The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS, NYSE)
Industry: Capital Markets
Annual report, fiscal year 2013


# 25

WAYS WE SAW THE
WORLD CHANGE IN 2013

EMERGING TRENDS, TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACTS AND HOW WE ARE HELPING OUR CLIENTS AROUND THE WORLD DRIVE AND LEVERAGE THEM
INSIDE

COLLABORATION AND COMMERCE

OPPORTUNITIES IN ENERGY

TECHNOLOGY'S NEXT WAVE

DIVERSE POWER SOURCES

TRANSFORMATIONAL
ENTREPRENEURS

INTEGRATED
STRATEGIES FOR
MANAGING RISK

BIG-STEP
INNOVATIONS

GAME-CHANGING
PLATFORMS



## Our clients' interests

## always come first.

Our experience shows that if we serve our clients well, our own success will follow.

## Our assets are our people, capital and reputation.

If any of these is ever diminished, the last is the most difficult to restore. We are dedicated to complying fully with the letter and spirit of the laws, rules and ethical principles that govern us. Our continued success depends upon unswerving adherence to this standard.

## Our goal is to provide superior returns to our shareholders.

Profitability is critical to achieving superior returns, building our capital, and attracting and keeping our best people. Significant employee stock ownership aligns the interests of our employees and our shareholders.

## We take great pride in the professional quality of our work.

We have an uncompromising determination to achieve excellence in everything we undertake. Though we may be involved in a wide variety and heavy volume of activity, we would, if it came to a choice, rather be best than biggest.

## We stress creativity and

imagination in everything we do. While recognizing that the old way may still be the best way, we constantly strive to find a better solution to a client's problems. We pride ourselves on having pioneered many of the practices and techniques that have become standard in the industry.

## We make an unusual effort to identify and recruit the very best person for every job.

Although our activities are measured in billions of dollars, we select our people one by one. In a service business, we know that without the best people, we cannot be the best firm.

We offer our people the opportunity to move ahead more rapidly than is possible at most other places. Advancement depends on merit and we have yet to find the limits to the responsibility our best people are able to assume. For us to be successful, our men and women must reflect the diversity of the communities and cultures in which we operate. That means we must attract, retain and motivate people from many backgrounds and perspectives. Being diverse is not optional; it is what we must be.

## We stress teamwork in everything we do.

While individual creativity is always encouraged, we have found that team effort often produces the best results. We have no room for those who put their personal interests ahead of the interests of the firm and its clients.

## The dedication of our people to the firm and the intense effort they give their jobs are greater

than one finds in most other
organizations.

We think that this is an important part of our success.

## We consider our size an asset that we try hard to preserve.

We want to be big enough to undertake the largest project that any of our clients could contemplate, yet small enough to maintain the loyalty, the intimacy and the esprit de corps that we all treasure and that contribute greatly to our success.
We constantly strive to anticipate the rapidly changing needs of our clients and to develop new services to meet those needs.

We know that the world of finance will not stand still and that complacency can lead to extinction.

## We regularly receive confidential information as part of our normal client relationships.

To breach a confidence or to use confidential information improperly or carelessly would be unthinkable.

## Our business is highly competitive, and we aggressively seek to expand our client relationships.

However, we must always be fair competitors and must never denigrate other firms.

## Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business.

We expect our people to maintain high ethical standards in everything they do, both in their work for the firm and in their personal lives.




Lloyd C. Blankfein
Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
(right)

Gary D. Cohn
President and
Chief Operating Officer
(left)

In front of Julie Mehretu’s
MURAL at 200 West Street

## Fellow Shareholders:

This past year for the global economy may be best described as one of incremental, but noticeable improvement. In the United States, the economic recovery finally began to take hold with continued underlying economic growth and slowly accelerating gains in the labor market. In Europe, while conditions remained broadly difficult, we began to see nascent growth and, in certain countries, such as the United Kingdom, a more advanced recovery.

Fears of a sharp slowdown in China receded somewhat and the country’s new leadership signaled a more assertive posture on economic and financial reform. In Japan, aggressive fiscal and monetary policies spurred a reinvigorated economic and financial environment.

At the same time, political impasse in the United States for much of the year and uncertainty over central bank policy both highlighted and, to some extent, contributed to the fragility of the economic recovery. As a result, many of our clients remained cautious, which hindered a broad-based resumption of their business activities.

Amidst these shifting factors, we are pleased to report that Goldman Sachs performed relatively well, generating solid results for the year. This was the by-product of our commitment to a core set of businesses and actions we have taken over the last several years in three important areas: strengthening our balance sheet, allocating capital efficiently across our businesses and managing our costs prudently.

