cash flows.

The	fair	value	represents	management's	best	estimates	based	on	a	range	of methodologies	and	assumptions.	The

|  | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2015 | Estimated	fair	value | Estimated	fair	value |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars | Carrying\nvalue | Estimated\nfair\tvalue | Level\t1 | Level\t2 | Level\t3 |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |
| Investments | $41.7 | $42.7 | $3.5 | $36.4 | $2.8 |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | 81.7 | 81.7 | — | 77.4 | 4.3 |
| Loans(1)(2) | 597.5 | 595.7 | — | 6.0 | 589.7 |
| Other\tfinancial\tassets(2)(3) | 186.5 | 186.5 | 6.9 | 126.2 | 53.4 |
| Liabilities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Deposits | $906.3 | $896.7 | $— | $749.4 | $147.3 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase | 109.7 | 109.7 | — | 109.4 | 0.3 |
| Long-term\tdebt(4) | 176.0 | 180.8 | — | 153.8 | 27.0 |
| Other\tfinancial\tliabilities(5) | 97.6 | 97.6 | — | 18.0 | 79.6 |

|  | December	31,	2014 | December	31,	2014 | Estimated	fair	value | Estimated	fair	value |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars | Carrying\nvalue | Estimated\nfair\tvalue | Level\t1 | Level\t2 | Level\t3 |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |
| Investments | $30.5 | $32.2 | $4.5 | $25.2 | $2.5 |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell | 98.4 | 98.4 | — | 89.7 | 8.7 |
| Loans(1)(2) | 620.0 | 617.6 | — | 5.6 | 612.0 |
| Other\tfinancial\tassets(2)(3) | 213.8 | 213.8 | 8.3 | 151.9 | 53.6 |
| Liabilities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Deposits | $897.6 | $894.4 | $— | $766.7 | $127.7 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase | 136.7 | 136.7 | — | 136.5 | 0.2 |
| Long-term\tdebt(4) | 196.9 | 202.5 | — | 172.7 | 29.8 |
| Other\tfinancial\tliabilities(5) | 136.2 | 136.2 | — | 41.4 | 94.8 |

(1) The	carrying	value	of	loans	is	net	of	the	Allowance	for	loan	losses	of	$12.6	billion	for	December	31,	2015	and	$16.0	billion	for	December	31,	2014.	In	addition,	the	carrying	values	exclude	$2.4 billion	and	$2.7	billion	of	lease	finance	receivables	at	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014,	respectively.

(2) Includes	items	measured	at	fair	value	on	a	nonrecurring	basis.

(3) Includes	cash	and	due	from	banks,	deposits	with	banks,	brokerage	receivables,	reinsurance	recoverable	and	other	financial	instruments	included	in Other	assets	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet,	for all	of	which	the	carrying	value	is	a	reasonable	estimate	of	fair	value.

(4) The	carrying	value	includes	long-term	debt	balances	under	qualifying	fair	value	hedges.

(5) Includes	brokerage	payables,	separate	and	variable	accounts,	short-term	borrowings	(carried	at	cost)	and	other	financial	instruments	included	in	 Other	liabilities	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet,	for all	of	which	the	carrying	value	is	a	reasonable	estimate	of	fair	value.

Fair	values	vary	from	period	to	period	based	on	changes	in	a	wide	range	of factors,	including	interest	rates,	credit	quality	and	market	perceptions	of	value,	and as	existing	assets	and	liabilities	run	off	and	new	transactions	are	entered	into.	The estimated	fair	values	of	loans	reflect	changes	in	credit	status	since	the	loans	were made,	changes	in	interest	rates	in	the	case	of	fixed-rate	loans,	and	premium	values at	origination	of	certain	loans.

The	estimated	fair	values	of	the	Company's	corporate	unfunded	lending commitments	at	December	31,	2015	and	December	31,	2014	were	liabilities	of $7.0	billion	and	$5.5	billion,	respectively,	substantially	all	of	which	are	classified as	Level	3.	The	Company	does	not	estimate	the	fair	values	of	consumer	unfunded lending	commitments,	which	are	generally	cancellable	by	providing	notice	to	the borrower.

# 26.			FAIR	VALUE	ELECTIONS

The	Company	may	elect	to	report	most	financial	instruments	and	certain	other items	at	fair	value	on	an	instrument-by-instrument	basis	with	changes	in	fair	value reported	in	earnings.	The	election	is	made	upon	the	initial	recognition	of	an	eligible financial	asset,	financial	liability	or	firm	commitment	or	when	certain	specified reconsideration	events	occur.	The	fair	value	election	may	not	be	revoked	once	an election	is	made.	The	changes	in	fair	value	are	recorded	in

current	earnings.	Additional	discussion	regarding	the	applicable	areas	in	which	fair value	elections	were	made	is	presented	in	Note	25	to	the	Consolidated	Financial Statements.

All	servicing	rights	are	recognized	initially	at	fair	value.	The	Company	has elected	fair	value	accounting	for	its	mortgage	servicing	rights.	See	Note	22	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	further	discussions	regarding	the	accounting and	reporting	of	MSRs.

The	following	table	presents	the	changes	in	fair	value	gains	and	losses	associated	with	those	items	for	which	the	fair	value	option	was	elected:

|  | Changes	in	fair	value	gains	(losses)	for	the |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|  | years\tended\tDecember\t31, |  |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| Assets |  |  |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed\tor\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements\tto\tresell |  |  |
| \t\t\t\t\tselected\tportfolios\tof\tsecurities\tpurchased\tunder\tagreements |  |  |
| \t\t\t\t\tto\tresell\tand\tsecurities\tborrowed | $(153) | $(154) |
| Trading\taccount\tassets | (305) | 190 |
| Investments | 57 | 30 |
| Loans |  |  |
| Certain\tcorporate\tloans(1) | (192) | (135) |
| Certain\tconsumer\tloans(1) | 3 | (41) |
| Total\tloans | $(189) | $(176) |
| Other\tassets |  |  |
| MSRs | $104 | $(344) |
| Certain\tmortgage\tloans\theld\tfor\tsale(2) | 331 | 474 |
| Total\tother\tassets | $435 | $130 |
| Total\tassets | $(155) | $20 |
| Liabilities |  |  |
| Interest-bearing\tdeposits | $(94) | $(77) |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase\nselected\tportfolios\tof\tsecurities\tsold\tunder\tagreements\tto\trepurchase\tand\tsecurities\tloaned | 3 | (5) |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities | (60) | 29 |
| Short-term\tborrowings | (59) | 8 |
| Long-term\tdebt | 343 | (307) |
| Total\tliabilities | $133 | $(352) |

(1) Includes	mortgage	loans	held	by	mortgage	loan	securitization	VIEs	consolidated	upon	the	adoption	of	ASC	810,	 Consolidation	(SFAS	167),	on	January	1,	2010.

(2) Includes	gains	(losses)	associated	with	interest	rate	lock-commitments	for	those	loans	that	have	been	originated	and	elected	under	the	fair	value	option.

# Own	Debt	Valuation	Adjustments

Own	debt	valuation	adjustments	are	recognized	on	Citi's	liabilities	for	which	the fair	value	option	has	been	elected	using	Citi's	credit	spreads	observed	in	the	bond market.	The	fair	value	of	liabilities	for	which	the	fair	value	option	is	elected	(other than	non-recourse	and	similar	liabilities)	is	impacted	by	the	narrowing	or	widening of	the	Company's	credit	spreads.	The	estimated	change	in	the	fair	value	of	these liabilities	due	to	such	changes	in	the	Company's	own	credit	risk	(or	instrument- specific	credit	risk)	was	a	gain	of	$367	million	and	$218	million	for	the	years ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.	Changes	in	fair	value	resulting from	changes	in	instrument-specific	credit	risk	were	estimated	by	incorporating	the Company's	current	credit	spreads	observable	in	the	bond	market	into	the	relevant valuation	technique	used	to	value	each	liability	as	described	above.

# The	Fair	Value	Option	for	Financial	Assets	and	Financial	Liabilities

# Selected	Portfolios	of	Securities	Purchased	Under	Agreements	to	Resell, Securities	Borrowed,	Securities	Sold	Under	Agreements	to	Repurchase, Securities	Loaned	and	Certain	Non-Collateralized	Short-Term	Borrowings

Changes	in	fair	value	for	transactions	in	these	portfolios	are	recorded	in Principal	transactions.	The	related	interest	revenue	and	interest	expense	are measured	based	on	the	contractual	rates	specified	in	the	transactions	and	are reported	as	interest	revenue	and	expense	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

# Certain	Loans	and	Other	Credit	Products

Citigroup	has	elected	the	fair	value	option	for	certain	originated	and	purchased loans,	including	certain	unfunded	loan	products,	such	as	guarantees	and	letters	of credit,	executed	by	Citigroup's	lending	and	trading	businesses.	None	of	these	credit products	are	highly	leveraged	financing	commitments.	Significant	groups	of transactions	include	loans	and	unfunded	loan	products	that	are	expected	to	be either	sold	or	securitized	in	the	near	term,	or	transactions	where	the	economic	risks are	hedged	with	derivative	instruments,	such	as	purchased	credit	default	swaps	or total	return	swaps	where	the	Company	pays	the	total	return	on	the	underlying	loans to	a	third	party.	Citigroup	has	elected	the	fair	value	option	to	mitigate	accounting mismatches	in	cases	where	hedge	accounting	is	complex	and	to	achieve	operational simplifications.	Fair	value	was	not	elected	for	most	lending	transactions	across	the Company.

The	Company	elected	the	fair	value	option	for	certain	portfolios	of	fixed-income securities	purchased	under	agreements	to	resell	and	fixed-income	securities	sold under	agreements	to	repurchase,	securities	borrowed,	securities	loaned,	and	certain non-collateralized	short-term	borrowings	held	primarily	by	broker-dealer	entities in	the	United	States,	United	Kingdom	and	Japan.	In	each	case,	the	election	was made	because	the	related	interest-rate	risk	is	managed	on	a	portfolio	basis, primarily	with	derivative	instruments	that	are	accounted	for	at	fair	value	through earnings.

The	following	table	provides	information	about	certain	credit	products	carried	at	fair	value:

|  | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Trading\tassets | Loans | Trading\tassets | Loans |
| Carrying\tamount\treported\ton\tthe\tConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet | $9,314 | $5,005 | $10,290 | $5,901 |
| Aggregate\tunpaid\tprincipal\tbalance\tin\texcess\tof\t(less\tthan)\tfair\tvalue | 980 | 280 | 234 | 125 |
| Balance\tof\tnon-accrual\tloans\tor\tloans\tmore\tthan\t90\tdays\tpast\tdue | 5 | 2 | 13 | 3 |
| Aggregate\tunpaid\tprincipal\tbalance\tin\texcess\tof\tfair\tvalue\tfor\tnon-accrual\tloans\tor\tloans\tmore\tthan\t90\tdays\tpast\ndue | 13 | 1 | 28 | 1 |

In	addition	to	the	amounts	reported	above,	$2,113	million	and	$2,335	million of	unfunded	commitments	related	to	certain	credit	products	selected	for	fair	value accounting	were	outstanding	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.

Changes	in	the	fair	value	of	funded	and	unfunded	credit	products	are	classified in	Principal	transactions	in	the	Company's	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income. Related	interest	revenue	is	measured	based	on	the	contractual	interest	rates	and reported	as	Interest	revenue	on	Trading	account	assets	or	loan	interest	depending on	the	balance	sheet	classifications	of	the	credit	products.	The	changes	in	fair	value for	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014	due	to	instrument-specific	credit risk	totaled	to	a	loss	of	$221	million	and	$155	million,	respectively.

# Certain	Investments	in	Unallocated	Precious	Metals

Citigroup	invests	in	unallocated	precious	metals	accounts	(gold,	silver,	platinum and	palladium)	as	part	of	its	commodity	and	foreign	currency	trading	activities	or to	economically	hedge	certain	exposures	from	issuing	structured	liabilities.	Under ASC	815,	the	investment	is	bifurcated	into	a	debt	host	contract	and	a	commodity forward	derivative	instrument.	Citigroup	elects	the	fair	value	option	for	the	debt host	contract,	and	reports	the	debt	host	contract	within	Trading	account	assets	on the	Company's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.	The	total	carrying	amount	of	debt	host contracts	across	unallocated	precious	metals	accounts	was	approximately	$0.6 billion	and	$1.2	billion	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.	The	amounts are	expected	to	fluctuate	based	on	trading	activity	in	future	periods.

As	part	of	its	commodity	and	foreign	currency	trading	activities,	Citi	sells (buys)	unallocated	precious	metals	investments	and	executes	forward	purchase (sale)	derivative	contracts	with	trading	counterparties.	When	Citi	sells	an unallocated	precious	metals	investment,	Citi's	receivable	from	its	depository	bank is	repaid	and	Citi	derecognizes	its	investment	in	the	unallocated	precious	metal. The	forward	purchase	(sale)	contract	with	the	trading	counterparty	indexed	to unallocated	precious	metals	is	accounted	for	as	a	derivative,	at	fair	value	through earnings.	As	of	December	31,	2015,	there	were	approximately	$10.6	billion	and $9.2	billion	notional	amounts	of	such	forward	purchase	and	forward	sale	derivative contracts	outstanding,	respectively.

# Certain	Investments	in	Private	Equity	and	Real	Estate	Ventures	and	Certain Equity	Method	and	Other	Investments

Citigroup	invests	in	private	equity	and	real	estate	ventures	for	the	purpose	of earning	investment	returns	and	for	capital	appreciation.	The	Company	has	elected the	fair	value	option	for	certain	of	these	ventures,	because	such	investments	are considered	similar	to	many	private	equity	or	hedge	fund	activities	in	Citi's investment	companies,	which	are	reported	at	fair	value.	The	fair	value	option brings	consistency	in	the	accounting	and	evaluation	of	these	investments.	All investments	(debt	and	equity)	in	such	private	equity	and	real	estate	entities	are accounted	for	at	fair	value.	These	investments	are	classified	as	Investments	on Citigroup's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

Changes	in	the	fair	values	of	these	investments	are	classified	in	Other	revenue in	the	Company's	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

Citigroup	also	elects	the	fair	value	option	for	certain	non-marketable	equity securities	whose	risk	is	managed	with	derivative	instruments	that	are	accounted	for at	fair	value	through	earnings.	These	securities	are	classified	as	Trading	account assets	on	Citigroup's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.	Changes	in	the	fair	value	of these	securities	and	the	related	derivative	instruments	are	recorded	in	Principal transactions.

# Certain	Mortgage	Loans	HFS

Citigroup	has	elected	the	fair	value	option	for	certain	purchased	and	originated prime	fixed-rate	and	conforming	adjustable-rate	first	mortgage	loans	HFS.	These loans	are	intended	for	sale	or	securitization	and	are	hedged	with	derivative instruments.	The	Company	has	elected	the	fair	value	option	to	mitigate	accounting mismatches	in	cases	where	hedge	accounting	is	complex	and	to	achieve	operational simplifications.

The	following	table	provides	information	about	certain	mortgage	loans	HFS	carried	at	fair	value:

| In	millions	of	dollars | December	31,<br>2015 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Carrying\tamount\treported\ton\tthe\tConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet | $745 | $1,447 |
| Aggregate\tfair\tvalue\tin\texcess\tof\tunpaid\tprincipal\tbalance | 20 | 67 |
| Balance\tof\tnon-accrual\tloans\tor\tloans\tmore\tthan\t90\tdays\tpast\tdue | — | — |
| Aggregate\tunpaid\tprincipal\tbalance\tin\texcess\tof\tfair\tvalue\tfor\tnon-accrual\tloans\tor\tloans\tmore\tthan\t90\tdays\tpast\tdue | — | — |

The	changes	in	the	fair	values	of	these	mortgage	loans	are	reported	in	Other revenue	in	the	Company's	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.	There	was	no	net change	in	fair	value	during	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015	and	2014	due	to instrument-specific	credit	risk.	Related	interest	income	continues	to	be	measured based	on	the	contractual	interest	rates	and	reported	as	Interest	revenue	in	the Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

# Certain	Structured	Liabilities

The	Company	has	elected	the	fair	value	option	for	certain	structured	liabilities whose	performance	is	linked	to	structured	interest	rates,	inflation,	currency,	equity, referenced	credit	or	commodity	risks.	The	Company	elected	the	fair	value	option, because	these	exposures	are	considered	to	be	trading-related	positions	and, therefore,	are	managed	on	a	fair	value	basis.	These	positions	will	continue	to	be classified	as	debt,	deposits	or	derivatives	(Trading	account	liabilities)	on	the Company's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	according	to	their	legal	form.

The	following	table	provides	information	about	the	carrying	value	of	structured	notes,	disaggregated	by	type	of	embedded	derivative	instrument:

| In	billions	of	dollars | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Interest\trate\tlinked | $9.6 | $10.9 |
| Foreign\texchange\tlinked | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Equity\tlinked | 9.9 | 8.0 |
| Commodity\tlinked | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Credit\tlinked | 1.6 | 2.5 |
| Total | $22.8 | $23.1 |

The	change	in	the	fair	value	of	these	structured	liabilities	is	reported	in Principal	transactions	in	the	Company's	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income. Changes	in	the	fair	value	of	these	structured	liabilities	include	an	economic component	for	accrued	interest,	which	is	included	in	the	change	in	fair	value reported	in	Principal	transactions.

# Certain	Non-Structured	Liabilities

The	Company	has	elected	the	fair	value	option	for	certain	non-structured	liabilities with	fixed	and	floating	interest	rates.	The	Company	has	elected	the	fair	value option	where	the	interest-rate	risk	of	such	liabilities	is	economically	hedged	with derivative	contracts	or	the	proceeds	are	used	to	purchase	financial	assets	that	will also	be	accounted	for	at	fair	value	through	earnings.	The	election	has	been	made	to mitigate	accounting	mismatches	and	to	achieve	operational	simplifications.	These positions	are	reported	in	Short-term	borrowings	and	Long-term	debt	on	the Company's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.	The	change	in	the	fair	value	of	these	non- structured	liabilities	is	reported	in	Principal	transactions	in	the	Company's Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.	Related	interest	expense	on	non-structured liabilities	is	measured	based	on	the	contractual	interest	rates	and	reported	as Interest	expense	in	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income.

# The	following	table	provides	information	about	long-term	debt	carried	at	fair	value:

| In	millions	of	dollars | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Carrying\tamount\treported\ton\tthe\tConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet | $25,293 | $26,180 |
| Aggregate\tunpaid\tprincipal\tbalance\tin\texcess\tof\t(less\tthan)\tfair\tvalue | 1,569 | (151) |

| In	millions	of	dollars | December	31,	2015 | December	31,	2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Carrying\tamount\treported\ton\tthe\tConsolidated\tBalance\tSheet | $1,207 | $1,496 |
| Aggregate\tunpaid\tprincipal\tbalance\tin\texcess\tof\t(less\tthan)\tfair\tvalue | 130 | 31 |

# 27.			PLEDGED	ASSETS,	COLLATERAL,	GUARANTEES	AND COMMITMENTS

# Pledged	Assets

In	connection	with	the	Company's	financing	and	trading	activities,	the	Company has	pledged	assets	to	collateralize	its	obligations	under	repurchase	agreements, secured	financing	agreements,	secured	liabilities	of	consolidated	VIEs	and	other borrowings.	The	approximate	carrying	values	of	the	significant	components	of pledged	assets	recognized	on	the	Company's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	included:

| In	millions	of	dollars | 2015 | 2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Investment\tsecurities | $210,604 | $173,015 |
| Loans | 203,568 | 214,530 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets | 97,205 | 111,832 |
| Total | $511,377 | $499,377 |

In	addition,	included	in	Cash	and	due	from	banks	at	December	31,	2015	and 2014	were	$5.0	billion	and	$6.2	billion,	respectively,	of	cash	segregated	under federal	and	other	brokerage	regulations	or	deposited	with	clearing	organizations.

# Collateral

At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	approximate	fair	value	of	collateral	received by	the	Company	that	may	be	resold	or	repledged,	excluding	the	impact	of allowable	netting,	was	$347.5	billion	and	$346.7	billion,	respectively.	This collateral	was	received	in	connection	with	resale	agreements,	securities	borrowings and	loans,	derivative	transactions	and	margined	broker	loans.

At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	a	substantial	portion	of	the	collateral received	by	the	Company	had	been	sold	or	repledged	in	connection	with repurchase	agreements,	securities	sold,	not	yet	purchased,	securities	borrowings and	loans,	pledges	to	clearing	organizations,	segregation	requirements	under securities	laws	and	regulations,	derivative	transactions	and	bank	loans.

respectively,	of	collateral	that	may	not	be	sold	or	repledged	by	the	secured	parties.

# Lease	Commitments

Rental	expense	(principally	for	offices	and	computer	equipment)	was	$1.3	billion, $1.4	billion	and	$1.5	billion	for	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015,	2014	and 2013,	respectively.

Future	minimum	annual	rentals	under	noncancellable	leases,	net	of	sublease income,	are	as	follows:

| In	millions	of	dollars |  |
| :--- | :--- |
| 2016 | $1,238 |
| 2017 | 1,002 |
| 2018 | 778 |
| 2019 | 698 |
| 2020 | 567 |
| Thereafter | 4,483 |
| Total | $8,766 |

# Guarantees

Citi	provides	a	variety	of	guarantees	and	indemnifications	to	its	customers	to enhance	their	credit	standing	and	enable	them	to	complete	a	wide	variety	of business	transactions.	For

certain	contracts	meeting	the	definition	of	a	guarantee,	the	guarantor	must

recognize,	at	inception,	a	liability	for	the	fair	value	of	the	obligation	undertaken	in issuing	the	guarantee.

In	addition,	the	guarantor	must	disclose	the	maximum	potential	amount	of future	payments	that	the	guarantor	could	be	required	to	make	under	the	guarantee, if	there	were	a	total

default	by	the	guaranteed	parties.	The	determination	of	the	maximum	potential future	payments	is	based	on	the	notional	amount	of	the	guarantees	without consideration	of	possible	recoveries	under	recourse	provisions	or	from	collateral held	or	pledged.	As	such,	Citi	believes	such	amounts	bear	no	relationship	to	the anticipated	losses,	if	any,	on	these	guarantees.