For 2013, the firm produced net revenues of $34.2 billion and net earnings of $8.0 billion, an eight percent increase from $7.5 billion of net earnings in 2012. Diluted earnings per common share were $15.46 compared with $14.13 for 2012. Our return on average common shareholders' equity (ROE) was 11.0 percent. Book value per common share increased by approximately five percent during 2013 and has grown from $20.94 at the end of our first year as a public company in 1999 to $152.48, a compounded annual growth rate of approximately 15 percent over this period. Our capital management in 2013 reflected a prudent approach as our capital ratios continued to improve despite returning $7.2 billion to common shareholders through share buybacks and dividends.

In this year’s letter, we would like to review the significant steps we have taken in recent years to adapt and respond to the post-financial crisis world, and, building on those efforts, our priorities for enhancing returns to our shareholders going forward. In that vein, we also will discuss our competitive position across our major businesses. Lastly, we want to share with you some of the initiatives we undertook related to our people, culture and business standards and practices.



## Adapting and Positioning the Firm

The past year marked the five-year anniversary of the global financial crisis. Later in the letter, we will discuss the impact of the changes we have made from the extensive review of our business standards and practices. Importantly, this is also an opportune time to highlight the significant actions the firm has taken over the last five years related to our capital, liquidity and overall financial profile to adapt to the realities of the operating and, more specifically, regulatory environment. Some of those actions are represented to the right.

We have focused not only on strengthening our balance sheet, but also on ensuring that we are allocating capital efficiently both to meet the needs of our clients and to generate stronger returns going forward.

New regulation is pushing the industry to be even more sensitive to risk-adjusted returns, whether through higher capital requirements or the application of stress tests. Over time, this may translate into greater pricing discipline across the entire industry, which we view as a positive development.

Well in advance of any regulations being finalized, we have been focused on developing and implementing tools to help us better price the provision of liquidity to the marketplace, and better manage our capital usage. In that regard, at the conclusion of 2013, our estimated transitional Basel III Advanced Common Equity Tier 1 ratio was in excess of 11 percent.

Another important capital management effort that we have undertaken is refining our business mix in light of new capital requirements. Certain businesses, like the Americas reinsurance and European insurance businesses, no longer generated attractive returns under a Basel III framework and, as a result, we opted to sell a majority stake in them.

Even with investments, such as the longstanding one that Goldman Sachs had in Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited (ICBC), which was both strategic and financial, we elected to make adjustments given the new capital requirements. Collectively, ICBC and our insurance businesses used approximately 125 basis points of the Basel III Advanced Common Equity Tier 1 ratio and consumed $40 billion of balance sheet.

While these are three larger, public examples, we continue to make risk-adjusted return decisions across the firm every day.

## Shareholder Returns

As a firm, we have a long track record of delivering superior returns to our shareholders over the cycle. We demonstrated this before the financial crisis, during it and after. If you look at our average ROE since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007, we have outperformed each of our U.S. competitors, having produced an average ROE during this period of more than four times the peer average.

Nevertheless, while we have generated solid returns in the last five years, they fall below our aspirations. We are committed to improving them notwithstanding

Shareholders' Equity
(in billions)

Our shareholders' equity has grown from nearly $43 billion at the end of 2007 to more than $78 billion at the end of 2013, an increase of 83 percent.



## Gross Leverage

Our leverage ratio has fallen by more than one-half from 26 times at the end of 2007 to less than 12 times at the end of 2013.



## Level 3 Assets
(in billions)

We have reduced our holdings of level 3, or illiquid, assets by nearly 60 percent since the first quarter of 2008 to $40 billion.



## GCE/Assets

Our excess liquidity pool (Global Core Excess), as a percentage of our total assets, has grown from more than 5 percent at the end of 2007 to more than 20 percent in 2013.






the challenges presented in the current environment. At the same time, we want to protect our ability to provide significant upside to shareholders as the economic cycle turns.

By focusing on revenues, expenses and capital efficiency, we are building near-term benefits, but also driving material operating leverage into our business.

Our performance over the last few years is an important example of the firm’s ability to proactively manage a cyclical business and to capitalize on creating operating leverage in our business model. In 2011, we announced an initial $1.2 billion expense savings initiative, the size of which was subsequently increased twice, ultimately reaching a run-rate of $1.9 billion. In 2012, a 19 percent increase in net revenues translated into an 82 percent increase in pre-tax earnings and a ROE expansion to 10.7 percent. In 2013, despite essentially unchanged net revenues, our continued focus on expenses enabled us to grow pre-tax earnings by five percent and expand ROE to 11.0 percent. Longer term, we expect that a more robust environment will enable us to deliver even more operating leverage to our shareholders.

With respect to capital management, our strong capital generation and balance sheet management have allowed us to grow our Basel III ratio while returning capital to shareholders. Since year-end 2010, we have repurchased approximately $17 billion of our shares, and reduced our basic share count by approximately 80 million shares or 15 percent, while our U.S. peers, taken together, actually showed an average increase in share count. Our approach drives shareholder value through both higher returns and growth in earnings per common share.

## Controlling Costs

In addition to effective capital management, we are acutely focused on expense management as a lever for driving incremental shareholder returns. From 2009 through 2013, our average compensation and benefits expense to net revenues ratio was approximately 880 basis points lower than the average ratio from 2000 to 2007.

Compensation and benefits is our largest expense and we remain committed to paying for performance. In lower net revenue years, like 2008 and 2011, we demonstrated significant flexibility in our compensation and benefits expense. In years with net revenue growth, this expense generally increased at a lower rate than net revenues, thereby driving operating leverage and enhancing shareholder returns.

The firm remains committed to operating efficiently for our shareholders, while providing world-class service to our clients. Of course, maintaining discipline around costs requires making tough decisions regarding staffing levels and compensation. We have strived to get the balance right, between improving shareholder returns and investing in the future of our client franchise. To do so, we have leveraged technology, adjusted our allocation of resources and managed both compensation and non-compensation expenses.

Our expense savings initiatives included enhancements in technology and greater geographic diversity in our workforce. Currently, we have approximately 8,200 staff, or roughly 25 percent of our workforce, located in Bangalore, Salt Lake City, Dallas and Singapore, compared with 10 percent in 2007. Additionally, 38 percent of all campus and experienced hires since 2011 have been hired into those offices.

We were among the first global banks to embark on an expense savings initiative and, although painful, the exercise was necessary. Being an early mover allowed ongoing recognition of savings over the past two years and protected returns in what continues to be a challenging operating environment.

## Growth and the State of Our Client Franchise

While we have strengthened our balance sheet, prioritized efficient capital allocation and taken a disciplined approach to costs, we have continued to invest in a broad set of institutionally focused businesses that have a track record of providing higher returns than many other businesses within financial services. Because of a consistent focus on our clients' needs and orienting our businesses to meet their ongoing objectives, we believe we have provided solid returns in a challenging period, while seeking to protect our ability to provide significant upside to our shareholders as the economic cycle turns.

We believe our businesses are particularly well positioned for the time when broad-based growth resumes. And, we see reasons to be confident in the fundamentals of the global economy. While emerging markets typically entail higher risk and volatility, we believe that over time they will generate stronger growth as the middle class in those countries



expands and consumption and investment trends evolve. In developed economies, greater CEO confidence is driving more strategic acquisitions as more companies are committing to longer term growth plans. Investor sentiment has also rebounded, and more companies are taking advantage of a better operating environment to raise equity and debt. In the U.S., the process of ending quantitative easing has begun, and while unsettling for certain markets, the move to a more normalized market environment is necessary and ultimately reassuring. All of these trends play to the strengths and position of our businesses.

## Investment Banking

Investment Banking not only includes our advisory and financing services; it also serves as an important source of opportunities for all parts of the firm. For example, working with clients in our financing business often drives demand for hedging solutions, while our advisory franchise can create opportunities for co-investment with our business partners.

We continue to demonstrate outperformance in our advisory franchise. In 2013, we ranked first in both announced and completed global mergers and acquisitions.

Our equity underwriting franchise was equally strong in 2013, ranking first in global equity and equity-related offerings, common stock offerings and initial public offerings (IPOs). We served as bookrunner on eight of the ten largest IPOs for the year. The technology sector was especially active and Goldman Sachs was the lead-left bookrunner for nearly twice as many technology IPOs in the U.S. than the next most active underwriter.

In debt underwriting, we had our best year ever in net revenues. While we believe that we could further strengthen our league table position, we do not aim to be ranked first in this business. Despite our natural desire to be ranked at the top of any league table, we believe achieving that position, in this case, would require a significant increase in lending at rates that would ultimately dilute long-term returns. Our approach could change to the extent that regulatory changes drive more attractive pricing.

More broadly, the past year represented one of our strongest market share performances in our advisory and underwriting franchises since 2000.

## Institutional Client Services

In Institutional Client Services, our equities franchise is built on the premise of providing a broad suite of services to our investing clients. This means having a state-of-the-art electronic platform, comprehensive prime brokerage services and the capacity to be an effective liquidity provider for our clients.

It also means leveraging our global technology platform to have a scalable “high touch” and “low touch” approach to meeting our clients’ needs. It is not sustainable to have only one approach if your goal is to serve a diverse set of clients and to produce strong returns. Clients determine how they engage the firm, and they are increasingly looking to transact electronically with us in both cash and derivative products.

The long-term demand, however, for product innovation and “high touch” services remains. So, our ability to offer unique solutions across equities products continues to be critical to our clients. This dual approach of “high touch” and “low touch” is a by-product of the many market structure and regulatory changes in the equity markets over the past 15 years. Our ability to adjust to a changing regulatory environment has been critical to maintaining a leadership position within our Equities business.