The	following	tables	present	information	about	Citi's	guarantees:

# Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments

|  | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015\texcept\tcarrying\tvalue\tin\tmillions | Expire\twithin\n1\tyear | Expire\tafter\n1\tyear | Total\tamount\noutstanding | Carrying\tvalue\n\t(in\tmillions\tof\tdollars) |
| Financial\tstandby\tletters\tof\tcredit | $23.8 | $73.0 | $96.8 | $153 |
| Performance\tguarantees | 7.4 | 4.1 | 11.5 | 24 |
| Derivative\tinstruments\tconsidered\tto\tbe\tguarantees | 3.6 | 74.9 | 78.5 | 1,779 |
| Loans\tsold\twith\trecourse | — | 0.2 | 0.2 | 17 |
| Securities\tlending\tindemnifications(1) | 79.0 | — | 79.0 | — |
| Credit\tcard\tmerchant\tprocessing(1) | 84.2 | — | 84.2 | — |
| Custody\tindemnifications\tand\tother | — | 51.7 | 51.7 | 56 |
| Total | $198.0 | $203.9 | $401.9 | $2,029 |

|  | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2014\texcept\tcarrying\tvalue\tin\tmillions | Expire\twithin\n1\tyear | Expire\tafter\n1\tyear | Total\tamount\noutstanding | Carrying\tvalue\n\t(in\tmillions\tof\tdollars) |
| Financial\tstandby\tletters\tof\tcredit | $25.4 | $73.0 | $98.4 | $242 |
| Performance\tguarantees | 7.1 | 4.8 | 11.9 | 29 |
| Derivative\tinstruments\tconsidered\tto\tbe\tguarantees | 12.5 | 79.2 | 91.7 | 2,806 |
| Loans\tsold\twith\trecourse | — | 0.2 | 0.2 | 15 |
| Securities\tlending\tindemnifications(1) | 115.9 | — | 115.9 | — |
| Credit\tcard\tmerchant\tprocessing(1) | 86.0 | — | 86.0 | — |
| Custody\tindemnifications\tand\tother | — | 48.9 | 48.9 | 54 |
| Total | $246.9 | $206.1 | $453.0 | $3,146 |

(1) The	carrying	values	of	securities	lending	indemnifications	and	credit	card	merchant	processing	were	not	material	for	either	period	presented,	as	the	probability	of	potential	liabilities	arising	from	these guarantees	is	minimal.

# Financial	Standby	Letters	of	Credit

Citi	issues	standby	letters	of	credit,	which	substitute	its	own	credit	for	that	of	the borrower.	If	a	letter	of	credit	is	drawn	down,	the	borrower	is	obligated	to	repay Citi.	Standby	letters	of	credit	protect	a	third	party	from	defaults	on	contractual obligations.	Financial	standby	letters	of	credit	include	(i)	guarantees	of	payment	of insurance	premiums	and	reinsurance	risks	that	support	industrial	revenue	bond underwriting;	(ii)	settlement	of	payment	obligations	to	clearing	houses,	including futures	and	over-the-counter	derivatives	clearing	(see	further	discussion	below); (iii)	support	options	and	purchases	of	securities	in	lieu	of	escrow	deposit	accounts; and	(iv)	letters	of	credit	that	backstop	loans,	credit	facilities,	promissory	notes	and trade	acceptances.

# Performance	Guarantees

Performance	guarantees	and	letters	of	credit	are	issued	to	guarantee	a	customer's tender	bid	on	a	construction	or	systems-installation	project	or	to	guarantee completion	of	such	projects	in	accordance	with	contract	terms.	They	are	also	issued to	support	a	customer's	obligation	to	supply	specified	products,	commodities,	or maintenance	or	warranty	services	to	a	third	party.

# Derivative	Instruments	Considered	to	Be	Guarantees

Derivatives	are	financial	instruments	whose	cash	flows	are	based	on	a	notional amount	and	an	underlying	instrument,	reference	credit	or	index,	where	there	is little	or	no	initial	investment,	and	whose	terms	require	or	permit	net	settlement.	For a	discussion	of	Citi's	derivatives	activities,	see	Note	23	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements.

Derivative	instruments	considered	to	be	guarantees	include	only	those instruments	that	require	Citi	to	make	payments	to	the	counterparty	based	on changes	in	an	underlying	instrument	that	is	related	to	an	asset,	a	liability	or	an equity	security	held	by	the	guaranteed	party.	More	specifically,	derivative instruments	considered	to	be	guarantees	include	certain	over-the-counter	written put	options	where	the	counterparty	is	not	a	bank,	hedge	fund	or	broker-dealer (such	counterparties	are	considered	to	be	dealers	in	these	markets	and	may, therefore,	not	hold	the	underlying

instruments).	Credit	derivatives	sold	by	Citi	are	excluded	from	the	tables	above	as they	are	disclosed	separately	in	Note	23	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements. In	instances	where	Citi's	maximum	potential	future	payment	is	unlimited,	the notional	amount	of	the	contract	is	disclosed.

# Loans	Sold	with	Recourse

Loans	sold	with	recourse	represent	Citi's	obligations	to	reimburse	the	buyers	for loan	losses	under	certain	circumstances.	Recourse	refers	to	the	clause	in	a	sales agreement	under	which	a	seller/lender	will	fully	reimburse	the	buyer/investor	for any	losses	resulting	from	the	purchased	loans.	This	may	be	accomplished	by	the seller	taking	back	any	loans	that	become	delinquent.

In	addition	to	the	amounts	shown	in	the	tables	above,	Citi	has	recorded	a repurchase	reserve	for	its	potential	repurchases	or	make-whole	liability	regarding residential	mortgage	representation	and	warranty	claims	related	to	its	whole	loan sales	to	the	U.S.	government-sponsored	enterprises	(GSEs)	and,	to	a	lesser	extent, private	investors.	The	repurchase	reserve	was	approximately	$152	million	and $224	million	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively,	and	these	amounts	are included	in	Other	liabilities	on	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

# Securities	Lending	Indemnifications

Owners	of	securities	frequently	lend	those	securities	for	a	fee	to	other	parties	who may	sell	them	short	or	deliver	them	to	another	party	to	satisfy	some	other obligation.	Banks	may	administer	such	securities	lending	programs	for	their	clients. Securities	lending	indemnifications	are	issued	by	the	bank	to	guarantee	that	a securities	lending	customer	will	be	made	whole	in	the	event	that	the	security borrower	does	not	return	the	security	subject	to	the	lending	agreement	and collateral	held	is	insufficient	to	cover	the	market	value	of	the	security.

# Credit	Card	Merchant	Processing

Credit	card	merchant	processing	guarantees	represent	the	Company's	indirect obligations	in	connection	with:	(i)	providing	transaction	processing	services	to various	merchants	with	respect	to	its	private-label	cards;	and

(ii)	potential	liability	for	bank	card	transaction	processing	services.	The	nature	of the	liability	in	either	case	arises	as	a	result	of	a	billing	dispute	between	a	merchant and	a	cardholder	that	is	ultimately	resolved	in	the	cardholder's	favor.	The	merchant is	liable	to	refund	the	amount	to	the	cardholder.	In	general,	if	the	credit	card processing	company	is	unable	to	collect	this	amount	from	the	merchant,	the	credit card	processing	company	bears	the	loss	for	the	amount	of	the	credit	or	refund	paid to	the	cardholder.

With	regard	to	(i)	above,	Citi	has	the	primary	contingent	liability	with	respect to	its	portfolio	of	private-label	merchants.	The	risk	of	loss	is	mitigated	as	the	cash flows	between	Citi	and	the	merchant	are	settled	on	a	net	basis,	and	Citi	has	the right	to	offset	any	payments	with	cash	flows	otherwise	due	to	the	merchant.	To further	mitigate	this	risk,	Citi	may	delay	settlement,	require	a	merchant	to	make	an escrow	deposit,	include	event	triggers	to	provide	Citi	with	more	financial	and operational	control	in	the	event	of	the	financial	deterioration	of	the	merchant	or require	various	credit	enhancements	(including	letters	of	credit	and	bank guarantees).	In	the	unlikely	event	that	a	private-label	merchant	is	unable	to	deliver products,	services	or	a	refund	to	its	private-label	cardholders,	Citi	is	contingently liable	to	credit	or	refund	cardholders.

With	regard	to	(ii)	above,	Citi	has	a	potential	liability	for	bank	card transactions	where	Citi	provides	the	transaction	processing	services	as	well	as those	where	a	third	party	provides	the	services	and	Citi	acts	as	a	secondary guarantor,	should	that	processor	fail	to	perform.

Citi's	maximum	potential	contingent	liability	related	to	both	bank	card	and private-label	merchant	processing	services	is	estimated	to	be	the	total	volume	of credit	card	transactions	that	meet	the	requirements	to	be	valid	charge-back transactions	at	any	given	time.	At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	this	maximum potential	exposure	was	estimated	to	be	$84	billion	and	$86	billion,	respectively. However,	Citi	believes	that	the	maximum	exposure	is	not	representative	of	the actual	potential	loss	exposure	based	on	its	historical	experience.	This	contingent liability	is	unlikely	to	arise,	as	most	products	and	services	are	delivered	when purchased	and	amounts	are	refunded	when	items	are	returned	to	merchants.	Citi assesses	the	probability	and	amount	of	its	contingent	liability	related	to	merchant processing	based	on	the	financial	strength	of	the	primary	guarantor,	the	extent	and nature	of	unresolved	charge-backs	and	its	historical	loss	experience.	At December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	losses	incurred	and	the	carrying	amounts	of Citi's	contingent	obligations	related	to	merchant	processing	activities	were immaterial.

# Custody	Indemnifications

Custody	indemnifications	are	issued	to	guarantee	that	custody	clients	will	be	made whole	in	the	event	that	a	third-party	subcustodian	or	depository	institution	fails	to safeguard	clients'	assets.

# Other	Guarantees	and	Indemnifications

# Credit	Card	Protection	Programs

Citi,	through	its	credit	card	businesses,	provides	various	cardholder	protection programs	on	several	of	its	card	products,	including	programs	that	provide insurance	coverage	for	rental	cars,	coverage	for	certain	losses	associated	with purchased	products,	price	protection	for	certain	purchases	and	protection	for	lost luggage.	These	guarantees	are	not	included	in	the	table,	since	the	total	outstanding amount	of	the	guarantees	and	Citi's	maximum	exposure	to	loss	cannot	be quantified.	The	protection	is	limited	to	certain	types	of	purchases	and	losses,	and	it is	not	possible	to	quantify	the	purchases	that	would	qualify	for	these	benefits	at	any given	time.	Citi	assesses	the	probability	and	amount	of	its	potential	liability	related to	these	programs	based	on	the	extent	and	nature	of	its	historical	loss	experience. At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	actual	and	estimated	losses	incurred	and	the carrying	value	of	Citi's	obligations	related	to	these	programs	were	immaterial.

# Other	Representation	and	Warranty	Indemnifications

In	the	normal	course	of	business,	Citi	provides	standard	representations	and warranties	to	counterparties	in	contracts	in	connection	with	numerous	transactions and	also	provides	indemnifications,	including	indemnifications	that	protect	the counterparties	to	the	contracts	in	the	event	that	additional	taxes	are	owed,	due either	to	a	change	in	the	tax	law	or	an	adverse	interpretation	of	the	tax	law. Counterparties	to	these	transactions	provide	Citi	with	comparable	indemnifications. While	such	representations,	warranties	and	indemnifications	are	essential components	of	many	contractual	relationships,	they	do	not	represent	the underlying	business	purpose	for	the	transactions.	The	indemnification	clauses	are often	standard	contractual	terms	related	to	Citi's	own	performance	under	the	terms of	a	contract	and	are	entered	into	in	the	normal	course	of	business	based	on	an assessment	that	the	risk	of	loss	is	remote.	Often	these	clauses	are	intended	to ensure	that	terms	of	a	contract	are	met	at	inception.	No	compensation	is	received for	these	standard	representations	and	warranties,	and	it	is	not	possible	to determine	their	fair	value	because	they	rarely,	if	ever,	result	in	a	payment.	In	many cases,	there	are	no	stated	or	notional	amounts	included	in	the	indemnification clauses,	and	the	contingencies	potentially	triggering	the	obligation	to	indemnify have	not	occurred	and	are	not	expected	to	occur.	As	a	result,	these indemnifications	are	not	included	in	the	tables	above.

# Value-Transfer	Networks

Citi	is	a	member	of,	or	shareholder	in,	hundreds	of	value-transfer	networks	(VTNs) (payment,	clearing	and	settlement	systems	as	well	as	exchanges)	around	the	world. As	a	condition	of	membership,	many	of	these	VTNs	require	that	members	stand ready	to	pay	a	pro	rata	share	of	the	losses	incurred	by	the	organization	due	to another	member's	default	on	its	obligations.	Citi's	potential	obligations	may	be limited	to	its	membership	interests	in	the	VTNs,	contributions	to	the	VTN's	funds, or,	in	limited	cases,	the	obligation	may	be	unlimited.	The	maximum	exposure cannot	be	estimated	as	this	would	require	an	assessment	of	future	claims	that	have not	yet

occurred.	Citi	believes	the	risk	of	loss	is	remote	given	historical	experience	with the	VTNs.	Accordingly,	Citi's	participation	in	VTNs	is	not	reported	in	the guarantees	tables	above,	and	there	are	no	amounts	reflected	on	the	Consolidated Balance	Sheet	as	of	December	31,	2015	or	2014	for	potential	obligations	that	could arise	from	Citi's	involvement	with	VTN	associations.

# Long-Term	Care	Insurance	Indemnification

In	the	sale	of	an	insurance	subsidiary,	the	Company	provided	an	indemnification	to an	insurance	company	for	policyholder	claims	and	other	liabilities	relating	to	a book	of	long-term	care	(LTC)	business	(for	the	entire	term	of	the	LTC	policies) that	is	fully	reinsured	by	another	insurance	company.	The	reinsurer	has	funded	two trusts	with	securities	whose	fair	value	(approximately	$6.3	billion	at	December	31, 2015,	compared	to	$6.2	billion	at	December	31,	2014)	is	designed	to	cover	the insurance	company's	statutory	liabilities	for	the	LTC	policies.	The	assets	in	these trusts	are	evaluated	and	adjusted	periodically	to	ensure	that	the	fair	value	of	the assets	continues	to	cover	the	estimated	statutory	liabilities	related	to	the	LTC policies,	as	those	statutory	liabilities	change	over	time.

If	the	reinsurer	fails	to	perform	under	the	reinsurance	agreement	for	any reason,	including	insolvency,	and	the	assets	in	the	two	trusts	are	insufficient	or unavailable	to	the	ceding	insurance	company,	then	Citi	must	indemnify	the	ceding insurance	company	for	any	losses	actually	incurred	in	connection	with	the	LTC policies.	Since	both	events	would	have	to	occur	before	Citi	would	become responsible	for	any	payment	to	the	ceding	insurance	company	pursuant	to	its indemnification	obligation,	and	the	likelihood	of	such	events	occurring	is	currently not	probable,	there	is	no	liability	reflected	in	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet	as	of December	31,	2015	and	2014	related	to	this	indemnification.	Citi	continues	to closely	monitor	its	potential	exposure	under	this	indemnification	obligation.

# Futures	and	Over-the-Counter	Derivatives	Clearing

Citi	provides	clearing	services	for	clients	executing	exchange-traded	futures	and over-the-counter	(OTC)	derivatives	contracts	with	central	counterparties	(CCPs). Based	on	all	relevant	facts	and	circumstances,	Citi	has	concluded	that	it	acts	as	an agent	for	accounting	purposes	in	its	role	as	clearing	member	for	these	client transactions.	As	such,	Citi	does	not	reflect	the	underlying	exchange-traded	futures or	OTC	derivatives	contracts	in	its	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.	See	Note	23 for	a	discussion	of	Citi's	derivatives	activities	that	are	reflected	in	its	Consolidated Financial	Statements.

As	a	clearing	member,	Citi	collects	and	remits	cash	and	securities	collateral (margin)	between	its	clients	and	the	respective	CCP.	There	are	two	types	of margin:	initial	margin	and	variation	margin.	Where	Citi	obtains	benefits	from	or controls	cash	initial	margin	(e.g.,	retains	an	interest	spread),	cash	initial	margin collected	from	clients	and	remitted	to	the	CCP	is	reflected	within	Brokerage Payables	(payables	to	customers)	and	Brokerage	Receivables	(receivables	from brokers,	dealers	and	clearing	organizations),	respectively.	However,	for	OTC derivatives	contracts	where	Citi	has	contractually	agreed	with	the	client	that	(i)	Citi will	pass	through	to	the	client	all	interest	paid	by	the	CCP	on	cash	initial	margin; (ii)	Citi	will	not	utilize	its	right	as	clearing	member	to	transform	cash	margin	into other	assets;	and	(iii)	Citi	does	not	guarantee	and	is	not	liable	to	the	client	for	the performance	of	the	CCP,	cash	initial	margin	collected	from	clients	and	remitted	to the	CCP	is	not	reflected	on	Citi's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.	The	total	amount	of cash	initial	margin	collected	and	remitted	in	this	manner	was	approximately	$4.3 billion	and	$3.2	billion	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	respectively.

Variation	margin	due	from	clients	to	the	respective	CCP,	or	from	the	CCP	to clients,	reflects	changes	in	the	value	of	the	client's	derivative	contracts	for	each trading	day.	As	a	clearing	member,	Citi	is	exposed	to	the	risk	of	non-performance by	clients	(e.g.,	failure	of	a	client	to	post	variation	margin	to	the	CCP	for	negative changes	in	the	value	of	the	client's	derivative	contracts).	In	the	event	of	non- performance	by	a	client,	Citi	would	move	to	close	out	the	client's	positions.	The CCP	would	typically	utilize	initial	margin	posted	by	the	client	and	held	by	the CCP,	with	any	remaining	shortfalls	required	to	be	paid	by	Citi	as	clearing	member. Citi	generally	holds	incremental	cash	or	securities	margin	posted	by	the	client, which	would	typically	be	expected	to	be	sufficient	to	mitigate	Citi's	credit	risk	in the	event	the	client	fails	to	perform.

As	required	by	ASC	860-30-25-5,	securities	collateral	posted	by	clients	is	not recognized	on	Citi's	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

# Carrying	Value—Guarantees	and	Indemnifications

At	December	31,	2015	and	2014,	the	total	carrying	amounts	of	the	liabilities related	to	the	guarantees	and	indemnifications	included	in	the	tables	above amounted	to	approximately	$2.0	billion	and	$3.1	billion,	respectively.	The	carrying value	of	financial	and	performance	guarantees	is	included	in	Other	liabilities,	as	is the	carrying	value	of	the	liability	for	loans	sold	with	recourse.

Cash	collateral	available	to	Citi	to	reimburse	losses	realized	under	these	guarantees and	indemnifications	amounted	to	$52	billion	and	$63	billion	at	December	31, 2015	and	2014,	respectively.	Securities	and	other	marketable	assets	held	as collateral	amounted	to	$33	billion	and	$59	billion	at	December	31,	2015	and	2014, respectively.	The	majority	of	collateral	is	held	to	reimburse	losses	realized	under securities	lending	indemnifications.	Additionally,	letters	of	credit	in	favor	of	Citi held	as	collateral	amounted	to	$4.2	billion	and	$4.0	billion	at	December	31,	2015 and	2014,	respectively.	Other	property	may	also	be	available	to	Citi	to	cover	losses under	certain	guarantees	and	indemnifications;	however,	the	value	of	such	property has	not	been	determined.

# Performance	risk

Citi	evaluates	the	performance	risk	of	its	guarantees	based	on	the	assigned referenced	counterparty	internal	or	external	ratings.	Where	external	ratings	are used,	investment-grade	ratings	are	considered	to	be	Baa/BBB	and	above,	while anything	below	is	considered	non-investment	grade.	Citi's	internal	ratings	are	in line	with	the	related	external	rating	system.	On	certain	underlying	referenced assets	or	entities,	ratings	are	not	available.	Such	referenced	assets	are	included	in the	"not	rated"	category.	The	maximum	potential	amount	of	the	future	payments related	to	the	outstanding	guarantees	is	determined	to	be	the	notional	amount	of these	contracts,	which	is	the	par	amount	of	the	assets	guaranteed.

Presented	in	the	tables	below	are	the	maximum	potential	amounts	of	future payments	that	are	classified	based	upon	internal	and	external	credit	ratings.	As previously	mentioned,	the	determination	of	the	maximum	potential	future payments	is	based	on	the	notional	amount	of	the	guarantees	without	consideration of	possible	recoveries	under	recourse	provisions	or	from	collateral	held	or	pledged. As	such,	Citi	believes	such	amounts	bear	no	relationship	to	the	anticipated	losses, if	any,	on	these	guarantees.

|  |  | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | Investment\ngrade | Non-investment\ngrade | Not\nrated | Total |
| Financial\tstandby\tletters\tof\tcredit | $69.2 | $15.4 | $12.2 | $96.8 |
| Performance\tguarantees | 6.6 | 4.1 | 0.8 | 11.5 |
| Derivative\tinstruments\tdeemed\tto\tbe\tguarantees | — | — | 78.5 | 78.5 |
| Loans\tsold\twith\trecourse | — | — | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Securities\tlending\tindemnifications | — | — | 79.0 | 79.0 |
| Credit\tcard\tmerchant\tprocessing | — | — | 84.2 | 84.2 |
| Custody\tindemnifications\tand\tother | 51.6 | 0.1 | — | 51.7 |
| Total | $127.4 | $19.6 | $254.9 | $401.9 |

|  |  | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments | Maximum	potential	amount	of	future	payments |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tbillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tDecember\t31,\t2014 | Investment\ngrade | Non-investment\ngrade | Not\nrated | Total |
| Financial\tstandby\tletters\tof\tcredit | $73.0 | $15.9 | $9.5 | $98.4 |
| Performance\tguarantees | 7.3 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 11.9 |
| Derivative\tinstruments\tdeemed\tto\tbe\tguarantees | — | — | 91.7 | 91.7 |
| Loans\tsold\twith\trecourse | — | — | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Securities\tlending\tindemnifications | — | — | 115.9 | 115.9 |
| Credit\tcard\tmerchant\tprocessing | — | — | 86.0 | 86.0 |
| Custody\tindemnifications\tand\tother | 48.8 | 0.1 | — | 48.9 |
| Total | $129.1 | $19.9 | $304.0 | $453.0 |

# Credit	Commitments	and	Lines	of	Credit

# The	table	below	summarizes	Citigroup's	credit	commitments:

| In	millions	of	dollars | U.S. | Outside	of<br>U.S. | December	31,<br>2015 | December	31,<br>2014 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Commercial\tand\tsimilar\tletters\tof\tcredit | $1,248 | $4,854 | $6,102 | $6,634 |
| One-\tto\tfour-family\tresidential\tmortgages | 1,343 | 1,853 | 3,196 | 5,674 |
| Revolving\topen-end\tloans\tsecured\tby\tone-\tto\tfour-family\tresidential\tproperties | 12,648 | 2,078 | 14,726 | 16,098 |
| Commercial\treal\testate,\tconstruction\tand\tland\tdevelopment | 9,177 | 1,345 | 10,522 | 9,242 |
| Credit\tcard\tlines | 481,897 | 91,160 | 573,057 | 612,049 |
| Commercial\tand\tother\tconsumer\tloan\tcommitments | 178,957 | 92,119 | 271,076 | 243,680 |
| Other\tcommitments\tand\tcontingencies | 3,943 | 6,039 | 9,982 | 10,663 |
| Total | $689,213 | $199,448 | $888,661 | $904,040 |

The	majority	of	unused	commitments	are	contingent	upon	customers' maintaining	specific	credit	standards.

Commercial	commitments	generally	have	floating	interest	rates	and	fixed expiration	dates	and	may	require	payment	of	fees.	Such	fees	(net	of	certain	direct costs)	are	deferred	and,	upon	exercise	of	the	commitment,	amortized	over	the	life of	the	loan	or,	if	exercise	is	deemed	remote,	amortized	over	the	commitment period.