This is also true in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution (FICC). We maintain a leading position across a broad range of products and geographies, with a focus on being responsive to our clients' needs. There is considerable discussion about the outlook for FICC given the numerous regulatory changes taking place and the lower client volumes. We remain committed to our FICC businesses, which, here again, reflects the value our clients place on the services that we provide in these markets. And, our commitment has allowed our client franchise to grow. Over the past three years, for example, the number of corporate and growth market relationships have each grown by approximately 30 percent.

Some of our competitors may elect to deemphasize or exit some FICC businesses, given their particular circumstances. But, we believe this is likely to increase the value that clients place on the services provided by those who remain, especially as broader economic activity rebounds and the trading environment improves.



# “The past year represented one of our strongest market share performances in our advisory and underwriting franchises since 2000.”

For our FICC businesses, providing liquidity to our investing clients requires us to take risk, and as a consequence, FICC is the largest consumer of our capital. Our commitment to these businesses does not mean that we haven’t taken significant action regarding how we utilize capital. We have meaningfully reduced risk-weighted assets in FICC and are very focused on managing it for risk-adjusted returns. Chasing revenue market share within FICC businesses can lead to risk management lapses and inferior returns. Focusing on the right balance between risk, revenue and returns has been important to building a leading global franchise and consistently delivering strong returns for our shareholders.

## Investment Management

With total assets under supervision surpassing a record trillion dollars, our Investment Management business is one of the largest in the world. We have a strong position across a diverse set of products spanning all major asset classes and geographies. And, despite the challenging market environment, we have been able to grow long-term assets under supervision by 36 percent since the beginning of 2007.

Additionally, we have expanded our defined contribution franchise, with approximately $50 billion in new assets from our acquisition of Dwight Asset Management and our pending acquisition of Deutsche Bank’s stable value business.

Like our other businesses, success in Investment Management is a function of performing for our clients. Our asset-weighted mutual fund performance has been above the industry average for nine consecutive quarters through 2013. Two-thirds of our mutual fund assets were ranked in the top two quartiles by Morningstar across one, three and five year performance periods. As performance has improved, so have asset inflows. We had net sales in long-term assets under supervision of $41 billion, the highest since 2007, which were broadly distributed across our three key client channels: High-net-worth individuals, Third-party distributed and Institutional. This focus on performance has been a critical component in generating our highest net revenues for Investment Management since 2007.

## Investing & Lending

Investing & Lending includes direct investing, our investing through funds, as well as lending to both corporations and high-net-worth individuals.

Our investing activity, including co-investing with our clients, has established itself as an important complement to our other franchise businesses. We have a history of strong investment performance over the years, and that reputation, along with deep client relationships, have allowed us to invest in opportunities that are not available to others.

Our debt investments are driven by senior loan and mezzanine investments, and our direct financing and lending businesses. Our Investing & Lending business includes approximately $31 billion of direct loans, primarily extended to corporate clients and high-net-worth individuals. Our equity investments include private equity funds, direct equity investments and hedge fund investments. The “Volcker Rule,” which we will discuss in more detail, limits our ability to invest in hedge funds and private equity through a fund structure; as such, for some time now in anticipation, we have been redeeming our hedge fund investments to be compliant. While we’ve been actively harvesting our private equity funds, solid asset price performance has kept balance sheet levels relatively flat.

Our investing and lending activities are synergistic with our other activities and are valuable to our clients. We remain committed to these businesses and, now with greater regulatory clarity, we know that with the necessary adjustments, we will continue to work with our clients as an investor.

## Regulation

In December, regulators passed the final Volcker Rule, which restricts banking entities’ proprietary trading activities and certain interests in, and relationships with, hedge funds and private equity funds.



Throughout the rulemaking process, we stated that it was critical that the rulemaking proceed in a way that is not counterproductive to the ability of companies and investors to continue to use the capital markets to accomplish their business objectives.

Importantly, the final Volcker Rule explicitly permitted market making, lending and investing on balance sheet. Regulators allowed these activities because financial intermediation plays an essential role in capital raising and risk management, supporting broader economic activity and growth.

As we indicated earlier, while the rule was only recently finalized, we have been preparing to comply with certain portions of the rule for nearly three years. We liquidated substantially all of our proprietary trading positions, specifically our Principal Strategies and our Global Macro Proprietary positions. And in 2012, we announced our intention to redeem certain hedge fund investments. Since then, we have redeemed approximately $2.2 billion of hedge fund investments and we will continue to redeem our interests.

We are now focused on ensuring that we are in the position to effectively and efficiently comply with the requirements of this new and significant legal regime.

## Our People

The quality and breadth of our client franchise are a direct by-product of our ability to attract and retain high-caliber professionals. As an investment bank, our main asset is our people and the advice and solutions that they provide to our clients. Great people build great relationships. And, we are fortunate to have a diverse group of young people from around the world who continue to view Goldman Sachs as a great place to begin and sustain their careers. For our latest analyst class, more than 43,000 candidates applied for 1,900 positions. We accepted about four percent of those applicants and of those receiving offers, more than 80 percent accepted.