# Commercial	and	similar	letters	of	credit

A	commercial	letter	of	credit	is	an	instrument	by	which	Citigroup	substitutes	its credit	for	that	of	a	customer	to	enable	the	customer	to	finance	the	purchase	of goods	or	to	incur	other	commitments.	Citigroup	issues	a	letter	on	behalf	of	its client	to	a	supplier	and	agrees	to	pay	the	supplier	upon	presentation	of	documentary evidence	that	the	supplier	has	performed	in	accordance	with	the	terms	of	the	letter of	credit.	When	a	letter	of	credit	is	drawn,	the	customer	is	then	required	to reimburse	Citigroup.

# One-	to	four-family	residential	mortgages

A	one-	to	four-family	residential	mortgage	commitment	is	a	written	confirmation from	Citigroup	to	a	seller	of	a	property	that	the	bank	will	advance	the	specified sums	enabling	the	buyer	to	complete	the	purchase.

# Revolving	open-end	loans	secured	by	one-	to	four-family residential	properties

Revolving	open-end	loans	secured	by	one-	to	four-family	residential	properties	are essentially	home	equity	lines	of	credit.	A	home	equity	line	of	credit	is	a	loan secured	by	a	primary	residence	or	second	home	to	the	extent	of	the	excess	of	fair market	value	over	the	debt	outstanding	for	the	first	mortgage.

# Commercial	real	estate,	construction	and	land	development

Commercial	real	estate,	construction	and	land	development	include	unused portions	of	commitments	to	extend	credit	for	the	purpose	of	financing	commercial and	multifamily	residential	properties	as	well	as	land	development	projects. Both	secured-by-real-estate	and	unsecured	commitments	are	included	in	this line,	as	well	as	undistributed	loan	proceeds,	where	there	is	an	obligation	to advance	for

construction	progress	payments.	However,	this	line	only	includes	those	extensions of	credit	that,	once	funded,	will	be	classified	as	Total	loans,	net	on	the Consolidated	Balance	Sheet.

# Credit	card	lines

Citigroup	provides	credit	to	customers	by	issuing	credit	cards.	The	credit	card	lines are	cancellable	by	providing	notice	to	the	cardholder	or	without	such	notice	as permitted	by	local	law.

# Commercial	and	other	consumer	loan	commitments

Commercial	and	other	consumer	loan	commitments	include	overdraft	and	liquidity facilities,	as	well	as	commercial	commitments	to	make	or	purchase	loans,	to purchase	third-party	receivables,	to	provide	note	issuance	or	revolving underwriting	facilities	and	to	invest	in	the	form	of	equity.

In	addition,	included	in	this	line	item	are	highly	leveraged	financing commitments,	which	are	agreements	that	provide	funding	to	a	borrower	with higher	levels	of	debt	(measured	by	the	ratio	of	debt	capital	to	equity	capital	of	the borrower)	than	is	generally	considered	normal	for	other	companies.	This	type	of financing	is	commonly	employed	in	corporate	acquisitions,	management	buy-outs and	similar	transactions.

# Other	commitments	and	contingencies

Other	commitments	and	contingencies	include	committed	or	unsettled	regular-way reverse	repurchase	agreements	and	all	other	transactions	related	to	commitments and	contingencies	not	reported	on	the	lines	above.

# 28.			CONTINGENCIES

# Accounting	and	Disclosure	Framework

ASC	450	governs	the	disclosure	and	recognition	of	loss	contingencies,	including potential	losses	from	litigation	and	regulatory	matters.	ASC	450	defines	a	"loss contingency"	as	"an	existing	condition,	situation,	or	set	of	circumstances	involving uncertainty	as	to	possible	loss	to	an	entity	that	will	ultimately	be	resolved	when	one or	more	future	events	occur	or	fail	to	occur."	It	imposes	different	requirements	for the	recognition	and	disclosure	of	loss	contingencies	based	on	the	likelihood	of occurrence	of	the	contingent	future	event	or	events.	It	distinguishes	among	degrees of	likelihood	using	the	following	three	terms:	"probable,"	meaning	that	"the	future event	or	events	are	likely	to	occur";	"remote,"	meaning	that	"the	chance	of	the future	event	or	events	occurring	is	slight";	and	"reasonably	possible,"	meaning	that "the	chance	of	the	future	event	or	events	occurring	is	more	than	remote	but	less than	likely."	These	three	terms	are	used	below	as	defined	in	ASC	450. Accruals.	ASC	450	requires	accrual	for	a	loss	contingency	when	it	is "probable	that	one	or	more	future	events	will	occur	confirming	the	fact	of	loss"	and "the	amount	of	the	loss	can	be	reasonably	estimated."	In	accordance	with	ASC 450,	Citigroup	establishes	accruals	for	contingencies,	including	the	litigation	and regulatory	matters	disclosed	herein,	when	Citigroup	believes	it	is	probable	that	a loss	has	been	incurred	and	the	amount	of	the	loss	can	be	reasonably	estimated. When	the	reasonable	estimate	of	the	loss	is	within	a	range	of	amounts,	the minimum	amount	of	the	range	is	accrued,	unless	some	higher	amount	within	the range	is	a	better	estimate	than	any	other	amount	within	the	range.	Once established,	accruals	are	adjusted	from	time	to	time,	as	appropriate,	in	light	of additional	information.	The	amount	of	loss	ultimately	incurred	in	relation	to	those matters	may	be	substantially	higher	or	lower	than	the	amounts	accrued	for	those matters.

Disclosure.	ASC	450	requires	disclosure	of	a	loss	contingency	if	"there	is	at least	a	reasonable	possibility	that	a	loss	or	an	additional	loss	may	have	been incurred"	and	there	is	no	accrual	for	the	loss	because	the	conditions	described above	are	not	met	or	an	exposure	to	loss	exists	in	excess	of	the	amount	accrued.	In accordance	with	ASC	450,	if	Citigroup	has	not	accrued	for	a	matter	because Citigroup	believes	that	a	loss	is	reasonably	possible	but	not	probable,	or	that	a	loss is	probable	but	not	reasonably	estimable,	and	the	matter	thus	does	not	meet	the criteria	for	accrual,	and	the	reasonably	possible	loss	is	material,	it	discloses	the	loss contingency.	In	addition,	Citigroup	discloses	matters	for	which	it	has	accrued	if	it believes	a	reasonably	possible	exposure	to	material	loss	exists	in	excess	of	the amount	accrued.	In	accordance	with	ASC	450,	Citigroup's	disclosure	includes	an estimate	of	the	reasonably	possible	loss	or	range	of	loss	for	those	matters	as	to which	an	estimate	can	be	made.	ASC	450	does	not	require	disclosure	of	an estimate	of	the	reasonably	possible	loss	or	range	of	loss	where	an	estimate	cannot be	made.	Neither	accrual	nor	disclosure	is	required	for	losses	that	are	deemed remote.

# Litigation	and	Regulatory	Contingencies

Overview.	In	addition	to	the	matters	described	below,	in	the	ordinary	course	of business,	Citigroup,	its	affiliates	and	subsidiaries,	and	current	and	former	officers, directors	and	employees	(for	purposes	of	this	section,	sometimes	collectively referred	to	as	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties)	routinely	are	named	as	defendants	in, or	as	parties	to,	various	legal	actions	and	proceedings.	Certain	of	these	actions	and proceedings	assert	claims	or	seek	relief	in	connection	with	alleged	violations	of consumer	protection,	fair	lending,	securities,	banking,	antifraud,	antitrust,	anti- money	laundering,	employment	and	other	statutory	and	common	laws.	Certain	of these	actual	or	threatened	legal	actions	and	proceedings	include	claims	for substantial	or	indeterminate	compensatory	or	punitive	damages,	or	for	injunctive relief,	and	in	some	instances	seek	recovery	on	a	class-wide	basis.

In	the	ordinary	course	of	business,	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	also	are subject	to	governmental	and	regulatory	examinations,	information-gathering requests,	investigations	and	proceedings	(both	formal	and	informal),	certain	of which	may	result	in	adverse	judgments,	settlements,	fines,	penalties,	restitution, disgorgement,	injunctions	or	other	relief.	In	addition,	certain	affiliates	and subsidiaries	of	Citigroup	are	banks,	registered	broker-dealers,	futures	commission merchants,	investment	advisers	or	other	regulated	entities	and,	in	those	capacities, are	subject	to	regulation	by	various	U.S.,	state	and	foreign	securities,	banking, commodity	futures,	consumer	protection	and	other	regulators.	In	connection	with formal	and	informal	inquiries	by	these	regulators,	Citigroup	and	such	affiliates	and subsidiaries	receive	numerous	requests,	subpoenas	and	orders	seeking	documents, testimony	and	other	information	in	connection	with	various	aspects	of	their regulated	activities.	From	time	to	time	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	also	receive grand	jury	subpoenas	and	other	requests	for	information	or	assistance,	formal	or informal,	from	federal	or	state	law	enforcement	agencies	including,	among	others, various	United	States	Attorneys'	Offices,	the	Asset	Forfeiture	and	Money Laundering	Section	and	other	divisions	of	the	Department	of	Justice,	the	Financial Crimes	Enforcement	Network	of	the	United	States	Department	of	the	Treasury, and	the	Federal	Bureau	of	Investigation	relating	to	Citigroup	and	its	customers. Because	of	the	global	scope	of	Citigroup's	operations,	and	its	presence	in countries	around	the	world,	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	are	subject	to	litigation and	governmental	and	regulatory	examinations,	information-gathering	requests, investigations	and	proceedings	(both	formal	and	informal)	in	multiple	jurisdictions with	legal	and	regulatory	regimes	that	may	differ	substantially,	and	present substantially	different	risks,	from	those	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	are	subject	to in	the	United	States.	In	some	instances	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	may	be involved	in	proceedings	involving	the	same	subject	matter	in	multiple	jurisdictions, which	may	result	in	overlapping,	cumulative	or	inconsistent	outcomes.

Citigroup	seeks	to	resolve	all	litigation	and	regulatory	matters	in	the	manner management	believes	is	in	the	best	interests	of	Citigroup	and	its	shareholders,	and contests	liability,	allegations	of	wrongdoing	and,	where	applicable,	the

amount	of	damages	or	scope	of	any	penalties	or	other	relief	sought	as	appropriate in	each	pending	matter.

Inherent	Uncertainty	of	the	Matters	Disclosed.	Certain	of	the	matters	disclosed below	involve	claims	for	substantial	or	indeterminate	damages.	The	claims	asserted in	these	matters	typically	are	broad,	often	spanning	a	multi-year	period	and sometimes	a	wide	range	of	business	activities,	and	the	plaintiffs'	or	claimants' alleged	damages	frequently	are	not	quantified	or	factually	supported	in	the complaint	or	statement	of	claim.	Other	matters	relate	to	regulatory	investigations	or proceedings,	as	to	which	there	may	be	no	objective	basis	for	quantifying	the	range of	potential	fine,	penalty,	or	other	remedy.	As	a	result,	Citigroup	is	often	unable	to estimate	the	loss	in	such	matters,	even	if	it	believes	that	a	loss	is	probable	or reasonably	possible,	until	developments	in	the	case	or	investigation	have	yielded additional	information	sufficient	to	support	a	quantitative	assessment	of	the	range of	reasonably	possible	loss.	Such	developments	may	include,	among	other	things, discovery	from	adverse	parties	or	third	parties,	rulings	by	the	court	on	key	issues, analysis	by	retained	experts,	and	engagement	in	settlement	negotiations. Depending	on	a	range	of	factors,	such	as	the	complexity	of	the	facts,	the	novelty	of the	legal	theories,	the	pace	of	discovery,	the	court's	scheduling	order,	the	timing	of court	decisions,	and	the	adverse	party's	willingness	to	negotiate	in	good	faith toward	a	resolution,	it	may	be	months	or	years	after	the	filing	of	a	case	or commencement	of	an	investigation	before	an	estimate	of	the	range	of	reasonably possible	loss	can	be	made.

Matters	as	to	Which	an	Estimate	Can	Be	Made.	For	some	of	the	matters disclosed	below,	Citigroup	is	currently	able	to	estimate	a	reasonably	possible	loss or	range	of	loss	in	excess	of	amounts	accrued	(if	any).	For	some	of	the	matters included	within	this	estimation,	an	accrual	has	been	made	because	a	loss	is believed	to	be	both	probable	and	reasonably	estimable,	but	an	exposure	to	loss exists	in	excess	of	the	amount	accrued.	In	these	cases,	the	estimate	reflects	the reasonably	possible	range	of	loss	in	excess	of	the	accrued	amount.	For	other matters	included	within	this	estimation,	no	accrual	has	been	made	because	a	loss, although	estimable,	is	believed	to	be	reasonably	possible,	but	not	probable;	in	these cases	the	estimate	reflects	the	reasonably	possible	loss	or	range	of	loss.	As	of December	31,	2015,	Citigroup	estimates	that	the	reasonably	possible	unaccrued loss	for	these	matters	ranges	up	to	approximately	$3.5	billion	in	the	aggregate. These	estimates	are	based	on	currently	available	information.	As	available information	changes,	the	matters	for	which	Citigroup	is	able	to	estimate	will change,	and	the	estimates	themselves	will	change.	In	addition,	while	many estimates	presented	in	financial	statements	and	other	financial	disclosures	involve significant	judgment	and	may	be	subject	to	significant	uncertainty,	estimates	of	the range	of	reasonably	possible	loss	arising	from	litigation	and	regulatory proceedings	are	subject	to	particular	uncertainties.	For	example,	at	the	time	of making	an	estimate,	(i)	Citigroup	may	have	only	preliminary,	incomplete,	or inaccurate	information	about	the	facts	underlying	the	claim;	(ii)	its	assumptions about	the	future	rulings	of	the	court	or	other	tribunal	on	significant	issues,	or	the behavior	and	incentives	of	adverse	parties	or	regulators,	may	prove	to	be	wrong; and	(iii)	the	outcomes	it	is

attempting	to	predict	are	often	not	amenable	to	the	use	of	statistical	or	other quantitative	analytical	tools.	In	addition,	from	time	to	time	an	outcome	may	occur that	Citigroup	had	not	accounted	for	in	its	estimate	because	it	had	deemed	such	an outcome	to	be	remote.	For	all	these	reasons,	the	amount	of	loss	in	excess	of accruals	ultimately	incurred	for	the	matters	as	to	which	an	estimate	has	been	made could	be	substantially	higher	or	lower	than	the	range	of	loss	included	in	the estimate.

Matters	as	to	Which	an	Estimate	Cannot	Be	Made.	For	other	matters	disclosed below,	Citigroup	is	not	currently	able	to	estimate	the	reasonably	possible	loss	or range	of	loss.	Many	of	these	matters	remain	in	very	preliminary	stages	(even	in some	cases	where	a	substantial	period	of	time	has	passed	since	the	commencement of	the	matter),	with	few	or	no	substantive	legal	decisions	by	the	court	or	tribunal defining	the	scope	of	the	claims,	the	class	(if	any),	or	the	potentially	available damages,	and	fact	discovery	is	still	in	progress	or	has	not	yet	begun.	In	many	of these	matters,	Citigroup	has	not	yet	answered	the	complaint	or	statement	of	claim or	asserted	its	defenses,	nor	has	it	engaged	in	any	negotiations	with	the	adverse party	(whether	a	regulator	or	a	private	party).	For	all	these	reasons,	Citigroup cannot	at	this	time	estimate	the	reasonably	possible	loss	or	range	of	loss,	if	any,	for these	matters.

Opinion	of	Management	as	to	Eventual	Outcome.	Subject	to	the	foregoing,	it	is the	opinion	of	Citigroup's	management,	based	on	current	knowledge	and	after taking	into	account	its	current	legal	accruals,	that	the	eventual	outcome	of	all matters	described	in	this	Note	would	not	be	likely	to	have	a	material	adverse	effect on	the	consolidated	financial	condition	of	Citigroup.	Nonetheless,	given	the substantial	or	indeterminate	amounts	sought	in	certain	of	these	matters,	and	the inherent	unpredictability	of	such	matters,	an	adverse	outcome	in	certain	of	these matters	could,	from	time	to	time,	have	a	material	adverse	effect	on	Citigroup's consolidated	results	of	operations	or	cash	flows	in	particular	quarterly	or	annual periods.

# Allied	Irish	Bank	Litigation

In	2003,	Allied	Irish	Bank	(AIB)	filed	a	complaint	in	the	United	States	District Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York	seeking	to	hold	Citibank	and	Bank	of America,	N.A.,	former	prime	brokers	for	AIB's	subsidiary	Allfirst	Bank	(Allfirst), liable	for	losses	incurred	by	Allfirst	as	a	result	of	fraudulent	and	fictitious	foreign currency	trades	entered	into	by	one	of	Allfirst's	traders.	In	December	2015,	the remaining	parties	reached	a	settlement	that	released	all	claims	against	Citibank.	A notice	of	voluntary	dismissal	with	prejudice	was	filed	on	January	14,	2016. Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings under	docket	number	03	Civ.	3748	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Batts,	J.).

# Commodities	Financing	Contracts

Beginning	in	May	2014,	Citigroup	became	aware	of	reports	of	potential	fraud relating	to	the	financing	of	physical	metal	stored	at	the	Qingdao	and	Penglai	ports in	China.		Citibank	and	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Limited	(CGML)	have	contracts with	a	counterparty	in	relation	to	the	provision	of	financing	to	that	counterparty, collateralized	by	physical	metal

stored	at	these	ports,	with	the	agreements	providing	that	the	counterparty	would repurchase	the	inventory	at	a	specified	date	in	the	future	(typically	three	to	six months).		Pursuant	to	the	agreements,	the	counterparty	is	responsible	for	providing clean	title	to	the	inventory,	insuring	it,	and	attesting	that	there	are	no	third	party encumbrances.		The	counterparty	is	a	non-Chinese	subsidiary	of	a	large multinational	corporation,	and	the	counterparty's	obligations	under	the	contracts are	guaranteed	by	the	parent	company.

On	July	22,	2014,	Citibank	and	CGML	commenced	proceedings	in	the Commercial	Court	in	London	to	enforce	their	rights	against	the	counterparty	under the	relevant	agreements	in	relation	to	approximately	$285	million	in	financing. That	counterparty	and	a	Chinese	warehouse	provider	previously	brought	actions	in the	English	courts	to	establish	the	parties'	rights	and	obligations	under	these agreements.	In	early	December	2014,	the	English	court	conducted	a	preliminary trial	concerning,	among	other	issues,	the	question	of	whether	Citibank	and/or CGML	had	appropriately	accelerated	their	counterparty's	obligation	to	repay	under the	applicable	agreements,	given	these	facts	and	circumstances.	The	High	Court	in London	issued	a	judgment	on	May	22,	2015	holding	that	the	Citigroup	affiliates had	properly	served	bring	forward	event	notices,	but	that	because	the	metal	had	not been	properly	delivered,	the	counterparty	did	not	yet	have	to	pay	Citibank	and CGML.

As	a	result	of	various	filings	by	the	parties,	on	January	15,	2016,	Citibank	and CGML	were	informed	by	the	English	Court	of	Appeal	(i)	that	their	application	for permission	to	appeal	certain	aspects	of	the	High	Court's	2015	judgment	had	been granted;	and	(ii)	that	the	counterparty	had	also	been	given	permission	to	appeal certain	aspects	of	the	2015	judgment.	Various	procedural	matters	continue. Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings under	the	claim	reference:	Mercuria	Energy	Trading	PTE	Ltd	&	Another	v. Citibank,	N.A.	&	Another,	Claim	No.	2014	Folio	709,	Appeal	Nos.	2015/2407 (Citigroup)	and	2015/2395	(Mercuria)	as	regards	the	appeals.

The	financings	at	issue	are	carried	at	fair	value.	As	with	any	position	carried	at fair	value,	Citigroup	adjusts	the	positions	and	records	a	gain	or	loss	on	the Consolidated	Statement	of	Income	in	accordance	with	GAAP.

# Credit	Crisis-Related	Litigation	and	Other	Matters

Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	have	been	named	as	defendants	in	numerous	legal actions	and	other	proceedings	asserting	claims	for	damages	and	related	relief	for losses	arising	from	the	global	financial	credit	crisis	that	began	in	2007.	Such matters	include,	among	other	types	of	proceedings,	claims	asserted	by:	(i) individual	investors	and	purported	classes	of	investors	in	Citigroup's	common	and preferred	stock	and	debt,	alleging	violations	of	the	federal	securities	laws,	foreign laws,	state	securities	and	fraud	law,	and	the	Employee	Retirement	Income	Security Act	(ERISA);	and	(ii)	individual	investors	and	purported	classes	of	investors	in securities	and	other	investments	underwritten,	issued	or	marketed	by	Citigroup, including	securities	issued	by	other	public	companies,	collateralized	debt obligations	(CDOs),	mortgage-backed	securities	(MBS),	auction	rate	securities, investment	funds,

and	other	structured	or	leveraged	instruments,	which	have	suffered	losses	as	a result	of	the	credit	crisis.	These	matters	have	been	filed	in	state	and	federal	courts across	the	U.S.	and	in	foreign	tribunals,	as	well	as	in	arbitrations	before	the Financial	Industry	Regulatory	Authority	(FINRA)	and	other	arbitration associations.

In	addition	to	these	litigations	and	arbitrations,	Citigroup	continues	to cooperate	fully	in	response	to	subpoenas	and	requests	for	information	from	the Securities	and	Exchange	Commission	(SEC),	FINRA,	state	attorneys	general,	the U.S.	Department	of	Justice	and	subdivisions	thereof,	the	Office	of	the	Special Inspector	General	for	the	Troubled	Asset	Relief	Program,	bank	regulators,	and other	government	agencies	and	authorities,	in	connection	with	various	formal	and informal	(and,	in	many	instances,	industry-wide)	inquiries	concerning	Citigroup's mortgage-related	conduct	and	business	activities,	as	well	as	other	business activities	affected	by	the	credit	crisis.	These	business	activities	include,	but	are	not limited	to,	Citigroup's	sponsorship,	packaging,	issuance,	marketing,	trading, servicing	and	underwriting	of	CDOs	and	MBS,	its	origination,	sale	or	other transfer,	servicing,	and	foreclosure	of	residential	mortgages,	and	its	origination	and securitization	of	auto	loans.

# Mortgage-Related	Litigation	and	Other	Matters

Securities	Actions:	Beginning	in	November	2007,	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties were	named	as	defendants	in	a	variety	of	class	and	individual	securities	actions filed	by	investors	in	Citigroup's	equity	and	debt	securities	in	state	and	federal courts	relating	to	Citigroup's	disclosures	regarding	its	exposure	to	subprime-related assets.

Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	have	been	named	as	defendants	in	a	variety	of putative	class	actions	and	individual	actions	arising	out	of	Citigroup's	exposure	to CDOs	and	other	assets	that	declined	in	value	during	the	financial	crisis.	Many	of these	matters	have	been	dismissed	or	settled.	These	actions	assert	a	wide	range	of claims,	including	claims	under	the	federal	securities	laws,	foreign	securities	laws, ERISA,	and	state	law.	Additional	information	concerning	certain	of	these	actions is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	numbers	10	Civ.	9646 (S.D.N.Y.)	(Stein,	J.),	11	Civ.	7672	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Koeltl,	J.),	13-4488,	13-4504,	and 15-2461	(2d	Cir.).