In 2013, we were proud to be named as one of Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work For.” Goldman Sachs is one of only five companies to be recognized every year that the Great Place to Work Institute has issued its list since 1984.

Of course, we operate in a global and competitive industry and we seek to attract from the broadest pool of talented

## “The quality and breadth of our client franchise are a direct by-product of our ability to attract and retain high-caliber professionals.”

people available. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we are always adapting to the realities of a workplace, especially one now shaped by instant connectivity.

This past year, we closely examined the day-to-day work environment for junior bankers and its connection to long-term career development. After that review, we announced a series of initiatives so that these young professionals receive more regular feedback and career development guidance, more time with their managers and clients and more consistent and predictable periods when they can plan to be out of the office. We also are using new technology that will make the process of creating client-related materials easier. The goal through these initiatives is to recognize the difference between untargeted effort and productive work. Our measures of success will continue to be the quality of thought and work we do for our clients, something that is sustainable only in a workplace that emphasizes productivity over the expectation of hours in the office and greater balance in pursuit of a long-term career.

## Business Standards & Practices

As we have written to you in the past, we have spent enormous time and effort, as a firm, reviewing and improving our business standards and practices. In January 2011, we published the Report of the Business Standards Committee (BSC), which was the culmination of an extensive eight-month review encompassing every major business, region and activity of the firm. The report made 39 recommendations for change in the above areas.

In January 2011, we established the BSC Implementation Oversight Group, which for the next two years was responsible for overseeing the implementation of each recommendation. By February 2013, all 39 recommendations had been fully implemented.



In May 2013, we released another public report, the Business Standards Committee Impact Report, which discussed the changes we made as a result of the BSC implementation and how they impacted our firm. We identified three unifying themes across the 39 recommendations, which capture the areas of greatest change and impact on the firm: (1) clients, and the higher standard of care we apply in serving them; (2) reputational sensitivity and awareness, and its importance in everything we do; and (3) the individual and collective accountability of our people.

Most significantly, for all our employees, the experience of initiating, approving and executing a transaction for a client at Goldman Sachs is now fundamentally different. This difference reflects significant changes to processes, business standards, documentation and transaction approvals, all of which impact our approach to decision making.

Process matters and the BSC changes have led to our processes being more clear, comprehensive and consistent. Business standards reflect the heightened scrutiny we bring to our own actions and activities, the role we play as a large financial institution and the responsibilities we have to our clients and to global financial intermediation. Documentation supporting our processes is more standardized and organized around escalation procedures. Transaction approvals focus on the core goals of serving our clients' long-term interests and protecting the firm's reputation. Taken together, these changes result in better judgments and decision making, which are among the most important impacts emerging from the BSC.

The work underlying the BSC is part of a much larger, ongoing commitment by the firm to be self-aware, to be open to change and to learn the right lessons from recent experiences. Going forward, we know we will inevitably make mistakes, but we commit to learn from them and respond in a way that meets the high expectations of our clients, shareholders, other stakeholders, regulators and the broader public.

On our Web site, in addition to the two reports, you can view other relevant material, including a discussion on the impact of the Client and Business Standards Committee, an illustrated example of the life cycle of a client transaction and video excerpts from the Chairman’s Forum, which was a series of internal discussions led by senior management on how we conduct ourselves in serving our clients and protecting the firm’s reputation.

## Corporate Engagement

In 2013, Goldman Sachs committed more than $200 million to philanthropic endeavors, including our tradition of strong engagement through Goldman Sachs Gives and expanding 10,000 Women and 10,000 Small Businesses to include new academic and non-profit partners.

## Goldman Sachs Gives

Goldman Sachs Gives is a donor-advised fund through which participating managing directors (PMDs) of the firm can recommend grants to qualified non-profit organizations around the world. Since the inception of Goldman Sachs Gives, PMD compensation has been reduced by approximately $1.2 billion to fund Goldman Sachs Gives, and approximately 15,000 grants totaling more than $720 million have been made to various organizations in 38 countries. Since the fund was created, more than $350 million has been granted to community organizations supporting veterans, poverty alleviation, medical research and other significant areas of need. In addition, more than $145 million has been granted to approximately 180 colleges and universities to support financial aid. In 2013, more generally, approximately $150 million was distributed through more than 4,500 individual grants.

## 10,000 Small Businesses

10,000 Small Businesses expanded its network of cities and partners to provide small businesses with the education, business services and capital they need to grow and create jobs. By year’s end, 10,000 Small Businesses was operating in more than 20 sites in the U.S. and United Kingdom. In the U.S., we launched new sites in Philadelphia, Miami and Detroit. In addition, loans through the program began to be offered in Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, Virginia and Maine. In the fall, we announced a new national partnership that allows qualified small business owners anywhere in the U.S. to receive training at Babson College, one of the nation’s leading entrepreneurial schools.