Beginning	in	November	2007,	certain	Citigroup	affiliates	also	have	been named	as	defendants	arising	out	of	their	activities	as	underwriters	of	securities	in actions	brought	by	investors	in	securities	issued	by	public	companies	adversely affected	by	the	credit	crisis.	Many	of	these	matters	have	been	dismissed	or	settled. As	a	general	matter,	issuers	indemnify	underwriters	in	connection	with	such claims,	but	in	certain	of	these	matters	Citigroup	affiliates	are	not	being	indemnified or	may	in	the	future	cease	to	be	indemnified	because	of	the	financial	condition	of the	issuer.

Mortgage-Backed	Securities	and	CDO	Investor	Actions:	Beginning	in	July 2010,	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	have	been	named	as	defendants	in	complaints filed	by	purchasers	of	MBS	and	CDOs	sold	or	underwritten	by	Citigroup.	The complaints	generally	assert	that	defendants	made	material	misrepresentations	and omissions	about	the	credit	quality	of

the	assets	underlying	the	securities	or	the	manner	in	which	those	assets	were selected,	and	typically	assert	claims	under	Section	11	of	the	Securities	Act	of	1933, state	blue	sky	laws,	and/or	common-law	misrepresentation-based	causes	of	action. The	majority	of	these	matters	have	been	resolved	through	settlement	or otherwise.		As	of	December	31,	2015,	the	aggregate	original	purchase	amount	of the	purchases	at	issue	in	the	pending	litigations	was	approximately	$1.2	billion,	and the	aggregate	original	purchase	amount	of	the	purchases	covered	by	tolling agreements	with	investors	threatening	litigation	was	approximately	$500	million. Additional	information	concerning	certain	of	these	actions	is	publicly	available	in court	filings	under	the	docket	numbers	13-1729-II	(Tenn.	Ch.	Ct.)	(McCoy,	C.), 650212/2012	(N.Y.	Sup.	Ct.)	(Kornreich,	J.),	and	12	Civ.	3868	(S.D.N.Y.) (Forrest,	J.).

Mortgage-Backed	Security	Repurchase	Claims:	Various	parties	to	MBS securitizations	and	other	interested	parties	have	asserted	that	certain	Citigroup affiliates	breached	representations	and	warranties	made	in	connection	with mortgage	loans	sold	into	securitization	trusts	(private-label	securitizations). Typically,	these	claims	are	based	on	allegations	that	securitized	mortgages	were not	underwritten	in	accordance	with	the	applicable	underwriting	standards. Citigroup	also	has	received	numerous	inquiries,	demands	for	loan	files,	and requests	to	toll	(extend)	the	applicable	statutes	of	limitation	for	representation	and warranty	claims	relating	to	its	private-label	securitizations.	These	inquiries, demands	and	requests	have	been	made	by	trustees	of	securitization	trusts	and others.

On	April	7,	2014,	Citigroup	entered	into	an	agreement	with	18	institutional investors	represented	by	Gibbs	&	Bruns	LLP	regarding	the	resolution	of representation	and	warranty	repurchase	claims	related	to	certain	legacy securitizations.	Pursuant	to	the	agreement,	Citigroup	made	a	binding	offer	to	the trustees	of	68	Citigroup-sponsored	mortgage	securitization	trusts	to	pay	$1.125 billion	to	the	trusts	to	resolve	these	claims,	plus	certain	fees	and	expenses.	The	68 trusts	covered	by	the	agreement	represent	all	of	the	trusts	established	by	Citigroup's legacy	Securities	and	Banking	business	during	2005-2008	for	which	Citigroup affiliates	made	representations	and	warranties	to	the	trusts.	The	trustees	accepted the	settlement	for	64	trusts	in	whole,	and	four	in	part.	Pursuant	to	the	terms	of	the settlement	agreement,	the	trustees'	acceptance	was	subject	to	a	judicial	approval proceeding.	On	December	18,	2015,	the	court	filed	a	decision	and	order	approving the	trustees'	entry	into	the	settlement	and	finding	that	the	trustees,	in	entering	the settlement,	had	exercised	their	authority	reasonably	and	in	good	faith.	Additional information	concerning	this	proceeding	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under the	docket	number	653902/2014	(N.Y.	Sup.	Ct.)	(Friedman,	J.).

To	date,	trustees	have	filed	six	actions	against	Citigroup	seeking	to	enforce certain	of	these	contractual	repurchase	claims	that	were	excluded	from	the	April	7, 2014	settlement	in	connection	with	four	private-label	securitizations.	Citigroup	has reached	an	agreement	with	the	trustees	to	resolve	three	of	these	actions,	and	those actions	were	dismissed	with	prejudice	on	January	26,	2016.		The	remaining	three actions	are	in	various	stages	of	discovery.	In	the	aggregate,	plaintiffs	are

Mortgage-Backed	Securities	Trustee	Actions:	On	June	18,	2014,	a	group	of investors	in	48	RMBS	trusts	for	which	Citibank	served	or	currently	serves	as trustee	filed	a	complaint	in	New	York	State	Supreme	Court	in	BLACKROCK ALLOCATION	TARGET	SHARES:	SERIES	S.	PORTFOLIO,	ET	AL.	V. CITIBANK,	N.A.		The	complaint,	like	those	filed	against	other	RMBS	trustees, alleges	that	Citibank	failed	to	pursue	contractual	remedies	against	securitization sponsors	and	servicers.		This	action	was	withdrawn	without	prejudice,	effective December	17,	2014.	On	November	24,	2014,	largely	the	same	group	of	investors filed	an	action	in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New York,	captioned	FIXED	INCOME	SHARES:	SERIES	M	ET	AL.	V.	CITIBANK N.A.,	alleging	similar	claims	relating	to	27	MBS	trusts	for	which	Citibank allegedly	served	or	currently	serves	as	trustee.		On	September	8,	2015,	the	United States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York	dismissed	all	claims	as to	24	of	the	27	trusts	and	allowed	certain	of	the	claims	to	proceed	as	to	the	other three	trusts.		Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in court	filings	under	the	docket	number	14-cv-9373	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Furman,	J.). On	November	24,	2015,	largely	the	same	group	of	investors	filed	another action	in	the	New	York	State	Supreme	Court,	captioned	FIXED	INCOME SHARES:	SERIES	M,	ET	AL.	V.	CITIBANK	N.A.,	related	to	the	24	trusts dismissed	from	the	federal	court	action	and	one	additional	trust,	asserting	claims similar	to	the	original	complaint	filed	in	state	court.		Additional	information concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket number	653891/2015	(N.Y.	Sup.	Ct.)	(Ramos,	J.).

On	August	19,	2015,	the	Federal	Deposit	Insurance	Corporation	as	receiver for	a	financial	institution	filed	a	civil	action	against	Citibank	in	the	United	States District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York,	captioned	FEDERAL DEPOSIT	INSURANCE	CORPORATION	AS	RECEIVER	FOR	GUARANTY BANK	V.	CITIBANK	N.A.		The	complaint	concerns	one	RMBS	trust	for	which Citibank	formerly	served	as	trustee,	and	alleges	that	Citibank	failed	to	pursue contractual	remedies	against	the	sponsor	and	servicers	of	that	trust.		Additional information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the docket	number	15-cv-6574	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Carter,	J.).

# Counterparty	and	Investor	Actions

In	2010,	Abu	Dhabi	Investment	Authority	(ADIA)	commenced	an	arbitration (ADIA	I)	against	Citigroup	before	the	International	Center	for	Dispute	Resolution (ICDR),	alleging	statutory	and	common	law	claims	in	connection	with

its	$7.5	billion	investment	in	Citigroup	in	December	2007.	ADIA	sought	rescission of	the	investment	agreement	or,	in	the	alternative,	more	than	$4	billion	in	damages. On	October	14,	2011,	the	arbitration	panel	issued	a	final	award	and	statement	of reasons	finding	in	favor	of	Citigroup	on	all	claims	asserted	by	ADIA.

On	March	4,	2013,	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of New	York	denied	ADIA's	petition	to	vacate	the	arbitration	award	and	granted Citigroup's	cross-petition	to	confirm.	ADIA	appealed	and,	on	February	19,	2014, the	United	States	Court	of	Appeals	for	the	Second	Circuit	affirmed	the	judgment. Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings under	the	docket	numbers	12	Civ.	283	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Daniels,	J.),	13-1068-cv	(2d Cir.),	and	13-1500	(U.S.).

On	August	20,	2013,	ADIA	commenced	a	second	arbitration	(ADIA	II) against	Citigroup	before	the	ICDR,	alleging	common	law	claims	arising	out	of	the same	investment	at	issue	in	ADIA	I.	On	August	28,	2013,	Citigroup	filed	a complaint	against	ADIA	in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern District	of	New	York	seeking	to	enjoin	ADIA	II	on	the	ground	that	it	is	barred	by the	court's	judgment	confirming	the	arbitral	award	in	ADIA	I.	On	September	23, 2013,	ADIA	filed	motions	to	dismiss	Citigroup's	complaint	and	to	compel arbitration.	On	November	25,	2013,	the	court	denied	Citigroup's	motion	for	a preliminary	injunction	and	granted	ADIA's	motions	to	dismiss	and	to	compel arbitration.	On	December	23,	2013,	Citigroup	appealed	that	ruling	to	the	United States	Court	of	Appeals	for	the	Second	Circuit.	On	January	14,	2015,	the	Second Circuit	affirmed	the	district	court's	ruling.	Additional	information	concerning	this action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	numbers	13	Civ.	6073 (S.D.N.Y.)	(Castel,	J.)	and	13-4825	(2d	Cir.).

# Alternative	Investment	Fund-Related	Litigation	and	Other	Matters

Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	have	been	named	as	defendants	in	a	putative	class action	lawsuit	filed	in	October	2012	on	behalf	of	investors	in	CSO	Ltd.,	CSO	US Ltd.,	and	Corporate	Special	Opportunities	Ltd.,	whose	investments	were	managed indirectly	by	a	Citigroup	affiliate.	Plaintiffs	asserted	a	variety	of	state	common	law claims,	alleging	that	they	and	other	investors	were	misled	into	investing	in	the funds	and,	later,	not	redeeming	their	investments.	The	complaint	sought	to	recover more	than	$400	million	on	behalf	of	a	putative	class	of	investors.	On	August	10, 2015,	the	parties	entered	into	an	agreement	providing	for	a	class	action	settlement of	the	litigation.	The	court	held	a	final	settlement	hearing	on	December	17,	2015 and	entered	an	order	approving	the	settlement	on	January	28,	2016.	Additional information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the docket	number	12-cv-7717	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Woods,	J.).

# Auction	Rate	Securities-Related	Litigation	and	Other	Matters

Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	have	been	named	as	defendants	in	numerous	actions and	proceedings	brought	by	Citigroup	shareholders	and	purchasers	or	issuers	of auction	rate	securities	(ARS)	and	an	issuer	of	variable	rate	demand

obligations,	asserting	federal	and	state	law	claims	arising	from	the	collapse	of	the market	in	2008,	which	plaintiffs	contend	Citigroup	and	other	ARS	underwriters and	broker-dealers	foresaw	or	should	have	foreseen,	but	failed	adequately	to disclose.	Many	of	these	matters	have	been	dismissed	or	settled.	Most	of	the remaining	matters	are	in	arbitrations	pending	before	FINRA.

# Lehman	Brothers	Bankruptcy	Proceedings

On	February	8,	2012,	Citibank	and	certain	Citigroup	affiliates	were	named	as defendants	in	an	adversary	proceeding	asserting	objections	to	proofs	of	claim totaling	approximately	$2.6	billion	filed	by	Citibank	and	those	affiliates,	and claims	under	federal	bankruptcy	and	state	law	to	recover	$2	billion	deposited	by Lehman	Brothers	Holdings	Inc.	(LBHI)	with	Citibank	against	which	Citibank asserts	a	right	of	setoff.	Plaintiffs	also	sought	avoidance	of	a	$500	million	transfer and	an	amendment	to	a	guarantee	in	favor	of	Citibank	and	other	relief;	plaintiffs dismissed,	with	prejudice,	their	claim	to	avoid	the	$500	million	transfer	pursuant	to a	stipulation	entered	by	the	court	on	March	12,	2015.	Plaintiffs	filed	various amended	complaints	asserting	additional	claims	and	factual	allegations,	and amending	certain	previously	asserted	claims.

Discovery	related	to	the	remaining	claims	is	ongoing.	Additional	information concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket numbers	12-01044	and	08-13555	(Bankr.	S.D.N.Y.)	(Chapman,	J.).

On	July	21,	2014,	an	adversary	proceeding	was	filed	on	behalf	of	Lehman Brothers	Finance	AG	against	Citibank,	Citibank	Korea	Inc.	and	CGML	asserting that	defendants	improperly	have	withheld	termination	payments	under	certain derivatives	contracts.	An	amended	complaint	was	filed	by	plaintiff	on	August	6, 2014.	Plaintiff	seeks	to	recover	approximately	$70	million,	plus	interest. Discovery	is	ongoing.	Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	numbers	14-02050	and	09-10583 (Bankr.	S.D.N.Y.)	(Chapman,	J.).

# Terra	Firma	Litigation

In	December	2009,	the	general	partners	of	two	related	private	equity	funds	filed	a complaint	in	New	York	state	court,	subsequently	removed	to	the	United	States District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York,	asserting	multi-billion-dollar claims	against	Citigroup	and	certain	of	its	affiliates	arising	out	of	the	May	2007 auction	of	the	music	company,	EMI,	in	which	Citigroup	affiliates	acted	as	advisor to	EMI	and	as	a	lender	to	plaintiffs'	acquisition	vehicle.	Following	a	jury	trial,	a verdict	was	returned	in	favor	of	Citigroup	on	November	4,	2010.	Plaintiffs appealed	from	the	entry	of	the	judgment.	On	May	31,	2013,	the	United	States Court	of	Appeals	for	the	Second	Circuit	vacated	the	November	2010	jury	verdict	in favor	of	the	defendants	and	ordered	that	the	case	be	retried.	On	March	7,	2014,	the parties	stipulated	to	the	dismissal	of	all	remaining	claims	in	the	action,	without prejudice	to	plaintiffs'	rights	to	re-file	those	claims	in	England.	Additional information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the docket	numbers	09	Civ.	10459	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Rakoff,	J.)	and	11-0126-cv	(2d	Cir.).

In	August	and	September	2013,	plaintiffs	in	the	New	York	proceedings, together	with	their	affiliates	and	principal,	filed	claims	against	CGML,	Citibank and	Citigroup	arising	out	of	the	EMI	auction	in	the	High	Court	of	Justice,	Queen's Bench	Division	and	Manchester	District	Registry	Mercantile	Court	in	Manchester, England.	The	cases	have	since	been	transferred	to	the	High	Court	of	Justice, Queen's	Bench	Division,	Commercial	Court	in	London.	On	March	7,	2014,	the parties	to	the	separate	proceedings	filed	by	Terra	Firma	in	2013	before	the	High Court	of	Justice,	Queen's	Bench	Division,	consented	to	the	service	by	plaintiffs	of an	amended	complaint	incorporating	the	claims	that	would	have	proceeded	to	trial in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York	in	July 2014,	had	the	New	York	action	not	been	dismissed.	A	trial	(which	is	based	on allegations	of	fraudulent	misrepresentations)	is	scheduled	to	begin	in	London	on June	7,	2016.		Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available in	court	filings	under	the	claim	reference	Terra	Firma	Investments	(GP)	2	Ltd.	& Ors	v	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Ltd.	&	Ors	(CL-2013-000293).

# Tribune	Company	Bankruptcy

Certain	Citigroup	affiliates	have	been	named	as	defendants	in	adversary proceedings	related	to	the	Chapter	11	cases	of	Tribune	Company	(Tribune)	filed	in the	United	States	Bankruptcy	Court	for	the	District	of	Delaware,	asserting	claims arising	out	of	the	approximately	$11	billion	leveraged	buyout	of	Tribune	in	2007. On	August	2,	2013,	the	Litigation	Trustee,	as	successor	plaintiff	to	the	Official Committee	of	Unsecured	Creditors,	filed	a	fifth	amended	complaint	in	the adversary	proceeding	KIRSCHNER	v.	FITZSIMONS,	ET	AL.	The	complaint seeks	to	avoid	and	recover	as	actual	fraudulent	transfers	the	transfers	of	Tribune stock	that	occurred	as	a	part	of	the	leveraged	buyout.	Several	Citigroup	affiliates are	named	as	"Shareholder	Defendants"	and	are	alleged	to	have	tendered	Tribune stock	to	Tribune	as	a	part	of	the	buyout.

Several	Citigroup	affiliates	are	named	as	defendants	in	certain	actions	brought by	Tribune	noteholders,	also	seeking	to	recover	the	transfers	of	Tribune	stock	that occurred	as	a	part	of	the	leveraged	buyout,	as	alleged	state-law	constructive fraudulent	conveyances.		Finally,	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Inc.	(CGMI)	has	been named	in	a	separate	action	as	a	defendant	in	connection	with	its	role	as	advisor	to Tribune.	The	noteholders'	claims	were	previously	dismissed,	and	an	appeal	to	the United	States	Court	of	Appeals	for	the	Second	Circuit	is	pending.		A	motion	to dismiss	the	action	against	CGMI	in	its	role	as	advisor	to	Tribune	is	pending. In	the	FITZSIMONS	action,	claims	against	certain	Citigroup	affiliates	have been	dismissed	or	reduced	in	amount	by	various	orders.	Additional	information concerning	these	actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket numbers	08-13141	(Bankr.	D.	Del.)	(Carey,	J.),	11	MD	02296	(S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan,	J.),	12	MC	2296	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Sullivan,	J.),	and	13-3992	(2d	Cir.).

# Credit	Default	Swaps	Matters

In	April	2011,	the	European	Commission	(EC)	opened	an	investigation	(Case	No COMP/39.745)	into	the	credit	default	swap	(CDS)	industry.		The	scope	of	the investigation	initially	concerned	the	question	of	"whether	16	investment	banks	and Markit,	the	leading	provider	of	financial	information	in	the	CDS	market,	have colluded	and/or	may	hold	and	abuse	a	dominant	position	in	order	to	control	the financial	information	on	CDS."

On	July	2,	2013,	the	EC	issued	to	Citigroup,	CGMI,	CGML,	Citicorp	North America	Inc.	and	Citibank,	as	well	as	Markit,	ISDA,	and	12	other	investment	bank dealer	groups,	a	statement	of	objections	alleging	that	Citi	and	the	other	dealers colluded	to	prevent	exchanges	from	entering	the	credit	derivatives	business	in breach	of	Article	101	of	the	Treaty	on	the	Functioning	of	the	European	Union.		The statement	of	objections	set	forth	the	EC's	preliminary	conclusions,	did	not prejudge	the	final	outcome	of	the	case,	and	did	not	benefit	from	the	review	and consideration	of	Citi's	arguments	and	defenses.	Thereafter,	Citi	filed	a	reply	and made	oral	submissions	to	the	EC.		On	December	4,	2015,	the	EC	informed	Citi	that it	had	closed	its	proceeding	against	Citi	and	the	other	investment	bank	dealer groups,	without	further	action.

In	July	2009	and	September	2011,	the	Antitrust	Division	of	the	U.S. Department	of	Justice	served	Civil	Investigative	Demands	(CIDs)	on	Citi concerning	potential	anticompetitive	conduct	in	the	CDS	industry.

In	addition,	putative	class	action	complaints	were	filed	by	various	entities against	Citigroup,	CGMI	and	Citibank,	among	other	defendants,	alleging anticompetitive	conduct	in	the	CDS	industry	and	asserting	various	claims	under Sections	1	and	2	of	the	Sherman	Act	as	well	as	a	state	law	claim	for	unjust enrichment.		On	October	16,	2013,	the	U.S.	Judicial	Panel	on	Multidistrict Litigation	centralized	these	putative	class	actions	in	the	Southern	District	of	New York	for	coordinated	or	consolidated	pretrial	proceedings	before	Judge	Denise Cote.	On	September	30,	2015,	the	defendants,	including	Citigroup	and	Related Parties,	entered	into	settlement	agreements	to	settle	all	claims	of	the	putative	class, and	on	October	29,	2015,	the	court	granted	plaintiffs'	motion	for	preliminary approval	of	the	proposed	settlements.		Additional	information	relating	to	this	action is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	number	13	MD	2476 (S.D.N.Y.)	(Cote,	J.).

# Foreign	Exchange	Matters

Regulatory	Actions:	Government	and	regulatory	agencies	in	the	U.S.	and	in	other jurisdictions	are	conducting	investigations	or	making	inquiries	regarding Citigroup's	foreign	exchange	business.	Citigroup	is	fully	cooperating	with	these and	related	investigations	and	inquiries.

Antitrust	and	Other	Litigation:	Numerous	foreign	exchange	dealers,	including Citigroup	and	Citibank,	are	named	as	defendants	in	putative	class	actions	that	are proceeding	on	a	consolidated	basis	in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the Southern	District	of	New	York	under	the	caption	IN	RE	FOREIGN	EXCHANGE BENCHMARK	RATES	ANTITRUST	LITIGATION.	The	plaintiffs	in	these actions	allege	that	the	defendants	colluded	to	manipulate	the

WM/Reuters	rate	(WMR),	thereby	causing	the	putative	classes	to	suffer	losses	in connection	with	WMR-based	financial	instruments.	The	plaintiffs	assert	federal and	state	antitrust	claims	and	claims	for	unjust	enrichment,	and	seek	compensatory damages,	treble	damages	and	declaratory	and	injunctive	relief.	On	March	31, 2014,	plaintiffs	in	the	putative	class	actions	filed	a	consolidated	amended complaint.

Citibank,	Citigroup,	and	Citibank	Korea	Inc.,	as	well	as	numerous	other foreign	exchange	dealers,	were	named	as	defendants	in	a	putative	class	action captioned	SIMMTECH	CO.	v.	BARCLAYS	BANK	PLC,	ET	AL.	(SIMMTECH) that	was	proceeding	before	the	same	court.	The	plaintiff	sought	to	represent	a putative	class	of	persons	who	traded	foreign	currency	with	the	defendants	in Korea,	alleging	that	the	class	suffered	losses	as	a	result	of	the	defendants'	alleged WMR	manipulation.	The	plaintiff	asserted	federal	and	state	antitrust	claims,	and sought	compensatory	damages,	treble	damages	and	declaratory	and	injunctive relief.

Additionally,	Citibank	and	Citigroup,	as	well	as	numerous	other	foreign exchange	dealers,	were	named	as	defendants	in	a	putative	class	action	captioned LARSEN	v.	BARCLAYS	BANK	PLC,	ET	AL.	(LARSEN),	that	was	proceeding before	the	same	court.	The	plaintiff	sought	to	represent	a	putative	class	of	persons or	entities	in	Norway	who	traded	foreign	currency	with	defendants,	alleging	that the	class	suffered	losses	as	a	result	of	defendants'	alleged	WMR	manipulation.	The plaintiff	asserted	federal	antitrust	and	unjust	enrichment	claims,	and	sought compensatory	damages,	treble	damages	and	declaratory	and	injunctive	relief. Citigroup	and	Citibank,	along	with	other	defendants,	moved	to	dismiss	all	of these	actions.	On	January	28,	2015,	the	court	issued	an	opinion	and	order	denying the	motion	as	to	the	IN	RE	FOREIGN	EXCHANGE	BENCHMARK	RATES ANTITRUST	LITIGATION	plaintiffs,	but	dismissing	the	claims	of	the SIMMTECH	and	LARSEN	plaintiffs	in	their	entirety	on	the	grounds	that	their federal	claims	were	barred	by	the	Foreign	Trade	Antitrust	Improvements	Act	and their	state	claims	had	an	insufficient	nexus	to	New	York.	Additional	information concerning	these	actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket numbers	13	Civ.	7789,	13	Civ.	7953,	and	14	Civ.	1364	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Schofield,	J.). Additional	actions	have	been	consolidated	in	the	IN	RE	FOREIGN EXCHANGE	BENCHMARK	RATES	ANTITRUST	LITIGATION	proceeding, including	lawsuits	brought	by,	or	on	behalf	of	putative	classes	of,	investors	that transacted	in	exchange-traded	foreign	exchange	futures	contracts	and/or	options	on foreign	exchange	futures	contracts	on	certain	exchanges.	The	plaintiffs	allege	that they	suffered	losses	as	a	result	of	the	defendants'	alleged	manipulation	of,	and collusion	with	respect	to,	the	foreign	exchange	market.	The	plaintiffs	allege violations	of	the	Commodity	Exchange	Act,	the	Sherman	Act,	and/or	the	Clayton Act,	and	seek	compensatory	damages,	treble	damages	and	declaratory	and injunctive	relief.

On	December	15,	2015,	the	court	entered	an	order	preliminarily	approving	a proposed	settlement	between	the	Citi	defendants	and	classes	of	plaintiffs	who traded	foreign	exchange	instruments	in	the	spot	market	and	on	exchanges.

The	proposed	settlement	provides	for	the	Citi	defendants	to	receive	a	release	in exchange	for	a	payment	of	$394	million	(which	was	made	on	December	18,	2015) plus	a	separate	payment	of	$8	million	(which	is	due	upon	final	approval	of	the settlement	by	the	court).

On	May	21,	2015,	an	action	captioned	NYPL	v.	JPMORGAN	CHASE	& CO.,	ET.	AL	was	brought	in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Northern District	of	California	against	Citigroup,	as	well	as	numerous	other	foreign exchange	dealers.	The	plaintiff	seeks	to	represent	a	putative	class	of	"consumers and	businesses	in	the	United	States	who	directly	purchased	supracompetitive foreign	currency	exchange	rates"	from	defendants	for	their	end	use.	The	plaintiff filed	an	amended	complaint	on	June	11,	2015,	alleging	violations	of	the	Sherman Act,	and	seeking	compensatory	damages,	treble	damages	and	declaratory	and injunctive	relief.	On	November	9,	2015,	the	court	granted	the	defendants'	motion to	transfer	the	action	to	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of New	York	for	possible	consolidation	with	IN	RE	FOREIGN	EXCHANGE BENCHMARK	RATES	ANTITRUST	LITIGATION.	Additional	information concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket numbers	15	Civ.	2290	(N.D.	Cal.)	(Chhabria,	J.)	and	15	Civ.	9300	(S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield,	J.).

On	June	3,	2015,	an	action	captioned	ALLEN	v.	BANK	OF	AMERICA CORPORATION,	ET	AL.	was	brought	in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the Southern	District	of	New	York	against	Citigroup,	as	well	as	numerous	other foreign	exchange	dealers.	The	plaintiff	seeks	to	represent	a	putative	class	of participants,	beneficiaries,	and	named	fiduciaries	of	qualified	Employee Retirement	Income	Security	Act	(ERISA)	plans	for	whom	a	defendant	provided foreign	exchange	transactional	services	or	authorized	or	permitted	foreign exchange	transactional	services	involving	a	plan's	assets	in	connection	with	its exercise	of	authority	or	control	regarding	an	ERISA	plan.	The	plaintiff	alleges violations	of	ERISA,	and	seeks	compensatory	damages,	restitution,	disgorgement and	declaratory	and	injunctive	relief.	On	June	29,	2015,	ALLEN	was	consolidated with	IN	RE	FOREIGN	EXCHANGE	BENCHMARK	RATES	ANTITRUST LITIGATION	for	discovery	purposes	only.	Additional	information	concerning	this action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	number	15	Civ.	4285 (S.D.N.Y.)	(Schofield,	J.).

In	September	2015,	putative	class	actions	captioned	BÉLAND	v.	ROYAL BANK	OF	CANADA,	ET	AL.	and	STAINES	v.	ROYAL	BANK	OF	CANADA, ET	AL.	were	filed	in	the	Quebec	Superior	Court	of	Justice	and	the	Ontario Superior	Court	of	Justice,	respectively,	against	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties,	as well	as	numerous	other	foreign	exchange	dealers.	Plaintiffs	allege	that	defendants conspired	to	fix	the	prices	and	supply	of	currency	purchased	in	the	foreign exchange	market,	and	that	this	manipulation	caused	investors	to	pay	inflated	rates for	currency	and/or	to	receive	deflated	rates	for	currency.	Plaintiffs	assert	claims under	the	Canadian

Competition	Act	and	the	Quebec	Civil	Code	and/or	for	civil	conspiracy,	unjust enrichment	and	waiver	of	tort.	Plaintiffs	seek	compensatory	and	punitive	damages, or	disgorgement,	on	behalf	of	putative	classes	of	all	persons	in	Quebec	or	in Canada	who	entered	into	a	foreign	exchange	instrument	or	participated	in	a	fund	or investment	vehicle	that	entered	into	a	foreign	exchange	instrument	between January	1,	2003	and	December	31,	2013.	Additional	information	concerning	these actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	numbers	200-06- 000189-152	(C.S.Q.	Quebec)	and	CV-15-536174	(Ont.	S.C.J.).

On	September	16,	2015,	an	action	captioned	NEGRETE	v.	CITIBANK,	N.A. was	filed	in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York. Plaintiffs	allege	that	Citibank,	N.A.	engaged	in	conduct	in	connection	with plaintiffs'	foreign	exchange	trading	that	caused	them	losses.	Plaintiffs	assert	claims for	fraud,	breach	of	contract,	and	negligence,	and	seek	compensatory	damages, punitive	damages	and	injunctive	relief.	On	November	17,	2015,	Citi	filed	a	motion to	dismiss	and	a	motion	to	stay	discovery	pending	resolution	of	the	motion	to dismiss.	On	December	7,	2015,	the	court	granted	Citi's	motion	for	a	stay	of discovery.	Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in court	filings	under	the	docket	number	15	Civ.	7250	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Sweet,	J.).

Derivative	Actions	and	Related	Proceedings:	In	June	2015,	Citigroup	was named	as	a	defendant	in	IRA	FOR	THE	BENEFIT	OF	VICTORIA	SHAEV	V. CITIGROUP	INC.	The	complaint	was	filed	by	a	putative	stockholder	in	New	York Supreme	Court	seeking	to	inspect	Citigroup's	books	and	records	pursuant	to Section	220	of	Chapter	8	of	the	Delaware	Corporations	Law	with	regard	to	various matters,	including	Citigroup's	participation	and	activity	in	foreign	exchange markets.	On	January	26,	2016,	the	court	granted	Citigroup's	motion	to	dismiss	the complaint.	Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in court	filings	under	the	docket	number	652339/2015	(N.Y.	Sup.	Ct.).

# Interbank	Offered	Rates-Related	Litigation	and	Other	Matters

Regulatory	Actions:	The	CFTC	and	a	consortium	of	state	attorneys	general,	as	well as	government	and	regulatory	agencies	in	other	jurisdictions,	are	conducting investigations	or	making	inquiries	regarding	submissions	made	by	panel	banks	to bodies	that	publish	various	interbank	offered	rates	and	other	benchmark	rates.	As members	of	a	number	of	such	panels,	Citigroup	subsidiaries	have	received	requests for	information	and	documents.	Citigroup	is	cooperating	with	the	investigations and	inquiries	and	is	responding	to	the	requests.

Antitrust	and	Other	Litigation:	Citigroup	and	Citibank,	along	with	other	U.S. Dollar	(USD)	LIBOR	panel	banks,	are	defendants	in	a	multi-district	litigation (MDL)	proceeding	before	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District of	New	York	captioned	IN	RE	LIBOR-BASED	FINANCIAL	INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST	LITIGATION	(the	LIBOR	MDL).	Consolidated	amended complaints	were	filed	on	behalf	of	two	separate	putative	classes	of	plaintiffs:	(i) over-the-counter	(OTC)	purchasers	of	derivative	instruments	tied	to	USD	LIBOR; and	(ii)	purchasers	of	exchange-traded

derivative	instruments	tied	to	USD	LIBOR.	Each	of	these	putative	classes	alleges that	the	panel	bank	defendants	conspired	to	suppress	USD	LIBOR:	(i)	OTC purchasers	assert	claims	under	the	Sherman	Act	and	for	unjust	enrichment	and breach	of	the	implied	covenant	of	good	faith	and	fair	dealing;	and	(ii)	purchasers	of exchange-traded	derivative	instruments	assert	claims	under	the	Commodity Exchange	Act	and	the	Sherman	Act	and	for	unjust	enrichment.	Individual	actions commenced	by	various	Charles	Schwab	entities	also	were	consolidated	into	the LIBOR	MDL.	The	plaintiffs	seek	compensatory	damages	and	restitution	for	losses caused	by	the	alleged	violations,	as	well	as	treble	damages	under	the	Sherman	Act. The	Schwab	and	OTC	plaintiffs	also	seek	injunctive	relief.

Additional	actions	have	been	consolidated	in	the	LIBOR	MDL	proceeding, including	(i)	lawsuits	filed	by,	or	on	behalf	of	putative	classes	of,	community	and other	banks,	savings	and	loans	institutions,	credit	unions,	municipalities	and purchasers	and	holders	of	LIBOR-linked	financial	products;	and	(ii)	lawsuits	filed by	putative	classes	of	lenders	and	adjustable	rate	mortgage	borrowers.	The plaintiffs	allege	that	defendant	panel	banks	artificially	suppressed	USD	LIBOR	in violation	of	applicable	law	and	seek	compensatory	and	other	damages.

On	August	4,	2015,	the	court	in	IN	RE	LIBOR-BASED	FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS	ANTITRUST	LITIGATION	granted	in	part	defendants'	motions to	dismiss	various	individual	actions	that	were	previously	stayed,	dismissing plaintiffs'	antitrust	claims	for	failure	to	state	a	claim,	and	holding	that	plaintiffs cannot	pursue	certain	other	claims	based	on	lack	of	personal	jurisdiction	or	the operation	of	the	applicable	statute	of	limitations.	The	court	allowed	certain	of plaintiffs'	claims	for	common	law	fraud,	breach	of	contract,	unjust	enrichment	and tortious	interference	to	proceed.	On	October	8,	2015,	the	City	of	Philadelphia	and the	Pennsylvania	Intergovernmental	Cooperation	Authority	amended	their complaint	in	response	to	the	court's	August	4,	2015	decision.	Additional information	concerning	these

actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	number	11	MD	2262 (S.D.N.Y.)	(Buchwald,	J.).

On	June	30,	2014,	the	United	States	Supreme	Court	granted	a	petition	for	a writ	of	certiorari	in	GELBOIM,	ET	AL.	v.	BANK	OF	AMERICA	CORP.,	ET	AL. with	respect	to	the	dismissal	by	the	United	States	Court	of	Appeals	for	the	Second Circuit	of	an	appeal	by	the	plaintiff	class	of	indirect	OTC	purchasers	of	U.S.	debt securities.	On	January	21,	2015,	the	Supreme	Court	ruled	that,	contrary	to	the Second	Circuit's	opinion,	the	plaintiffs	had	a	right	to	appeal,	and	remanded	the case	to	the	Second	Circuit	for	consideration	of	the	plaintiffs'	appeal	on	the	merits. The	Second	Circuit	heard	oral	argument	on	November	13,	2015.	Additional information	concerning	this	appeal	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the docket	numbers	13-3565	(2d	Cir.),	13-3636	(2d	Cir.),	and	13-1174	(U.S.). Citigroup	and	Citibank,	along	with	other	USD	LIBOR	panel	banks,	also	are named	as	defendants	in	an	individual	action	filed	in	the	United	States	District Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York	on	February	13,	2013,	captioned	7 WEST	57th	STREET	REALTY	CO.	v.	CITIGROUP,	INC.,	ET	AL.	The	plaintiff alleges	that	the	defendant	panel	banks	manipulated	USD	LIBOR	to	keep	it artificially	high	and	that	this	manipulation	affected	the	value	of	plaintiffs'	OTC municipal	bond	portfolio	in	violation	of	federal	and	state	antitrust	laws	and	federal RICO	law.	The	plaintiff	seeks	compensatory	damages,	treble	damages	where authorized	by	statute,	and	declaratory	relief.	On	March	31,	2015,	the	United	States District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York	dismissed	this	action.	On	June 1,	2015,	the	plaintiff	moved	for	leave	to	file	a	second	amended	complaint. Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings under	the	docket	number	13	Civ.	981	(Gardephe,	J.).

On	May	2,	2014,	plaintiffs	in	the	class	action	SULLIVAN	v.	BARCLAYS PLC,	ET	AL.	pending	in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District of	New	York	filed	a	second	amended	complaint	naming	Citigroup	and	Citibank, N.A.	as	defendants.	Plaintiffs	claim	to	have	suffered	losses	as	a	result	of	purported EURIBOR	manipulation	and	assert	claims	under	the	Commodity	Exchange	Act, the	Sherman	Act	and	the	federal	RICO	law,	and	for	unjust	enrichment.	On September	11,	2014,	the	court	granted	the	U.S.	Department	of	Justice's	motion	to stay	discovery	for	eight	months,	until	May	12,	2015.	Plaintiffs	filed	a	fourth amended	complaint	on	August	13,	2015.	Defendants	filed	a	motion	to	dismiss	on October	14,	2015.	Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	number	13	Civ.	2811	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Castel,

# Interchange	Fees	Litigation

Beginning	in	2005,	several	putative	class	actions	were	filed	against	Citigroup	and Related	Parties,	together	with	Visa,	MasterCard	and	other	banks	and	their affiliates,	in	various	federal	district	courts	and	consolidated	with	other	related	cases in	a	multi-district	litigation	proceeding	before	Judge	Gleeson	in	the	United	States District	Court	for	the	Eastern	District	of	New	York	(Interchange	MDL).	This proceeding	is	captioned	IN	RE	PAYMENT	CARD	INTERCHANGE	FEE	AND MERCHANT	DISCOUNT	ANTITRUST	LITIGATION.

The	plaintiffs,	merchants	that	accept	Visa-	and	MasterCard-branded	payment cards	as	well	as	membership	associations	that	claim	to	represent	certain	groups	of merchants,	allege,	among	other	things,	that	defendants	have	engaged	in conspiracies	to	set	the	price	of	interchange	and	merchant	discount	fees	on	credit and	debit	card	transactions	and	to	restrain	trade	through	various	Visa	and MasterCard	rules	governing	merchant	conduct,	all	in	violation	of	Section	1	of	the Sherman	Act	and	certain	California	statutes.	Supplemental	complaints	also	have been	filed	against	defendants	in	the	putative	class	actions	alleging	that	Visa's	and MasterCard's	respective	initial	public	offerings	were	anticompetitive	and	violated Section	7	of	the	Clayton	Act,	and	that	MasterCard's	initial	public	offering constituted	a	fraudulent	conveyance.

On	January	14,	2014,	the	court	entered	a	final	judgment	approving	the	terms of	a	class	settlement	providing	for,	among	other	things,	a	total	payment	to	the	class of	$6.05	billion;	a	rebate	to	merchants	participating	in	the	damages	class	settlement of	10	basis	points	on	interchange	collected	for	a	period	of	eight	months	by	the	Visa and	MasterCard	networks;	and	changes	to	certain	network	rules.

On	July	28,	2015,	various	objectors	to	the	class	settlement	filed	motions	in	the U.S.	District	Court	to	vacate	the	court's	prior	approval	of	the	class	settlement, alleging	improprieties	by	two	of	the	lawyers	involved	in	the	Interchange	MDL. Various	objectors	appealed	from	the	final	class	settlement	approval	order	with	the United	States	Court	of	Appeals	for	the	Second	Circuit,	which	heard	oral	argument regarding	the	appeals	on	September	28,	2015.	Additional	information	concerning these	consolidated	actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket number	MDL	05-1720	(E.D.N.Y.)	(Brodie,	J.)	and	12-4671	(2d	Cir.). Numerous	merchants,	including	large	national	merchants,	have	requested exclusion	from	the	class	settlements,	and	some	of	those	opting	out	have	filed complaints	against	Visa,	MasterCard,	and	in	some	instances	one	or	more	issuing banks.	One	of	these	suits,	7-ELEVEN,	INC.,	ET	AL.	v.	VISA	INC.,	ET	AL., brought	on	behalf	of	numerous	individual	merchants,	names	Citigroup	as	a defendant.	On	December	5,	2014,	the	Interchange	MDL,	including	the	opt-out cases,	was	transferred	from	Judge	Gleeson	to	Judge	Brodie.	Additional information	concerning	these	actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the docket	numbers	MDL	05-1720	(E.D.N.Y.)	(Brodie,	J.).

# ISDAFIX-Related	Litigation	and	Other	Matters

Regulatory	Actions:	Government	and	regulatory	agencies	in	the	U.S.,	including	the CFTC,	are	conducting	investigations	or	making	inquiries	concerning	submissions for	the	global	benchmark	for	fixed	interest	rate	swaps	(ISDAFIX)	and	trading	in products	that	reference	ISDAFIX.	Citigroup	is	fully	cooperating	with	these	and related	investigations	and	inquiries.

Antitrust	and	Other	Litigation.	Beginning	in	September	2014,	various plaintiffs	filed	putative	class	action	complaints	in	the	United	States	District	Court for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York	against	Citigroup	and	other	U.S.	dollar (USD)	ISDAFIX	panel	banks,	which	are	proceeding	on	a	consolidated	basis.	On February	12,	2015,	plaintiffs	filed	an	amended	complaint	alleging	that	the defendants	colluded	to	manipulate	ISDAFIX,	thereby	causing	the	putative	class	to suffer	losses	in	connection	with	USD	interest	rate	derivatives	purchased	from	the defendants.	Plaintiffs	assert	federal	and	various	common	law	claims	and	seek compensatory	damages,	treble	damages	where	authorized	by	statute,	restitution	and declaratory	and	injunctive	relief.	On	April	13,	2015,	defendants	filed	a	motion	to dismiss	the	claims	in	plaintiffs'	amended	consolidated	complaint.	Additional information	concerning	these	actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the consolidated	lead	docket	number	14	Civ.	7126	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Furman,	J.).

# Money	Laundering	Inquiries

Regulatory	Actions:	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties,	including	Citigroup's	indirect, wholly	owned	subsidiary	Banamex	USA	(BUSA),	a	California	state-chartered bank,	have	received	grand	jury	subpoenas	issued	by	the	United	States	Attorney's Office	for	the	District	of	Massachusetts	concerning,	among	other	issues,	policies, procedures	and	activities	related	to	BUSA,	Citibank	and	related	parties' compliance	with	Bank	Secrecy	Act	(BSA)	and	anti-money	laundering	(AML) requirements	under	applicable	federal	laws	and	banking	regulations.	Citigroup	and BUSA	also	have	received	inquiries	and	requests	for	information	from	other regulators,	including	the	Financial	Crimes	Enforcement	Network,	concerning BSA-	and	AML-related	issues.	Citigroup	is	cooperating	fully	with	these	inquiries. Citibank	has	received	a	subpoena	from	the	United	States	Attorney	for	the Eastern	District	of	New	York	in	connection	with	its	investigation	of	alleged bribery,	corruption	and	money	laundering	associated	with	the	Federation Internationale	de	Football	Association	(FIFA),	and	the	potential	involvement	of financial	institutions	in	that	activity.	The	subpoena	requests	information	relating	to, among	other	things,	banking	relationships	and	transactions	at	Citibank	and	its affiliates	associated	with	certain	individuals	and	entities	identified	as	having	had involvement	with	the	alleged	corrupt	conduct.		Citi	is	cooperating	with	the authorities	in	this	matter.

Derivative	Actions	and	Related	Proceedings:	On	September	22,	2015,	a derivative	action	captioned	FIREMAN'S	RETIREMENT	SYSTEM	OF	ST. LOUIS,	ET	AL.	v.	CORBAT,	ET	AL.	was	filed	in	the	United	States	District	Court for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York	on	behalf	of	Citigroup	(as	nominal defendant)	against	certain	of

Citigroup's	and	certain	of	its	affiliates'	present	and	former	directors	and	officers. The	plaintiffs	asserted	claims	derivatively	for	violation	of	Section	14(a)	of	the Securities	Exchange	Act	of	1934,	breach	of	fiduciary	duty,	waste	of	corporate assets,	and	unjust	enrichment	in	connection	with	the	defendants'	alleged	failure	to exercise	appropriate	oversight	and	management	of	BSA	and	AML	laws	and regulations	and	related	consent	decrees	concerning	Citigroup's	subsidiaries	Banco Nacional	de	Mexico,	or	Banamex,	and	BUSA.	On	December	14,	2015,	plaintiffs, with	the	permission	of	the	court,	filed	an	amended	complaint	naming	additional present	and	former	directors	and	officers	of	Citigroup	affiliates	as	defendants. Defendants'	motion	to	dismiss	the	amended	complaint	was	filed	on	January	22, 2016.	Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court filings	under	the	docket	number	15	Civ.	7501	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Furman,	J.).

# Oceanografia	Fraud	and	Related	Matters

Regulatory	Actions:	As	a	result	of	Citigroup's	announcement	in	the	first	quarter	of 2014	of	a	fraud	discovered	in	a	Petróleos	Mexicanos	(Pemex)	supplier	program involving	Oceanografía	SA	de	CV	(OSA),	a	Mexican	oil	services	company	and	a key	supplier	to	Pemex,	the	SEC	commenced	a	formal	investigation	and	the	U.S. Department	of	Justice	requested	information	regarding	Banamex's	dealings	with OSA.	The	SEC	inquiry	has	included	requests	for	documents	and	witness testimony.	Citi	continues	to	cooperate	fully	with	these	inquiries.

# Derivative	Actions	and	Related	Proceedings:	Beginning	in	April	2014,

Citigroup	has	been	named	as	a	defendant	in	two	complaints	filed	by	its stockholders	seeking	to	inspect	Citigroup's	books	and	records	pursuant	to	Section 220	of	Chapter	8	of	the	Delaware	Corporations	Law	with	regard	to	various	matters, including	the	OSA	fraud.	On	April	24,	2015,	in	the	action	brought	by	Oklahoma Firefighters	Pension	&	Retirement	System,	the	Court	of	Chancery	issued	a decision	adopting	the	Master	in	Chancery's	September	30,	2014	recommendation granting	in	part	and	denying	in	part	plaintiff's	request	to	inspect	Citigroup's	books and	records.	On	May	5,	2015,	Citigroup	answered	a	similar	complaint	filed	by	Key West	Municipal	Firefighters	&	Police	Officers'	Retirement	Trust	Fund.	Additional information	concerning	these	actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the docket	numbers	C.A.	No.	9587-ML	(Del.	Ch.)	(LeGrow,	M.)	and	C.A.	No.	10468- ML	(Del.	Ch.)	(LeGrow,	M.).