In the United Kingdom, we hosted the first gathering of 10,000 Small Businesses alumni from across the country, with more than 200 businesses attending. In conjunction with the event, academic program partners released a progress report on the graduating businesses to date showing that 66 percent of U.K. program participants had grown revenue and 77 percent of them had created jobs.



## 10,000 Women

2013 represented an important milestone for our 10,000 Women initiative. In December, the 10,000th woman entered the program and is expected to graduate in 2014. Since it was announced in 2008, this program has provided 10,000 underserved women entrepreneurs with a business and management education, access to mentors and networks, and links to capital. 10,000 Women has drawn participants from more than 40 countries around the world. Delivered through a network of 90 academic and non-profit partners, 10,000 Women continues to yield promising results. More than 80 percent of surveyed graduates have increased revenues and more than 70 percent have added new jobs.

We are focused on the next chapter of 10,000 Women and recently announced a new partnership with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group, to create the first-ever global finance facility dedicated exclusively to women-owned small and medium enterprises. Goldman Sachs Foundation, IFC and other investors will contribute up to $600 million to the facility, which will enable approximately 100,000 women entrepreneurs to access capital. 10,000 Women remains committed to expanding business and management education to reach more high-potential women entrepreneurs around the world. Through the capital this partnership will raise, women entrepreneurs will have a much greater chance of reaching their full potential.

## Looking Ahead

In our shareholder letter to you for 2006, we wrote that “we are always cognizant that conditions can change quickly and in unforeseen ways…One of the worst things we could do, as a firm and as individuals, is to begin to believe that the laws of economics do not apply to us — that somehow markets aren’t cyclical.”

Much of the last five years has been challenged by the cyclical downturn. We believe that the upcoming year may very well represent the progression into a stronger global economy. But, this has not been a passive exercise. The banking sector, especially in the U.S., is well capitalized; companies are operating with strong balance sheets; new ways to tap sources of energy are making U.S. manufacturing more competitive; the housing market is recovering and individuals have significantly reduced their debt. In addition, the tail risks in Europe and the political impasse in Washington, D.C. appear less likely than a year ago. Collectively, we have made a lot of progress.

Of course, concerns about emerging economies, the effect of the Federal Reserve’s “taper,” and a host of other issues may challenge sentiment and complicate the recovery. As we look at the longer term fundamentals, however, we remain optimistic.

For Goldman Sachs, our businesses are well positioned and our client franchise is strong. We have taken important actions to manage efficiently our capital and cost structure. As a result, we are confident that we have achieved significant operating leverage for our shareholders, which will become only clearer with an improving economic environment. Our culture of teamwork and client focus has never been more alive and vibrant and continues to define who we are and the work we do. We remain intent on learning from the experience of recent years but maintain a firm eye on the future to do our part to contribute to economic growth and opportunity. In the process, we are confident that Goldman Sachs will produce significant value for our shareholders.



Lloyd C. Blankfein
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



Gary D. Cohn
President and Chief Operating Officer



HOW IS THE LANDSCAPE EVOLVING?
WHAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE ON THE HORIZON?
WHICH COMPANIES ARE CHANGING THE GAME?
WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
AND WHAT TRANSFORMATIVE
TRENDS ARE EMERGING?

AT GOLDMAN SACHS, THESE QUESTIONS ARE TOP OF MIND FOR OUR CLIENTS.

Working with our clients globally, we seek out opportunity as the world changes. We work to provide solutions to complex challenges and bring together experts to explore near-term solutions and long-term ideas. While the people of Goldman Sachs apply their expertise across a range of disciplines, four themes in particular — ① Technology ② Energy ③ Entrepreneurship and ④ Risk Management — stand out as among the most notable for our business in 2013.

With a focus on these areas, this year’s annual report highlights 25 trends that made an impact over the past year, and discusses how Goldman Sachs helps clients navigate some of the most critical and dynamic sectors of today’s global economy.



## TECHNOLOGY

→ TECHNOLOGY IS TOUCHING EVERY CORNER OF OUR WORLD: DRIVING RADICAL CHANGE ACROSS COMMUNICATIONS, ENCOURAGING STRATEGIC COLLABORATION AND REINVENTING GLOBAL COMMERCE

At Goldman Sachs, we see concurrent revolutions within the technology space: the shift of computing from hardware to cloud and from desktops to mobile devices. Through these and other developments, technology is reshaping the way we live — a change that will provide enormous opportunities for people to participate in the global economy. As a strategic advisor and a source of capital, Goldman Sachs works not only with companies at the forefront of technological breakthroughs, but also within dozens of other industries undergoing technology-driven transformation.