# Parmalat	Litigation	and	Related	Matters

On	July	29,	2004,	Dr.	Enrico	Bondi,	the	Extraordinary	Commissioner	appointed under	Italian	law	to	oversee	the	administration	of	various	Parmalat	companies, filed	a	complaint	in	New	Jersey	state	court	against	Citigroup	and	Related	Parties alleging,	among	other	things,	that	the	defendants	"facilitated"	a	number	of	frauds by	Parmalat	insiders.	On	October	20,	2008,	following	trial,	a	jury	rendered	a verdict	in	Citigroup's	favor	on	Parmalat's	claims	and	in	favor	of	Citibank,	N.A.	on three	counterclaims.	Parmalat	has	exhausted	all	appeals,	and	the	judgment	is	now final.	Additional	information	concerning	this	action	is	publicly	available	in	court filings	under	the	docket	number

A-2654-08T2	(N.J.	Sup.	Ct.).	Following	the	jury	verdict	awarding	$431	million	in damages	on	Citigroup's	counterclaim,	Citigroup	has	taken	steps	to	enforce	that judgment	in	the	Italian	courts.	On	August	29,	2014,	the	Court	of	Appeal	of Bologna	affirmed	the	decision	in	the	full	amount	of	$431	million,	to	be	paid	in Parmalat	shares.	Parmalat	has	appealed	the	judgment	to	the	Italian	Supreme	Court. Prosecutors	in	Parma	and	Milan,	Italy,	brought	criminal	proceedings	against certain	current	and	former	Citigroup	employees	(along	with	numerous	other investment	banks	and	certain	of	their	current	and	former	employees,	as	well	as former	Parmalat	officers	and	accountants).		On	April	18,	2011,	the	Milan	criminal court	acquitted	the	sole	Citigroup	defendant	of	market-rigging	charges.	The	Milan prosecutors	appealed	part	of	that	judgment	and	sought	administrative	remedies against	Citigroup	under	Italian	Administrative	Law	231.		On	February	5,	2014,	the Milan	Court	of	Appeal	restricted	the	remedy	to	an	administrative	fine	of	€500,000, which	was	later	upheld	by	the	Italian	Supreme	Court.

Additionally,	the	Parmalat	administrator	filed	a	purported	civil	complaint against	Citigroup	in	the	context	of	the	Parma	criminal	proceedings.	On	March	5, 2015,	the	Parma	criminal	court	accepted	plea	bargain	agreements	from	each	of	the defendants	(eight	current	and	former	Citigroup	employees)	and	closed	the	criminal proceedings	that	had	been	commenced	by	prosecutors	in	Parma.	As	a	result	of	the agreements	entered	into	by	the	individuals,	the	Parma	criminal	court	was	no	longer able	to	hear	the	civil	complaint	filed	by	the	Parmalat	administrator	against Citigroup.		On	June	16,	2015,	the	Parmalat	administrator	refiled	the	claim	in	an Italian	civil	court	in	Milan,	this	time	claiming	damages	of	€1.8	billion	against Citigroup	and	Related	Parties	and	other	financial	institutions.		A	preliminary hearing	in	this	new	Milan	proceeding	is	scheduled	for	April	19,	2016.

# Regulatory	Review	of	Student	Loan	Servicing

Citibank	is	currently	subject	to	regulatory	investigation	concerning	certain	student loan	servicing	practices.	Citibank	is	cooperating	with	the	investigation.	Similar servicing	practices	have	been	the	subject	of	an	enforcement	action	against	at	least one	other	institution.	In	light	of	that	action	and	the	current	regulatory	focus	on student	loans,	regulators	may	order	that	Citibank	remediate	customers	and/or impose	penalties	or	other	relief.

# Sovereign	Securities	Matters

Regulatory	Actions:	Government	and	regulatory	agencies	in	the	U.S.	and	in	other jurisdictions	are	conducting	investigations	or	making	inquiries	regarding Citigroup's	sales	and	trading	activities	in	connection	with	sovereign	securities. Citigroup	is	fully	cooperating	with	these	investigations	and	inquiries. Antitrust	and	Other	Litigation:	Beginning	in	July	2015,	CGMI,	along	with numerous	other	U.S.	Treasury	primary	dealer	banks,	have	been	named	as defendants	in	a	number	of	substantially	similar	putative	class	actions	involving allegations	that	they	colluded	to	manipulate	U.S.	Treasury	securities	markets.		The actions	are	based	upon	the	defendants'	roles	as	registered	primary	dealers	of	U.S. Treasury	securities

and	assert	claims	of	alleged	collusion	under	the	antitrust	laws	and	manipulation under	the	Commodity	Exchange	Act.		These	actions	were	filed	in	the	United	States District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York,	the	Northern	District	of Illinois,	the	Southern	District	of	Alabama	and	the	District	of	the	Virgin	Islands. In	December	2015,	the	cases	were	consolidated	before	Judge	Paul	G. Gardephe	in	the	United	States	District	Court	for	the	Southern	District	of	New	York by	the	Judicial	Panel	on	Multidistrict	Litigation.		Additional	information	relating	to these	actions	is	publicly	available	in	court	filings	under	the	docket	number:	15- MD-2673	(S.D.N.Y.)	(Gardephe,	J.).

# Settlement	Payments

Payments	required	in	settlement	agreements	described	above	have	been	made	or are	covered	by	existing	litigation	accruals.

# 29.			CONDENSED	CONSOLIDATING	FINANCIAL	STATEMENTS

Citigroup	expects	to	amend	its	Registration	Statement	on	Form	S-3	with	the	SEC (File	No.	33-192302)	to	add	its	wholly	owned	subsidiary,	Citigroup	Global Markets	Holdings	Inc.	(CGMHI),	as	a	co-registrant.	Any	securities	issued	by CGMHI	under	the	Form	S-3	will	be	fully	and	unconditionally	guaranteed	by Citigroup.

The	following	are	the	Condensed	Consolidating	Statements	of	Income	and Comprehensive	Income	for	the	years	ended	December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013, Condensed	Consolidating	Balance	Sheet	as	of	December	31,	2015	and	2014	and Condensed	Consolidating	Statement	of	Cash	Flows	for	the	years	ended December	31,	2015,	2014	and	2013	for	Citigroup	Inc.,	the	parent	holding	company (Citigroup	parent	company),	CGMHI,	other	Citigroup	subsidiaries	and eliminations	and	total	consolidating	adjustments.	"Other	Citigroup	subsidiaries	and eliminations"	includes	all	other	subsidiaries	of	Citigroup,	intercompany eliminations	and	income	(loss)	from	discontinued	operations.	"Consolidating adjustments"	includes	Citigroup	parent	company	elimination	of	distributed	and undistributed	income	of	subsidiaries	and	investment	in	subsidiaries.

These	Condensed	Consolidating	Financial	Statements	have	been	prepared	and presented	in	accordance	with	SEC	Regulation	S-X	Rule	3-10,	"Financial Statements	of	Guarantors	and	Issuers	of	Guaranteed	Securities	Registered	or	Being Registered."

These	Condensed	Consolidating	Financial	Statements	schedules	are	presented for	purposes	of	additional	analysis,	but	should	be	considered	in	relation	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements	of	Citigroup	taken	as	a	whole.

# Condensed	Consolidating	Statements	of	Income	and	Comprehensive	Income

|  |  |  | Year	ended	December	31,	2015 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citigroup\nparent\ncompany | CGMHI | Other\tCitigroup\nsubsidiaries\tand\neliminations | Consolidating\nadjustments | Citigroup\nconsolidated |
| Revenues |  |  |  |  |  |
| Dividends\tfrom\tsubsidiaries | $13,500 | $— | $— | $(13,500) | $— |
| Interest\trevenue | 9 | 4,389 | 54,153 | — | 58,551 |
| Interest\trevenue—intercompany | 2,880 | 272 | (3,152) | — | — |
| Interest\texpense | 4,563 | 997 | 6,361 | — | 11,921 |
| Interest\texpense—intercompany | (475) | 1,295 | (820) | — | — |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $(1,199) | $2,369 | $45,460 | $— | $46,630 |
| Commissions\tand\tfees | $— | $4,854 | $6,994 | $— | $11,848 |
| Commissions\tand\tfees—intercompany | — | 214 | (214) | — | — |
| Principal\ttransactions | 1,012 | 10,365 | (5,369) | — | 6,008 |
| Principal\ttransactions—intercompany | (1,733) | (8,709) | 10,442 | — | — |
| Other\tincome | 3,294 | 426 | 8,148 | — | 11,868 |
| Other\tincome—intercompany | (3,054) | 1,079 | 1,975 | — | — |
| Total\tnon-interest\trevenues | $(481) | $8,229 | $21,976 | $— | $29,724 |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $11,820 | $10,598 | $67,436 | $(13,500) | $76,354 |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | $— | $— | $7,913 | $— | $7,913 |
| Operating\texpenses |  |  |  |  |  |
| Compensation\tand\tbenefits | $(58) | $5,003 | $16,824 | $— | $21,769 |
| Compensation\tand\tbenefits—intercompany | 59 | — | (59) | — | — |
| Other\toperating | 271 | 1,948 | 19,627 | — | 21,846 |
| Other\toperating—intercompany | 247 | 1,164 | (1,411) | — | — |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $519 | $8,115 | $34,981 | $— | $43,615 |
| Income\t(loss)\tbefore\tincome\ttaxes\tand\tequity\tin\tundistributed\tincome\nof\tsubsidiaries | $11,301 | $2,483 | $24,542 | $(13,500) | $24,826 |
| Provision\t(benefit)\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | (1,340) | 537 | 8,243 | — | 7,440 |
| Equity\tin\tundistributed\tincome\tof\tsubsidiaries | 4,601 | — | — | (4,601) | — |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $17,242 | $1,946 | $16,299 | $(18,101) | $17,386 |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | — | — | (54) | — | (54) |
| Net\tincome\t(loss)\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $17,242 | $1,946 | $16,245 | $(18,101) | $17,332 |
| Net\tincome\tattributable\tto\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | — | 9 | 81 | — | 90 |
| Net\tincome\t(loss)\tafter\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $17,242 | $1,937 | $16,164 | $(18,101) | $17,242 |
| Comprehensive\tincome |  |  |  |  |  |
| Other\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) | $(6,128) | $(125) | $(6,367) | $6,492 | $(6,128) |
| Comprehensive\tincome | $11,114 | $1,812 | $9,797 | $(11,609) | $11,114 |

|  |  |  | Year	ended	December	31,	2014 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citigroup\nparent\ncompany | CGMHI | Other\tCitigroup\nsubsidiaries\tand\neliminations | Consolidating\nadjustments | Citigroup\nconsolidated |
| Revenues |  |  |  |  |  |
| Dividends\tfrom\tsubsidiaries | $8,900 | $— | $— | $(8,900) | $— |
| Interest\trevenue | 12 | 4,210 | 57,461 | — | 61,683 |
| Interest\trevenue—intercompany | 3,109 | 144 | (3,253) | — | — |
| Interest\texpense | 5,055 | 1,010 | 7,625 | — | 13,690 |
| Interest\texpense—intercompany | (618) | 1,258 | (640) | — | — |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $(1,316) | $2,086 | $47,223 | $— | $47,993 |
| Commissions\tand\tfees | $— | $5,185 | $7,847 | $— | $13,032 |
| Commissions\tand\tfees—intercompany | — | 95 | (95) | — | — |
| Principal\ttransactions | 13 | (1,115) | 7,800 | — | 6,698 |
| Principal\ttransactions—intercompany | (672) | 3,822 | (3,150) | — | — |
| Other\tincome | 1,037 | 425 | 8,034 | — | 9,496 |
| Other\tincome—intercompany | (131) | 1,206 | (1,075) | — | — |
| Total\tnon-interest\trevenues | $247 | $9,618 | $19,361 | $— | $29,226 |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $7,831 | $11,704 | $66,584 | $(8,900) | $77,219 |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | $— | $— | $7,467 | $— | $7,467 |
| Operating\texpenses |  |  |  |  |  |
| Compensation\tand\tbenefits | $158 | $5,156 | $18,645 | $— | $23,959 |
| Compensation\tand\tbenefits—intercompany | 38 | — | (38) | — | — |
| Other\toperating | 1,572 | 6,082 | 23,438 | — | 31,092 |
| Other\toperating—intercompany | 212 | 1,651 | (1,863) | — | — |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $1,980 | $12,889 | $40,182 | $— | $55,051 |
| Income\t(loss)\tbefore\tincome\ttaxes\tand\tequity\tin\tundistributed\tincome\nof\tsubsidiaries | $5,851 | $(1,185) | $18,935 | $(8,900) | $14,701 |
| Provision\t(benefit)\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | (643) | 600 | 7,240 | — | 7,197 |
| Equity\tin\tundistributed\tincome\tof\tsubsidiaries | 816 | — |  | (816) | — |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $7,310 | $(1,785) | $11,695 | $(9,716) | $7,504 |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | — | — | (2) | — | (2) |
| Net\tincome\t(loss)\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $7,310 | $(1,785) | $11,693 | $(9,716) | $7,502 |
| Net\tincome\tattributable\tto\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | — | 8 | 184 | — | 192 |
| Net\tincome\t(loss)\tafter\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $7,310 | $(1,793) | $11,509 | $(9,716) | $7,310 |
| Comprehensive\tincome |  |  |  |  |  |
| Other\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) | $(4,083) | $194 | $(4,760) | $4,566 | $(4,083) |
| Comprehensive\tincome | $3,227 | $(1,599) | $6,749 | $(5,150) | $3,227 |

|  |  |  | Year	ended	December	31,	2013 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citigroup\nparent\ncompany | CGMHI | Other\tCitigroup\nsubsidiaries\tand\neliminations | Consolidating\nadjustments | Citigroup\nconsolidated |
| Revenues |  |  |  |  |  |
| Dividends\tfrom\tsubsidiaries | $13,044 | $— | $— | $(13,044) | $— |
| Interest\trevenue | 14 | 4,475 | 58,481 | — | 62,970 |
| Interest\trevenue—intercompany | 3,220 | 159 | (3,379) | — | — |
| Interest\texpense | 5,995 | 1,067 | 9,115 | — | 16,177 |
| Interest\texpense—intercompany | (436) | 1,425 | (989) | — | — |
| Net\tinterest\trevenue | $(2,325) | $2,142 | $46,976 | $— | $46,793 |
| Commissions\tand\tfees | $— | $4,871 | $8,070 | $— | $12,941 |
| Commissions\tand\tfees—intercompany | — | 27 | (27) | — | — |
| Principal\ttransactions | (257) | 389 | 7,170 | — | 7,302 |
| Principal\ttransactions—intercompany | (387) | 1,491 | (1,104) | — | — |
| Other\tincome | 3,770 | 571 | 5,347 | — | 9,688 |
| Other\tincome—intercompany | (2,987) | 928 | 2,059 | — | — |
| Total\tnon-interest\trevenues | $139 | $8,277 | $21,515 | $— | $29,931 |
| Total\trevenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $10,858 | $10,419 | $68,491 | $(13,044) | $76,724 |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\tclaims | $— | $18 | $8,496 | $— | $8,514 |
| Operating\texpenses |  |  |  |  |  |
| Compensation\tand\tbenefits | $136 | $5,169 | $18,662 | $— | $23,967 |
| Compensation\tand\tbenefits—intercompany | 52 | — | (52) | — | — |
| Other\toperating | 474 | 3,461 | 20,506 | — | 24,441 |
| Other\toperating—intercompany | 189 | 2,856 | (3,045) | — | — |
| Total\toperating\texpenses | $851 | $11,486 | $36,071 | $— | $48,408 |
| Income\t(loss)\tbefore\tincome\ttaxes\tand\tequity\tin\tundistributed\tincome\nof\tsubsidiaries | $10,007 | $(1,085) | $23,924 | $(13,044) | $19,802 |
| Provision\t(benefit)\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | (1,638) | (249) | 8,073 | — | 6,186 |
| Equity\tin\tundistributed\tincome\tof\tsubsidiaries | 2,014 | — | — | (2,014) | — |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $13,659 | $(836) | $15,851 | $(15,058) | $13,616 |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ttaxes | — | — | 270 | — | 270 |
| Net\tincome\t(loss)\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $13,659 | $(836) | $16,121 | $(15,058) | $13,886 |
| Net\tincome\tattributable\tto\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | — | 25 | 202 | — | 227 |
| Net\tincome\t(loss)\tafter\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\tinterests | $13,659 | $(861) | $15,919 | $(15,058) | $13,659 |
| Comprehensive\tincome |  |  |  |  |  |
| Other\tcomprehensive\tincome\t(loss) | $(2,237) | $(139) | $(3,138) | $3,277 | $(2,237) |
| Comprehensive\tincome | $11,422 | $(1,000) | $12,781 | $(11,781) | $11,422 |

# Condensed	Consolidating	Balance	Sheet

|  |  |  | December	31,	2015 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citigroup\nparent\ncompany | CGMHI | Other\nCitigroup\nsubsidiaries\nand\neliminations | Consolidating\nadjustments | Citigroup\nconsolidated |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $— | $592 | $20,308 | $— | $20,900 |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks—intercompany | 124 | 1,403 | (1,527) | — | — |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tresale\tagreements | — | 178,178 | 41,497 | — | 219,675 |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tresale\tagreements—intercompany | — | 15,035 | (15,035) | — | — |
| Trading\taccount\tassets | (8) | 124,731 | 125,233 | — | 249,956 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets—intercompany | 1,032 | 1,765 | (2,797) | — | — |
| Investments | 484 | 402 | 342,069 | — | 342,955 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | — | 1,068 | 616,549 | — | 617,617 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome—intercompany | — | — | — | — | — |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses | — | (3) | (12,623) | — | (12,626) |
| Total\tloans,\tnet | $— | $1,065 | $603,926 | $— | $604,991 |
| Advances\tto\tsubsidiaries | $104,405 | $— | $(104,405) | $— | $— |
| Investments\tin\tsubsidiaries | 221,362 | — | — | (221,362) | — |
| Other\tassets\t(1) | 25,819 | 36,860 | 230,054 | — | 292,733 |
| Other\tassets—intercompany | 58,207 | 30,737 | (88,944) | — | — |
| Total\tassets | $411,425 | $390,768 | $1,150,379 | $(221,362) | $1,731,210 |
| Liabilities\tand\tequity |  |  |  |  |  |
| Deposits | $— | $— | $907,887 | $— | $907,887 |
| Deposits—intercompany | — | — | — | — | — |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold | — | 122,459 | 24,037 | — | 146,496 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold—intercompany | 185 | 22,042 | (22,227) | — | — |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities | — | 62,386 | 55,126 | — | 117,512 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities—intercompany | 1,036 | 2,045 | (3,081) | — | — |
| Short-term\tborrowings | 146 | 188 | 20,745 | — | 21,079 |
| Short-term\tborrowings—intercompany | — | 34,916 | (34,916) | — | — |
| Long-term\tdebt | 141,914 | 2,530 | 56,831 | — | 201,275 |
| Long-term\tdebt—intercompany | — | 51,171 | (51,171) | — | — |
| Advances\tfrom\tsubsidiaries | 36,453 | — | (36,453) | — | — |
| Other\tliabilities | 3,560 | 55,482 | 54,827 | — | 113,869 |
| Other\tliabilities—intercompany | 6,274 | 10,967 | (17,241) | — | — |
| Stockholders'\tequity | 221,857 | 26,582 | 196,015 | (221,362) | 223,092 |
| Total\tliabilities\tand\tequity | $411,425 | $390,768 | $1,150,379 | $(221,362) | $1,731,210 |

(1) Other	assets	for	Citigroup	parent	company	at	December	31,	2015	included	$21.8	billion	of	placements	to	Citibank	and	its	branches,	of	which	$ 13.9	billion	had	a	remaining	term	of	less	than	30	days.

|  |  |  | December	31,	2014 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citigroup\nparent\ncompany | CGMHI | Other\nCitigroup\nsubsidiaries\nand\neliminations | Consolidating\nadjustments | Citigroup\nconsolidated |
| Assets |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $— | $239 | $31,869 | $— | $32,108 |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks—intercompany | 125 | 1,512 | (1,637) | — | — |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tresale\tagreements | — | 194,649 | 47,921 | — | 242,570 |
| Federal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tresale\tagreements—intercompany | — | 6,601 | (6,601) | — | — |
| Trading\taccount\tassets | (103) | 141,608 | 155,281 | — | 296,786 |
| Trading\taccount\tassets—intercompany | 707 | 4,956 | (5,663) | — | — |
| Investments | 830 | 483 | 332,130 | — | 333,443 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome | — | 1,495 | 643,140 | — | 644,635 |
| Loans,\tnet\tof\tunearned\tincome—intercompany | — | — | — | — | — |
| Allowance\tfor\tloan\tlosses | — | (45) | (15,949) | — | (15,994) |
| Total\tloans,\tnet | $— | $1,450 | $627,191 | $— | $628,641 |
| Advances\tto\tsubsidiaries | $77,951 | $— | $(77,951) | $— | $— |
| Investments\tin\tsubsidiaries | 211,004 | — | — | (211,004) | — |
| Other\tassets(1) | 26,734 | 38,654 | 243,245 | — | 308,633 |
| Other\tassets—intercompany | 84,174 | 22,081 | (106,255) | — | — |
| Total\tassets | $401,422 | $412,233 | $1,239,530 | $(211,004) | $1,842,181 |
| Liabilities\tand\tequity |  |  |  |  | — |
| Deposits | $— | $— | $899,332 | $— | $899,332 |
| Deposits—intercompany | — | — | — | — | — |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold | — | 149,773 | 23,665 | — | 173,438 |
| Federal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\tsecurities\tloaned\tor\tsold—intercompany | 185 | 22,170 | (22,355) | — | — |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities | 3 | 76,965 | 62,068 | — | 139,036 |
| Trading\taccount\tliabilities—intercompany | 759 | 4,853 | (5,612) | — | — |
| Short-term\tborrowings | 1,075 | 2,042 | 55,218 | — | 58,335 |
| Short-term\tborrowings—intercompany | — | 30,862 | (30,862) | — | — |
| Long-term\tdebt | 149,512 | 3,062 | 70,506 | — | 223,080 |
| Long-term\tdebt—intercompany | — | 39,145 | (39,145) | — | — |
| Advances\tfrom\tsubsidiaries | 27,430 | — | (27,430) | — | — |
| Other\tliabilities | 5,056 | 49,968 | 82,240 | — | 137,264 |
| Other\tliabilities—intercompany | 7,217 | 8,385 | (15,602) | — | — |
| Stockholders'\tequity | 210,185 | 25,008 | 187,507 | (211,004) | 211,696 |
| Total\tliabilities\tand\tequity | $401,422 | $412,233 | $1,239,530 | $(211,004) | $1,842,181 |