# E-COMMERCE
PLATFORMS CONTINUE
TO TRANSFORM
THE WAY WE SHOP
AND SELL

As e-commerce soars and the first real digital generation comes into its own, online shopping platforms will grow, adapt and compete for market share. In 2013, Goldman Sachs helped both established e-commerce sites and new innovators take significant steps, serving as lead underwriter for zulily’s $291 million IPO and RetailMeNot’s $187 million follow-on, as well as advisor to travel aggregator Priceline on its $1.8 billion acquisition of Kayak, enabling the company to add leading-edge apps for comparing hundreds of travel sites at once.

According to Goldman Sachs research, digital commerce adoption and expansion is anticipated to further accelerate, with annual growth reaching nearly 17 percent within the next three years.



## 2

## Advanced technology is enabling doctors to detect diseases earlier – which means helping to save more lives

## MASSACHUSETTS-BASED HOLOGIC

has become a driving force in early detection, ranging from cancer to infectious diseases. The company’s 3-D mammographic technology, for example, allows doctors to spot very small cancers that might have previously gone undetected, an advance with a profound impact on outcomes. As Hologic has evolved, Goldman Sachs has maintained a close relationship, helping to assess potential acquisitions and arranging access to capital that supported the company’s growth into an $8.5 billion enterprise.



## Cloud computing has revolutionized data sharing and storage, setting a new standard for collaboration around the world

This game-changing technology has enabled the storage and sharing of huge volumes of data, the birth of entirely new business models and the ability to work collaboratively from any location around the globe. At our third annual Cloud Computing Conference, Goldman Sachs brought together a range of leaders — including technology innovators in cloud computing, executives from some of the most interesting companies driving this shift and venture capitalists. This group shared ideas on an array of critical cloud innovations and topics that are creating opportunity in the technology space and beyond.

## View video

Key insights from the conference: goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/our-conferences/cloud-computing-conference



# TECHNOLOGY
COMPANIES ARE SETTING
AN UNPRECEDENTED
PACE FOR GROWTH,
FACING STRATEGIC
DECISION POINTS
QUICKLY



Goldman Sachs team members supporting the Twitter IPO: Joseph Ghobrial, Anthony Noto, Nick Giovanni, Christopher Lapointe, Ryan Nolan and Brian Dong, Investment Banking Division

TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES have become some of the world’s largest and most impactful businesses — they’re growing faster than many of the companies that came before them, and arrive at critical decision points more quickly. In 2013, Goldman Sachs advised some of the best-known technology companies during watershed moments. In November, we were the lead underwriter on Twitter’s $2.1 billion IPO, the biggest tech debut of the year. Incorporated only seven years ago, the company now has 241 million active monthly users who, among them, send more than a billion tweets every two days.



## Monetization of mobile presents huge opportunities for those who can crack the code



What was the most talked about theme at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference in 2013? The monetization of mobile.

Pervasiveness Global sales of smartphones and tablets now outpace those of PCs and laptops. According to the UN International Telecommunication Union, mobile subscriptions will top the world’s population sometime in 2014.
Opportunity Companies are racing to find ways to capitalize on the growth of mobile technology, whether in mobile payments, mobile content, location-based services or the explosion of valuable data generated by the use of mobile devices.

Competition “The question is, who can best take advantage?” says James Covello, head of Technology, Media and Telecommunications Equity Research at Goldman Sachs. “Whether we’re talking about consumer transactions or social networking, which companies will benefit the most from the ubiquity of compute?”

## View video

James Covello talks about mobile technology and other themes at goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/our-conferences/technology-conference



## The pervasiveness of technology is creating extraordinary opportunities for business formation on a global scale

The ubiquity of online access has dramatically increased opportunities for creating businesses, according to Anthony Noto, global co-head of our Technology, Media and Telecommunications Group in the Investment Banking Division, and George Lee, chairman of our Global Technology, Media and Telecommunications Group and chief information officer for the Investment Banking Division. This change has created a global system of “costless distribution,” says Noto, allowing “a lot more capital to invest and reap the rewards of a large, globally distributed user base.” The advance of mobile, adds George Lee, hastens the trend by making that user base accessible 24/7. “Companies are now really focused on meeting the needs of consumers who are walking around with very capable computers in their hands,” he says. “In the next five to ten years, almost every human on earth will have access to extraordinary amounts of computing power. That pervasiveness of technology is driving change at an unprecedented level and pace.”

## View video

Anthony Noto and George Lee explore rapid changes in the technology sector and what to expect next. Go to: goldmansachs.com/annual-report-2013/lee-noto



## THE NEXT WAVE
OF DISRUPTIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
WILL BRING FORTH
EVEN GREATER
TRANSFORMATION

GLOBAL INVESTMENT RESEARCH

What is the next generation of technology innovations that our clients should be thinking about? This is a question we are always considering. A Global Investment Research report, The Search for Creative Destruction, highlights some of the exciting technologies that are reinventing, once again, the notion of what's possible:

3-D PRINTING Compared to traditional manufacturing, 3-D printing will drive greater customization, reduce costs for complex designs and lower overhead on short-run parts. Already growing at over 20 percent annually, the adoption of 3-D manufacturing is expected to continue on its path of rapid acceleration.