# Condensed	Consolidating	Statement	of	Cash	Flows

|  |  |  | Year	ended	December	31,	2015 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars\nNet\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\toperating\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\noperations | Citigroup\nparent\ncompany\n$27,825 | CGMHI\n$12,336 | Other\nCitigroup\nsubsidiaries\nand\neliminations\n$(424) | Consolidating\nadjustments\n$— | Citigroup\nconsolidated\n$39,737 |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\tinvesting\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Purchases\tof\tinvestments | $— | $(4) | $(242,358) | $— | $(242,362) |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tsales\tof\tinvestments | — | 53 | 141,417 | — | 141,470 |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tmaturities\tof\tinvestments | 237 | — | 81,810 | — | 82,047 |
| Change\tin\tdeposits\twith\tbanks | — | (8,414) | 23,902 | — | 15,488 |
| Change\tin\tloans | — | — | 1,353 | — | 1,353 |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tsales\tand\tsecuritizations\tof\tloans | — | — | 9,610 | — | 9,610 |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tsignificant\tdisposals | — | — | 5,932 | — | 5,932 |
| Payments\tdue\tto\ttransfers\tof\tnet\tliabilities\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals | — | — | (18,929) | — | (18,929) |
| Change\tin\tfederal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tresales | — | 8,037 | 14,858 | — | 22,895 |
| Changes\tin\tinvestments\tand\tadvances—intercompany | (35,548) | 1,044 | 34,504 | — | — |
| Other\tinvesting\tactivities | 3 | (101) | (2,523) | — | (2,621) |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\tinvesting\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\noperations | $(35,308) | $615 | $49,576 | $— | $14,883 |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\tfinancing\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Dividends\tpaid | $(1,253) | $— | $— | $— | $(1,253) |
| Issuance\tof\tpreferred\tstock | 6,227 | — | — | — | 6,227 |
| Treasury\tstock\tacquired | (5,452) | — | — | — | (5,452) |
| Proceeds\t(repayments)\tfrom\tissuance\tof\tlong-term\tdebt,\tnet | 127 | (139) | (8,212) | — | (8,224) |
| Proceeds\t(repayments)\tfrom\tissuance\tof\tlong-term\tdebt—intercompany,\tnet | — | 12,557 | (12,557) | — | — |
| Change\tin\tdeposits | — | — | 8,555 | — | 8,555 |
| Change\tin\tfederal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\trepos | — | (27,442) | 500 | — | (26,942) |
| Change\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings | (845) | (1,737) | (34,674) | — | (37,256) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings\tand\tother\tadvances—intercompany | 9,106 | 4,054 | (13,160) | — | — |
| Other\tfinancing\tactivities | (428) | — | — | — | (428) |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\tfinancing\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\noperations | $7,482 | $(12,707) | $(59,548) | $— | $(64,773) |
| Effect\tof\texchange\trate\tchanges\ton\tcash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $— | $— | $(1,055) | $— | $(1,055) |
| Change\tin\tcash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $(1) | $244 | $(11,451) | $— | $(11,208) |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | 125 | 1,751 | 30,232 | — | 32,108 |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\tat\tend\tof\tperiod | $124 | $1,995 | $18,781 | $— | $20,900 |
| Supplemental\tdisclosure\tof\tcash\tflow\tinformation\tfor\tcontinuing\noperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cash\tpaid\tduring\tthe\tyear\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | $111 | $175 | $4,692 | $— | $4,978 |
| Cash\tpaid\tduring\tthe\tyear\tfor\tinterest | 4,916 | 2,346 | 4,769 | — | 12,031 |

| Decrease	in	net	loans	associated	with	significant	disposals	reclassified	to	HFS | $— | $— | $(9,063) | $— | $(9,063) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Decrease\tin\tinvestments\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\treclassified\tto\tHFS | — | — | (1,402) | — | (1,402) |
| Decrease\tin\tgoodwill\tand\tintangible\tassets\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\nreclassified\tto\tHFS | — | — | (223) | — | (223) |
| Decrease\tin\tdeposits\twith\tbanks\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\treclassified\tto\tHFS | — | — | (404) | — | (404) |
| Transfers\tto\tloans\tHFS\tfrom\tloans | — | — | 28,600 | — | 28,600 |
| Transfers\tto\tOREO\tand\tother\trepossessed\tassets | — | — | 276 | — | 276 |
| Non-cash\tfinancing\tactivities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Decrease\tin\tlong-term\tdebt\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals\treclassified\tto\nHFS | $— | $— | $(4,673) | $— | $(4,673) |

|  |  |  | Year	ended	December	31,	2014 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citigroup\nparent\ncompany | CGMHI | Other\nCitigroup\nsubsidiaries\nand\neliminations | Consolidating\nadjustments | Citigroup\nconsolidated |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\toperating\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $5,940 | $(10,915) | $51,318 | $— | $46,343 |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\tinvesting\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Purchases\tof\tinvestments | $— | $(188) | $(258,804) | $— | $(258,992) |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tsales\tof\tinvestments | 41 | 42 | 135,741 | — | 135,824 |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tmaturities\tof\tinvestments | 155 | — | 93,962 | — | 94,117 |
| Change\tin\tdeposits\twith\tbanks | — | 4,183 | 36,733 | — | 40,916 |
| Change\tin\tloans | — | — | 1,170 | — | 1,170 |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tsales\tand\tsecuritizations\tof\tloans | — | — | 4,752 | — | 4,752 |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tsignificant\tdisposals | — | — | 346 | — | 346 |
| Payments\tdue\tto\ttransfers\tof\tnet\tliabilities\tassociated\twith\tsignificant\tdisposals | — | — | (1,255) | — | (1,255) |
| Change\tin\tfederal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tresales | — | 8,832 | 5,635 | — | 14,467 |
| Changes\tin\tinvestments\tand\tadvances—intercompany | (7,986) | 3,549 | 4,437 | — | — |
| Other\tinvesting\tactivities | 5 | (72) | (2,696) | — | (2,763) |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\tinvesting\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $(7,785) | $16,346 | $20,021 | $— | $28,582 |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\tfinancing\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Dividends\tpaid | $(633) | $— | $— | $— | $(633) |
| Issuance\tof\tpreferred\tstock | 3,699 | — | — | — | 3,699 |
| Treasury\tstock\tacquired | (1,232) | — | — | — | (1,232) |
| Proceeds\t(repayments)\tfrom\tissuance\tof\tlong-term\tdebt,\tnet | (3,636) | (634) | 12,183 | — | 7,913 |
| Proceeds\t(repayments)\tfrom\tissuance\tof\tlong-term\tdebt—intercompany,\tnet | — | 1,131 | (1,131) | — | — |
| Change\tin\tdeposits | — | — | (48,336) | — | (48,336) |
| Change\tin\tfederal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\trepos | — | (15,268) | (14,806) | — | (30,074) |
| Change\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings | 749 | 143 | (1,991) | — | (1,099) |
| Net\tchange\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings\tand\tother\tadvances—intercompany | 3,297 | 1,212 | (4,509) | — | — |
| Capital\tcontributions\tfrom\tparent | — | 8,500 | (8,500) | — | — |
| Other\tfinancing\tactivities | (507) | — | (1) | — | (508) |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\tfinancing\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $1,737 | $(4,916) | $(67,091) | $— | $(70,270) |
| Effect\tof\texchange\trate\tchanges\ton\tcash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $— | $— | $(2,432) | $— | $(2,432) |
| Change\tin\tcash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $(108) | $515 | $1,816 | $— | $2,223 |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | 233 | 1,236 | 28,416 | — | 29,885 |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\tat\tend\tof\tperiod | $125 | $1,751 | $30,232 | $— | $32,108 |
| Supplemental\tdisclosure\tof\tcash\tflow\tinformation\tfor\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cash\tpaid\tduring\tthe\tyear\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | $235 | $353 | $4,044 | $— | $4,632 |
| Cash\tpaid\tduring\tthe\tyear\tfor\tinterest | 5,632 | 2,298 | 6,071 | — | 14,001 |
| Non-cash\tinvesting\tactivities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Change\tin\tloans\tdue\tto\tconsolidation/deconsolidation\tof\tVIEs | $— | $— | $(374) | $— | $(374) |
| Transfers\tto\tloans\theld-for-sale\tfrom\tloans | — | — | 15,100 | — | 15,100 |
| Transfers\tto\tOREO\tand\tother\trepossessed\tassets | — | — | 321 | — | 321 |
| Non-cash\tfinancing\tactivities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Decrease\tin\tdeposits\tassociated\twith\treclassifications\tto\tHFS | $— | $— | $(20,605) | $— | $(20,605) |
| Increase\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings\tdue\tto\tconsolidation\tof\tVIEs | — | — | 500 | — | 500 |
| Decrease\tin\tlong-term\tdebt\tdue\tto\tdeconsolidation\tof\tVIEs | — | — | (864) | — | (864) |

# Condensed	Consolidating	Statements	of	Cash	Flows

|  |  |  | Year	ended	December	31,	2013 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars | Citigroup\nparent\ncompany | CGMHI | Other\nCitigroup\nsubsidiaries\nand\neliminations | Consolidating\nadjustments | Citigroup\nconsolidated |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\toperating\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $(7,881) | $(5,692) | $76,817 | $— | $63,244 |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\tinvesting\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Purchases\tof\tinvestments | $— | $(34) | $(220,789) | $— | $(220,823) |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tsales\tof\tinvestments | 385 | — | 130,715 | — | 131,100 |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tmaturities\tof\tinvestments | 233 | — | 84,598 | — | 84,831 |
| Change\tin\tdeposits\twith\tbanks | — | 6,242 | (73,113) | — | (66,871) |
| Change\tin\tloans | — | — | (30,198) | — | (30,198) |
| Proceeds\tfrom\tsales\tand\tsecuritizations\tof\tloans | — | — | 9,123 | — | 9,123 |
| Change\tin\tfederal\tfunds\tsold\tand\tresales | — | (2,838) | 7,112 | — | 4,274 |
| Changes\tin\tinvestments\tand\tadvances—intercompany | 7,226 | (2,118) | (5,108) | — | — |
| Other\tinvesting\tactivities | 4 | (171) | (2,607) | — | (2,774) |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\tinvesting\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $7,848 | $1,081 | $(100,267) | $— | $(91,338) |
| Cash\tflows\tfrom\tfinancing\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Dividends\tpaid | $(314) | $— | $— | $— | $(314) |
| Issuance\tof\tpreferred\tstock | 4,192 | — | — | — | 4,192 |
| Redemption\tof\tpreferred\tstock | (94) | — | — | — | (94) |
| Treasury\tstock\tacquired | (837) | — | — | — | (837) |
| Proceeds\t(repayments)\tfrom\tissuance\tof\tlong-term\tdebt,\tnet | (13,426) | 53 | 3,784 | — | (9,589) |
| Proceeds\t(repayments)\tfrom\tissuance\tof\tlong-term\tdebt—intercompany,\tnet | — | (202) | 202 | — | — |
| Change\tin\tdeposits | — | — | 37,713 | — | 37,713 |
| Change\tin\tfederal\tfunds\tpurchased\tand\trepos | — | 2,768 | (10,492) | — | (7,724) |
| Change\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings | (359) | 1,130 | (572) | — | 199 |
| Net\tchange\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings\tand\tother\tadvances—intercompany | 11,402 | (13,149) | 1,747 | — | — |
| Capital\tcontributions\tfrom\tparent | — | 12,330 | (12,330) | — | — |
| Other\tfinancing\tactivities | (451) | — | (1) | — | (452) |
| Net\tcash\tprovided\tby\t(used\tin)\tfinancing\tactivities\tof\tcontinuing\toperations | $113 | $2,930 | $20,051 | $— | $23,094 |
| Effect\tof\texchange\trate\tchanges\ton\tcash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $— | $— | $(1,558) | $— | $(1,558) |
| Discontinued\toperations |  |  |  |  | — |
| Net\tcash\tused\tin\tdiscontinued\toperations | $— | $— | $(10) | $— | $(10) |
| Change\tin\tcash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks | $80 | $(1,681) | $(4,967) | $— | $(6,568) |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\tat\tbeginning\tof\tperiod | 153 | 2,917 | 33,383 | — | 36,453 |
| Cash\tand\tdue\tfrom\tbanks\tat\tend\tof\tperiod | $233 | $1,236 | $28,416 | $— | $29,885 |
| Supplemental\tdisclosure\tof\tcash\tflow\tinformation\tfor\tcontinuing\toperations |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cash\tpaid\tduring\tthe\tyear\tfor\tincome\ttaxes | $(71) | $(20) | $4,586 | $— | $4,495 |
| Cash\tpaid\tduring\tthe\tyear\tfor\tinterest | 6,514 | 2,575 | 6,566 | — | 15,655 |
| Non-cash\tinvesting\tactivities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Change\tin\tloans\tdue\tto\tconsolidation/deconsolidation\tof\tVIEs | $— | $— | $6,718 | $— | $6,718 |
| Transfers\tto\tloans\theld-for-sale\tfrom\tloans | — | — | 17,300 | — | 17,300 |
| Transfers\tto\tOREO\tand\tother\trepossessed\tassets | — | — | 325 | — | 325 |
| Non-cash\tfinancing\tactivities |  |  |  |  |  |
| Increase\tin\tshort-term\tborrowings\tdue\tto\tconsolidation\tof\tVIEs | — | — | 6,718 | — | 6,718 |

# 30.	SUBSEQUENT	EVENT

Citi	uses	the	U.S.	dollar	as	the	functional	currency	for	its	operations	in	Venezuela. On	February	17,	2016,	the	Venezuelan	government	announced	changes	to	its foreign	exchange	controls.	Based	on	this	announcement,	Citi	expects	to	begin	using the	SIMADI	rate	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016	to	remeasure	its	net	bolivar- denominated	monetary	assets,	despite	the	possibly	limited	availability	of	U.S. dollars	(notwithstanding	the	fact	that	it	has	been	described	as	a	free	floating	rate) and	although	the	new	SIMADI	rate	may	not	necessarily	be	reflective	of	economic reality.	Re-measurement	of	Citi's	bolivar-denominated	assets	and	liabilities	due	to changes	in	the	exchange	rate	is	recorded	in	earnings.	At	the

expected	minimum	new	SIMADI	rate	of	202	bolivars	per	U.S.	dollar,	Citi estimates	that	it	will	incur	an	approximate	$172	million	foreign	currency	loss	in	the first	quarter	of	2016,	which	could	increase	if	the	bolivar	continues	to	devalue	in	the new	SIMADI	market.	Additionally,	Citi	expects	its	revenues	and	expenses	will	be translated	at	the	SIMADI	rate	beginning	in	the	first	quarter	of	2016.	Because	the new	foreign	exchange	control	rules	have	not	yet	been	officially	published	and	are thus	not	yet	effective,	however,	the	impact	to	Citi's	results	of	operations	as	a	result of	the	February	17th	announcement	is	not	yet	certain.

# 31.	SELECTED	QUARTERLY	FINANCIAL	DATA	(UNAUDITED)

|  |  | 2015 |  |  |  | 2014 |  |  |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars,\texcept\tper\tshare\tamounts | Fourth | Third | Second | First | Fourth | Third | Second | First |
| Revenues,\tnet\tof\tinterest\texpense | $18,456 | $18,692 | $19,470 | $19,736 | $17,899 | $19,689 | $19,425 | $20,206 |
| Operating\texpenses | 11,134 | 10,669 | 10,928 | 10,884 | 14,426 | 12,955 | 15,521 | 12,149 |
| Provisions\tfor\tcredit\tlosses\tand\tfor\tbenefits\tand\nclaims | 2,514 | 1,836 | 1,648 | 1,915 | 2,013 | 1,750 | 1,730 | 1,974 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations\tbefore\nincome\ttaxes | $4,808 | $6,187 | $6,894 | $6,937 | $1,460 | $4,984 | $2,174 | $6,083 |
| Income\ttaxes | 1,403 | 1,881 | 2,036 | 2,120 | 1,077 | 2,068 | 1,921 | 2,131 |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $3,405 | $4,306 | $4,858 | $4,817 | $383 | $2,916 | $253 | $3,952 |
| Income\t(loss)\tfrom\tdiscontinued\toperations,\tnet\tof\ntaxes | (45) | (10) | 6 | (5) | (1) | (16) | (22) | 37 |
| Net\tincome\tbefore\tattribution\tof\tnoncontrolling\ninterests | $3,360 | $4,296 | $4,864 | $4,812 | $382 | $2,900 | $231 | $3,989 |
| Noncontrolling\tinterests | 25 | 5 | 18 | 42 | 38 | 59 | 50 | 45 |
| Citigroup's\tnet\tincome | $3,335 | $4,291 | $4,846 | $4,770 | $344 | $2,841 | $181 | $3,944 |
| Earnings\tper\tshare(1) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Basic |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | $1.04 | $1.36 | $1.51 | $1.51 | $0.06 | $0.89 | $0.03 | $1.23 |
| Net\tincome | 1.02 | 1.36 | 1.52 | 1.51 | 0.06 | 0.88 | 0.03 | 1.24 |
| Diluted |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Income\tfrom\tcontinuing\toperations | 1.03 | 1.36 | 1.51 | 1.51 | 0.06 | 0.88 | 0.03 | 1.22 |
| Net\tincome | 1.02 | 1.35 | 1.51 | 1.51 | 0.06 | 0.88 | 0.03 | 1.23 |
| Common\tstock\tprice\tper\tshare |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| High | 55.87 | 60.34 | 57.39 | 54.26 | 56.37 | 53.66 | 49.58 | 55.20 |
| Low | 49.88 | 49.00 | 51.52 | 46.95 | 49.68 | 46.90 | 45.68 | 46.34 |
| Close | 51.75 | 49.61 | 55.24 | 51.52 | 54.11 | 51.82 | 47.10 | 47.60 |
| Dividends\tper\tshare\tof\tcommon\tstock | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |

This	Note	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	is	unaudited	due	to	the	Company's	individual	quarterly	results	not	being	subject	to	an	audit.

(1)			Due	to	averaging	of	shares,	quarterly	earnings	per	share	may	not	sum	to	the	totals	reported	for	the	full	year.

# [End	of	Consolidated	Financial	Statements	and	Notes	to	Consolidated	Financial	Statements]

# FINANCIAL	DATA	SUPPLEMENT

|  | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Citigroup's\tnet\tincome\tto\taverage\tassets | 0.95% | 0.39% | 0.73% |
| Return\ton\taverage\tcommon\nstockholders'\tequity(1) | 8.1 | 3.4 | 7.0 |
| Return\ton\taverage\ttotal\tstockholders'\nequity(2) | 7.9 | 3.5 | 6.9 |
| Total\taverage\tequity\tto\taverage\tassets(3) | 11.9 | 11.1 | 10.5 |
| Dividend\tpayout\tratio(4) | 3.0 | 1.8 | 0.9 |

(1) Based	on	Citigroup's	net	income	less	preferred	stock	dividends	as	a	percentage	of	average	common	stockholders'	equity.

(2) Based	on	Citigroup's	net	income	as	a	percentage	of	average	total	Citigroup	stockholders'	equity.

(3) Based	on	average	Citigroup	stockholders'	equity	as	a	percentage	of	average	assets.

# AVERAGE	DEPOSIT	LIABILITIES	IN	OFFICES	OUTSIDE	THE	U.S.(1)

|  |  | 2015 |  | 2014 |  | 2013 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| In\tmillions\tof\tdollars\tat\tyear\tend\texcept\tratios | Average\ninterest\trate | Average\nbalance | Average\ninterest\trate | Average\nbalance | Average\ninterest\trate | Average\nbalance |
| Banks | 0.44% $ | 46,664 | 0.48% $ | 61,705 | 0.68% $ | 63,759 |
| Other\tdemand\tdeposits | 0.48 | 249,498 | 0.58 | 229,880 | 0.57 | 220,599 |
| Other\ttime\tand\tsavings\tdeposits(2) | 1.19 | 198,733 | 1.08 | 243,630 | 1.06 | 262,924 |
| Total | 0.76% $ | 494,895 | 0.80% $ | 535,215 | 0.82% $ | 547,282 |

(1) Interest	rates	and	amounts	include	the	effects	of	risk	management	activities	and	also	reflect	the	impact	of	the	local	interest	rates	prevailing	in	certain	countries.

(2) Primarily	consists	of	certificates	of	deposit	and	other	time	deposits	in	denominations	of	$100,000	or	more.

# MATURITY	PROFILE	OF	TIME	DEPOSITS	IN	U.S.	OFFICES

| In	millions	of	dollars	at	December<br>31,	2015 | Under	3<br>months | Over	3	to	6<br>months | Over	6	to	12<br>months | Over	12<br>months |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Over\t$100,000 |  |  |  |  |
| Certificates\tof\tdeposit | $14,317 | $639 | $709 | $2,007 |
| Other\ttime\tdeposits | 3,880 | 37 | 65 | 805 |
| Over\t$250,000 |  |  |  |  |
| Certificates\tof\tdeposit | $13,728 | $264 | $297 | $1,625 |
| Other\ttime\tdeposits | 3,864 | — | 57 | 711 |

# SUPERVISION,	REGULATION	AND	OTHER

# SUPERVISION	AND	REGULATION

Citi	is	subject	to	regulation	under	U.S.	federal	and	state	laws,	as	well	as	applicable laws	in	the	other	jurisdictions	in	which	it	does	business.

# General

Citigroup	is	a	registered	bank	holding	company	and	financial	holding	company and	is	regulated	and	supervised	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board.	Citigroup's nationally	chartered	subsidiary	banks,	including	Citibank,	are	regulated	and supervised	by	the	Office	of	the	Comptroller	of	the	Currency	(OCC)	and	its	state- chartered	depository	institution	by	the	relevant	state's	banking	department	and	the Federal	Deposit	Insurance	Corporation	(FDIC).	The	FDIC	also	has	examination authority	for	banking	subsidiaries	whose	deposits	it	insures.	Overseas	branches	of Citibank	are	regulated	and	supervised	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board	and	OCC	and overseas	subsidiary	banks	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board.	These	overseas	branches and	subsidiary	banks	are	also	regulated	and	supervised	by	regulatory	authorities	in the	host	countries.	In	addition,	the	Consumer	Financial	Protection	Bureau	(CFPB) regulates	consumer	financial	products	and	services.	For	more	information	on	U.S. and	foreign	regulation	affecting	or	potentially	affecting	Citi	and	its	subsidiaries, see	"Risk	Factors"	above.

# Other	Bank	and	Bank	Holding	Company	Regulation

Citi,	including	its	banking	subsidiaries,	is	subject	to	regulatory	limitations, including	requirements	for	banks	to	maintain	reserves	against	deposits, requirements	as	to	risk-based	capital	and	leverage	(see	"Capital	Resources"	above and	Note	19	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements),	restrictions	on	the	types and	amounts	of	loans	that	may	be	made	and	the	interest	that	may	be	charged,	and limitations	on	investments	that	can	be	made	and	services	that	can	be	offered.	The Federal	Reserve	Board	may	also	expect	Citi	to	commit	resources	to	its	subsidiary banks	in	certain	circumstances.	Citi	is	also	subject	to	anti-money	laundering	and financial	transparency	laws,	including	standards	for	verifying	client	identification at	account	opening	and	obligations	to	monitor	client	transactions	and	report suspicious	activities.

# Securities	and	Commodities	Regulation

Citi	conducts	securities	underwriting,	brokerage	and	dealing	activities	in	the	U.S. through	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Inc.	(CGMI),	its	primary	broker-dealer,	and other	broker-dealer	subsidiaries,	which	are	subject	to	regulations	of	the	U.S. Securities	and	Exchange	Commission	(SEC),	the	Financial	Industry	Regulatory Authority	and	certain	exchanges.	Citi	conducts	similar	securities	activities	outside the	U.S.,	subject	to	local	requirements,	through	various	subsidiaries	and	affiliates, principally	Citigroup	Global	Markets	Limited	in	London	(CGML),	which	is regulated	principally	by	the	U.K.	Financial	Conduct	Authority,	and	Citigroup Global	Markets	Japan	Inc.	in	Tokyo,	which	is	regulated	principally	by	the Financial	Services	Agency	of	Japan.

Citi	also	has	subsidiaries	that	are	members	of	futures	exchanges.	In	the	U.S., CGMI	is	a	member	of	the	principal	U.S.	futures	exchanges,	and	Citi	has subsidiaries	that	are	registered	as	futures	commission	merchants	and	commodity pool	operators	with	the	Commodity	Futures	Trading	Commission	(CFTC). Citibank,	CGMI,	Citigroup	Energy	Inc.	and	CGML,	also	are	registered	as	swap dealers	with	the	CFTC.	CGMI	is	also	subject	to	SEC	and	CFTC	rules	that	specify uniform	minimum	net	capital	requirements.	Compliance	with	these	rules	could limit	those	operations	of	CGMI	that	require	the	intensive	use	of	capital	and	also limits	the	ability	of	broker-dealers	to	transfer	large	amounts	of	capital	to	parent companies	and	other	affiliates.	See	also	"Capital	Resources"	and	Note	19	to	the Consolidated	Financial	Statements	for	a	further	discussion	of	capital	considerations of	Citi's	non-banking	subsidiaries.

# Transactions	with	Affiliates

Transactions	between	Citi's	U.S.	subsidiary	depository	institutions	and	their	non- bank	affiliates	are	regulated	by	the	Federal	Reserve	Board,	and	are	generally required	to	be	on	arm's-length	terms.	See	also	"Managing	Global	Risk—Liquidity Risk"	above.

# COMPETITION

The	financial	services	industry	is	highly	competitive.	Citi's	competitors	include	a variety	of	financial	services	and	advisory	companies.	Citi	competes	for	clients	and capital	(including	deposits	and	funding	in	the	short-	and	long-term	debt	markets) with	some	of	these	competitors	globally	and	with	others	on	a	regional	or	product basis.	Citi's	competitive	position	depends	on	many	factors,	including	the	value	of Citi's	brand	name,	reputation,	the	types	of	clients	and	geographies	served,	the quality,	range,	performance,	innovation	and	pricing	of	products	and	services,	the effectiveness	of	and	access	to	distribution	channels,	technology	advances,	customer service	and	convenience,	effectiveness	of	transaction	execution,	interest	rates	and lending	limits,	regulatory	constraints	and	the	effectiveness	of	sales	promotion efforts.	Citi's	ability	to	compete	effectively	also	depends	upon	its	ability	to	attract new	employees	and	retain	and	motivate	existing	employees,	while	managing compensation	and	other	costs.	For	additional	information	on	competitive	factors and	uncertainties	impacting	Citi's	businesses,	see	"Risk	Factors"	above.

# PROPERTIES

Citi's	principal	executive	offices	are	currently	located	at	388	Greenwich	Street	in New	York	City	and	are	the	subject	of	a	lease	and	fully	occupied	by	Citi.	Citi	also has	additional	office	space	at	399	Park	Avenue	and	601	Lexington	Avenue	in	New York	City	under	a	long-term	lease	and	at	111	Wall	Street	in	New	York	City	under a	lease	of	the	entire	building.	Citibank	leases	a	building	in	Long	Island	City,	New York.

Citigroup	Global	Markets	Holdings	Inc.'s	principal	offices	are	located	at	388 Greenwich	Street	and	390	Greenwich	Street	in	New	York	City,	which	is	also subject	to	a	lease	and	fully	occupied	by	Citi.

Citigroup's	principal	executive	offices	in	EMEA	are	located	at	25	and	33

Canada	Square	in	London's	Canary

Wharf,	with	both	buildings	subject	to	long-term	leases.	Citi	is	the	largest	tenant	of these	buildings.

In	Asia,	Citi's	principal	executive	offices	are	in	leased	premises	located	at Citibank	Plaza	in	Hong	Kong.	Citi	also	has	significant	leased	premises	in Singapore	and	Japan.	Citi	has	major	or	full	ownership	interests	in	country headquarters	locations	in	Shanghai,	Seoul,	Kuala	Lumpur,	Manila	and	Mumbai. Citi's	principal	executive	offices	in	Mexico,	which	also	serve	as	the headquarters	of	Banamex,	are	located	in	Mexico	City.	Citi's	principal	executive offices	for	Latin	America	(other	than	Mexico)	are	located	in	leased	premises located	in	Miami.

Citi	also	owns	or	leases	over	63	million	square	feet	of	real	estate	in	101 countries,	consisting	of	over	9,400	properties.

Citi	continues	to	evaluate	its	global	real	estate	footprint	and	space requirements	and	may	determine	from	time	to	time	that	certain	of	its	premises	are no	longer	necessary.	There	is	no	assurance	that	Citi	will	be	able	to	dispose	of	any excess	premises	or	that	it	will	not	incur	charges	in	connection	with	such dispositions,	which	could	be	material	to	Citi's	operating	results	in	a	given	period. Citi	has	developed	programs	for	its	properties	to	achieve	long-term	energy efficiency	objectives	and	reduce	its	greenhouse	gas	emissions	to	lessen	its	impact on	climate	change.	These	activities	could	help	to	mitigate,	but	will	not	eliminate, Citi's	potential	risk	from	future	climate	change	regulatory	requirements. For	further	information	concerning	leases,	see	Note	27	to	the	Consolidated Financial	Statements.

# DISCLOSURE	PURSUANT	TO	SECTION	219	OF	THE	IRAN	THREAT REDUCTION	AND	SYRIA	HUMAN	RIGHTS	ACT

Pursuant	to	Section	219	of	the	Iran	Threat	Reduction	and	Syria	Human	Rights	Act of	2012	(Section	219),	which	added	Section	13(r)	to	the	Securities	Exchange	Act	of 1934,	as	amended,	Citi	is	required	to	disclose	in	its	annual	or	quarterly	reports,	as applicable,	whether	it	or	any	of	its	affiliates	knowingly	engaged	in	certain activities,	transactions	or	dealings	relating	to	Iran	or	with	individuals	or	entities that	are	subject	to	sanctions	under	U.S.	law.	Disclosure	is	generally	required	even where	the	activities,	transactions	or	dealings	were	conducted	in	compliance	with applicable	law.	Citi	has	previously	disclosed	reportable	activities	pursuant	to Section	219	for	the	first	and	second	quarters	of	2015	in	its	related	quarterly	reports on	Form	10-Q.

In	addition	to	Citi's	prior	disclosures,	a	subsidiary	of	Citi,	Banco	Nacional	de México	(Banamex),	identified	that	it	inadvertently	processed	five	domestic	funds transfers	to	the	Embassy	of	Iran	in	Mexico	during	the	third	quarter	of	2015.		The total	value	of	these	five	funds	transfers	was	approximately	MXP	3,320 (approximately	$177.00).		Three	of	the	payments	were	for	visa	services	that	are exempt	under	Office	of	Foreign	Assets	Control	(OFAC)	regulations	and	two	were for	consular	services	that	going	forward	would	be	permissible	under	OFAC General	License	H	for	Banamex	as	a	non-U.S.	subsidiary	of	Citi.		The	transactions, in	aggregate,	resulted	in	approximately	MXP	10	(approximately	$0.53)	in	revenue for	Banamex.

# UNREGISTERED	SALES	OF	EQUITY,	PURCHASES	OF	EQUITY	SECURITIES,	DIVIDENDS

# Unregistered	Sales	of	Equity	Securities

# None.

# Equity	Security	Repurchases

The	following	table	summarizes	Citi's	equity	security	repurchases,	which	consisted	entirely	of	common	stock	repurchases,	during	the	three	months	ended	December	31, 2015:

| In	millions,	except	per	share	amounts | Total	shares<br>purchased | Average<br>price	paid<br>per	share | Approximate	dollar<br>value	of	shares	that<br>may	yet	be	purchased<br>under	the	plan	or<br>programs |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| October\t2015 |  |  |  |
| Open\tmarket\trepurchases(1) | 8.7 | $51.35 | $3,836 |
| Employee\ttransactions(2) | — | — | N/A |
| November\t2015 |  |  |  |
| Open\tmarket\trepurchases(1) | 8.1 | 53.84 | 3,399 |
| Employee\ttransactions(2) | — | — | N/A |
| December\t2015 |  |  |  |
| Open\tmarket\trepurchases(1) | 14.6 | 52.48 | 2,634 |
| Employee\ttransactions(2) | — | — | N/A |
| Amounts\tas\tof\tDecember\t31,\t2015 | 31.4 | $52.52 | $2,634 |

(1) Represents	repurchases	under	the	$7.8	billion	2015	common	stock	repurchase	program	(2015	Repurchase	Program)	that	was	approved	by	Citigroup's	Board	of	Directors	and	announced	on	March	11, 2015,	which	was	part	of	the	planned	capital	actions	included	by	Citi	in	its	2015	Comprehensive	Capital	Analysis	and	Review	(CCAR).	The	2015	Repurchase	Program	extends	through	the	second quarter	of	2016.	Shares	repurchased	under	the	2015	Repurchase	Program	are	treasury	stock.

(2) Consisted	of	shares	added	to	treasury	stock	related	to	(i)	certain	activity	on	employee	stock	option	program	exercises	where	the	employee	delivers	existing	shares	to	cover	the	option	exercise,	or (ii)	under	Citi's	employee	restricted	or	deferred	stock	programs	where	shares	are	withheld	to	satisfy	tax	requirements.

# Dividends

In	addition	to	Board	of	Directors'	approval,	Citi's	ability	to	pay	common	stock dividends	substantially	depends	on	regulatory	approval,	including	an	annual regulatory	review	of	the	results	of	the	CCAR	process	required	by	the	Federal Reserve	Board	and	the	supervisory	stress	tests	required	under	the	Dodd-Frank	Act. See	"Risk	Factors—Regulatory	Risks"	above.	For	information	on	the	ability	of Citigroup's	subsidiary	depository	institutions	and	non-bank	subsidiaries	to	pay dividends,	see	Note	19	to	the	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.	Any	dividend	on Citi's	outstanding	common	stock	would	also	need	to	be	made	in	compliance	with Citi's	obligations	to	its	outstanding	preferred	stock.

# PERFORMANCE	GRAPH

# Comparison	of	Five-Year	Cumulative	Total	Return

The	following	graph	and	table	compare	the	cumulative	total	return	on	Citi's common	stock,	which	is	listed	on	the	NYSE	under	the	ticker	symbol	"C"	and	held by	81,805	common	stockholders	of	record	as	of	January	31,	2016,	with	the cumulative	total	return	of	the	S&P	500	Index	and	the	S&P	Financial	Index	over	the five-year	period	through	December	31,	2015.	The	graph	and	table	assume	that $100	was	invested	on	December	31,	2010	in	Citi's	common	stock,	the	S&P	500 Index	and	the	S&P	Financial	Index,	and	that	all	dividends	were	reinvested.

# For	the	years	ended

| DATE | CITI | S&amp;P	500 | S&amp;P<br>FINANCIALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 31-Dec-2010 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 30-Dec-2011 | 55.67 | 102.11 | 82.94 |
| 31-Dec-2012 | 83.81 | 118.45 | 106.84 |
| 31-Dec-2013 | 110.49 | 156.82 | 144.90 |
| 31-Dec-2014 | \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t114.83 | \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t178.28 | \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t166.93 |
| 31-Dec-2015 | \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t110.14 | \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t180.75 | \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t164.39 |

# CORPORATE	INFORMATION

# CITIGROUP	EXECUTIVE	OFFICERS

Citigroup's	executive	officers	as	of	February	26,	2016	are:

Each	executive	officer	has	held	executive	or	management	positions	with	Citigroup for	at	least	five	years,	except	that:

•Ms.	Desoer	joined	Citi	in	April	2014.	Prior	to	joining	Citi,	Ms.	Desoer	had	a 35-year	career	at	Bank	of	America,	where	she	was	President,	Bank	of	America Home	Loans,	a	Global	Technology	&	Operations	Executive,	and	President, Consumer	Products,	among	other	roles.

•Mr.	Weerasinghe	joined	Citi	in	June	2012.	Prior	to	joining	Citi,	Mr. Weerasinghe	was	Senior	Partner	at	Shearman	&	Sterling.

# CITIGROUP	BOARD	OF	DIRECTORS

Michael	L.	Corbat Chief	Executive	Officer Citigroup	Inc.

Ellen	M.	Costello Former	President	and	CEO BMO	Financial	Corporation	and	Former	U.S. Country	Head	of	BMO	Financial	Group

Duncan	P.	Hennes

Co-Founder	and	Partner

Atrevida	Partners,	LLC

Peter	Blair	Henry Dean,	New	York	University Stern	School	of	Business

Franz	B.	Humer Chairman,	Retired Roche	Holding	Ltd.

Renee	J.	James Operating	Executive The	Carlyle	Group

Eugene	M.	McQuade

Chief	Executive	Officer,	Retired	Citibank, N.A.	and Vice	Chairman,	Retired Citigroup	Inc.

Michael	E.	O'Neill Chairman Citigroup	Inc.

# Code	of	Conduct,	Code	of	Ethics

Citi	has	a	Code	of	Conduct	that	maintains	its	commitment	to	the	highest	standards of	conduct.	The	Code	of	Conduct	is	supplemented	by	a	Code	of	Ethics	for Financial	Professionals	(including	accounting,	controllers,	financial	reporting operations,	financial	planning	and	analysis,	treasury,	tax,	strategy	and	M&A, investor	relations	and	regional/product	finance	professionals	and	administrative staff)	that	applies	worldwide.	The	Code	of	Ethics	for	Financial	Professionals applies	to	Citi's	principal	executive	officer,	principal	financial	officer	and	principal accounting	officer.	Amendments	and	waivers,	if	any,	to	the	Code	of	Ethics	for Financial	Professionals	will	be	disclosed	on	Citi's	website,	www.citigroup.com. Both	the	Code	of	Conduct	and	the	Code	of	Ethics	for	Financial	Professionals can	be	found	on	the	Citi	website	by	clicking	on	"About	Us,"	and	then	"Corporate Governance."	Citi's	Corporate	Governance	Guidelines	can	also	be	found	there,	as well	as	the	charters	for	the	Audit	Committee,	the	Ethics	and	Culture	Committee, the	Nomination,	Governance	and	Public	Affairs	Committee,	the	Personnel	and Compensation	Committee	and	the	Risk	Management	Committee	of	the	Board. These	materials	are	also	available	by	writing	to	Citigroup	Inc.,	Corporate Governance,	601	Lexington	Avenue,	19th	Floor,	New	York,	New	York	10022.

Gary	M.	Reiner Operating	Partner General	Atlantic	LLC

Judith	Rodin President Rockefeller	Foundation

Anthony	M.	Santomero Former	President Federal	Reserve	Bank	of 		Philadelphia

Joan	E.	Spero Senior	Research	Scholar Columbia	University 		School	of	International 		and	Public	Affairs

Diana	L.	Taylor Vice	Chair Solera	Capital,	LLC

William	S.	Thompson,	Jr. Chief	Executive	Officer,	Retired Pacific	Investment 		Management	Company 		(PIMCO)

James	S.	Turley Former	Chairman	and	CEO 		Ernst	&	Young

Ernesto	Zedillo	Ponce	de	Leon Director,	Center	for	the 		Study	of	Globalization	and 		Professor	in	the	Field 		of	International 		Economics	and	Politics, 		Yale	University

# Signatures

Pursuant	to	the	requirements	of	Section	13	or	15(d)	of	the	Securities	Exchange	Act of	1934,	the	registrant	has	duly	caused	this	report	to	be	signed	on	its	behalf	by	the undersigned,	thereunto	duly	authorized,	on	the	26th	day	of	February,	2016.

Citigroup	Inc. (Registrant)

# /s/	John	C.	Gerspach

John	C.	Gerspach Chief	Financial	Officer

Pursuant	to	the	requirements	of	the	Securities	Exchange	Act	of	1934,	this	report has	been	signed	below	by	the	following	persons	on	behalf	of	the	registrant	and	in the	capacities	indicated	on	the	26th	day	of	February,	2016.

Citigroup's	Principal	Executive	Officer	and	a	Director:

# /s/	Michael	L.	Corbat

# Michael	L.	Corbat

# Citigroup's	Principal	Financial	Officer:

# John	C.	Gerspach

Citigroup's	Principal	Accounting	Officer:

# /s/	Jeffrey	R.	Walsh

# Jeffrey	R.	Walsh

The	Directors	of	Citigroup	listed	below	executed	a	power	of	attorney	appointing John	C.	Gerspach	their	attorney-in-fact,	empowering	him	to	sign	this	report	on	their behalf.

Ellen	M.	Costello Duncan	P.	Hennes Peter	Blair	Henry Franz	B.	Humer Renee	J.	James Eugene	M.	McQuade Michael	E.	O'Neill Gary	M.	Reiner

Judith	Rodin Anthony	M.	Santomero Joan	E.	Spero Diana	L.	Taylor William	S.	Thompson,	Jr. James	S.	Turley Ernesto	Zedillo	Ponce	de	Leon

# EXHIBIT	INDEX

10.03* Citigroup	Inc.	Deferred	Cash	Award	Plan	(as	Amended	and	Restated	Effective	as	of	January	1,	2015),	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.03	to the	Company's	2014	10-K.

10.04.1* Form	of	Citigroup	Inc.	2012	Discretionary	Incentive	and	Retention	Award	Agreement,	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.01	to	the	Company's Quarterly	Report	on	Form	10-Q	for	the	quarterly	period	ended	September	30,	2011	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.04.2* Form	of	Citigroup	Inc.	2013	CAP/DCAP	Agreement,	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.01	to	the	Company's	Quarterly	Report	on	Form	10-Q for	the	quarterly	period	ended	September	30,	2012	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.04.5* Form	of	Citigroup	Inc.	2016	CAP/DCAP	Agreement,	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.01	to	the	Company's	Quarterly	Report	on	Form	10-Q for	the	quarterly	period	ended	September	30,	2015	(File	No.	001-09924). 10.05* Form	of	Citigroup	Executive	Premium	Price	Option	Agreement,	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	99.2	to	the	Company's	Current	Report	on	Form 8-K	filed	January	21,	2009	(File	No.	001-09924). 10.06* 2011	Citigroup	Executive	Performance	Plan,	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.2	to	the	Company's	Current	Report	on	Form	8-K	filed	April	26, 2011	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.07* Form	of	Citigroup	Inc.	Employee	Option	Grant	Agreement	(Executive	Option	Grant	Program),	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.01	to	the Company's	Quarterly	Report	on	Form	10-Q	for	the	quarterly	period	ended	June	30,	2011	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.08.1* Form	of	Citigroup	Inc.	Performance	Share	Unit	Award	Agreement	(awards	dated	February	19,	2013),	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.02	to the	Company's	Quarterly	Report	on	Form	10-Q	for	the	quarterly	period	ended	March	31,	2013	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.10.3* Amendment	to	the	Citicorp	Deferred	Compensation	Plan,	effective	as	of	September	28,	2001,	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.17.3	to	the Company's	Annual	Report	on	Form	10-K	for	the	fiscal	year	ended	December	31,	2001	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.11.2* Amendment	to	the	Citibank	Supplemental	ERISA	Plan	(the	1999	Amended	Citibank	Supplemental	ERISA	Plan),	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit 10.21.2	to	the	Company's	1999	10-K.

10.11.3* Amendment	to	the	1999	Amended	Citibank	Supplemental	ERISA	Plan	(the	2005	Amended	Citibank	Supplemental	ERISA	Plan),	incorporated	by reference	to	Exhibit	10.04.1	to	the	Company's	Annual	Report	on	Form	10-K	for	the	fiscal	year	ended	December	31,	2005	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.11.4* Amendment	to	the	2005	Amended	Citibank	Supplemental	ERISA	Plan,	as	amended	January	1,	2009	(the	2009	Amended	Citibank	Supplemental ERISA	Plan),	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.01.4	to	the	Company's	2009	10-K.

10.11.5* Nonqualified	Plan	Amendment	to	the	2009	Amended	Citibank	Supplemental	ERISA	Plan,	approved	November	19,	2009,	incorporated	by	reference to	Exhibit	10.01.5	to	the	Company's	2009	10-K.

10.14.1* Citigroup	Inc.	Amended	and	Restated	Compensation	Plan	for	Non-Employee	Directors	(as	of	September	21,	2004),	incorporated	by	reference	to Exhibit	10.01	to	the	Company's	Quarterly	Report	on	Form	10-Q	for	the	quarterly	period	ended	September	30,	2005	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.14.3* Form	of	Citigroup	Inc.	Non-Employee	Director	Equity	Award	Agreement	(effective	November	1,	2006),	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.05 to	the	Company's	Quarterly	Report	on	Form	10-Q	for	the	quarterly	period	ended	September	30,	2006	(File	No.	001-09924).

10.15* Citigroup	Inc.	Non-Employee	Directors	Compensation	Plan	(effective	as	of	January	1,	2008),	incorporated	by	reference	to	Exhibit	10.01	to	the Company's	Quarterly	Report	on	Form	10-Q	for	the	quarterly	period	ended	September	30,	2007	(File	No.	001-09924).

99.01+ List	of	Securities	Registered	Pursuant	to	Section	12(b)	of	the	Securities	Exchange	Act	of	1934.

101.01+ Financial	statements	from	the	Annual	Report	on	Form	10-K	of	the	Company	for	the	fiscal	year	ended	December	31,	2015,	filed	February	26,	2016, formatted	in	XBRL:	(i)	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Income,	(ii)	the	Consolidated	Balance	Sheet,	(iii)	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Changes	in Equity,	(iv)	the	Consolidated	Statement	of	Cash	Flows	and	(v)	the	Notes	to	Consolidated	Financial	Statements.

The	total	amount	of	securities	authorized	pursuant	to	any	instrument	defining	rights	of	holders	of	long-term	debt	of	the	Company	does	not	exceed	10%	of	the	total	assets	of the	Company	and	its	consolidated	subsidiaries.	The	Company	will	furnish	copies	of	any	such	instrument	to	the	SEC	upon	request.

Copies	of	any	of	the	exhibits	referred	to	above	will	be	furnished	at	a	cost	of	$0.25	per	page	(although	no	charge	will	be	made	for	the	2015	Annual	Report	on	Form	10-K)	to security	holders	who	make	written	request	to	Citigroup	Inc.,	Corporate	Governance,	153	East	53rd	Street,	19th	Floor,	New	York,	New	York	10022.

*	Denotes	a	management	contract	or	compensatory	plan	or	arrangement.

+	Filed	herewith.



Question: what was the difference in billions in net outflows from dec . 31 , 2014 to dec . 31 , 2015?
Calculation:   net_outflows_2015 = 336.5
net_outflows_2014 = 368.6
difference = net_outflows_2015 - net_outflows_2014
answer = difference
Answer: -32.1