BIG DATA SOLUTIONS Companies and organizations everywhere are seeking to garner insights from the mountains of data collected by PCs, sensors, smart-phones, tablets and other devices, enabling them to better synthesize the world's information. Poised to attract even greater demand, such technologies help companies to get a better sense of customers' needs and identify important market developments and product trends.

SOFTWARE-DEFINED NETWORKING (SDN) While the rest of tech has moved to the cloud, networking largely remains trapped in a paradigm of hardware and software boxes that are manually configured and nonscalable. SDN liberates networking from expensive hardware, making it easier and cheaper for technology administrators to respond to changing business needs. The field is likely to create new platform leaders and high-margin software companies.



A Busy Franchise

# 2013: AN ACTIVE
YEAR FOR THE FIRM'S
TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA
AND TELECOM TEAM

Working closely with leading and emerging technology companies to help them achieve their business goals, Goldman Sachs' Technology, Media and Telecommunications Group helped plan and execute a wide range of transactions in 2013, including, for U.S.-listed marketed transactions, 15 technology IPOs and 12 follow-on equity offerings as the lead manager. Over the span of a little more than a week in September, the team advised on or executed seven major deals, including the largest M&A transaction in a decade.

Notable transactions, in addition to others mentioned in this report, include:

Apple’s $17 billion debt offering — this inaugural issuance played a key role in the company’s $100 billion capital return program and was the largest-ever corporate debt offering at the time

Vodafone’s sale of the U.S. group which owns its 45 percent interest in Verizon Wireless to Verizon Communications Inc. for a total consideration of $130 billion, as well as Vodafone’s $11.5 billion acquisition of Kabel Deutschland

Softbank’s $21.6 billion acquisition of a majority stake in Sprint

Dell’s $24.4 billion take-private transaction

News Corporation’s separation into two publicly traded companies, 21st Century Fox and News Corporation

Tesla Motors’ $1.0 billion dual-tranche offering ($360 million common stock and $660 million convertible senior notes)

LinkedIn’s $1.4 billion follow-on equity offering



## ENERGY

ADVANCES IN
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
AND RESOURCES CREATE
A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY
FOR SMART LONG-TERM
INVESTMENTS THAT
MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS
OF AN INTEGRATED
ENERGY MIX

Changes in the global energy landscape — including shifting demand-side dynamics, increased production from shale oil and gas in North America, and advances in technology — are providing significant opportunities for investment while also driving sustainable economic growth, enhanced competitiveness and responsible development of energy resources.



SMART GRID NETWORKS
ARE DRIVING EFFICIENCY
ALONG THE ELECTRICAL
GRID




Illustration showing North American shale plays

Basins

Current plays

Stacked plays
Shallowest
Intermediate
Deepest

Prospective shale plays

Source: U.S.
Energy Information
Administration
THE SHALE OIL AND
GAS REVOLUTION WILL
CONTRIBUTE TO NORTH
AMERICAN ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE — AND
OFFERS NEW OPPORTUNITIES
FOR COORDINATION
AND GROWTH

## GLOBAL INVESTMENT RESEARCH

With the production of shale gas increasing dramatically, and oil production rapidly rising, the macro effects of the shale revolution are being felt around the world. The most dramatic impact is the gradual loosening of oil price constraints that have persistently threatened economic expansion in developed economies. According to Goldman Sachs research, the ability of shale to drive a resurgence of energy production in North America is creating powerful economic benefits. The revolution will contribute structurally to a more stable oil market, in which global demand can rise without placing the same upward pressure on energy prices. Other likely outcomes include an end to the drag energy prices can place on household incomes, improvement in the U.S. trade balance by 1.2 percent of GDP by 2017, and strengthening of the U.S. dollar by 5–10 percent, according to Goldman Sachs research.



## Read the report

Global Economics Weekly: 12/40 – The shale revolution and the global economy. Go to: goldmansachs.com/annual-report-2013/shale

WITH NEW SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY, utilities worldwide are better able to maximize the efficiency of the electrical grid while enabling customers to reduce their costs. One of the clear leaders in this space is Silver Spring Networks, whose smart grid networking platforms connect millions of devices along the grid that generate, control and monitor power. These networks provide a wealth of data that enables utilities to enhance efficiency, increase reliability and automate manual services, including meter reading. They also enable households to monitor their own energy use and make adjustments during times of expensive peak demand. In 2013, as lead bookrunner, we helped Silver Spring Networks raise $93 million through an IPO.
Bridging the Divide



# INVESTMENT IS NOW
CRUCIAL TO TURNING
ENERGY PROMISE
INTO REALITY



According to Jeff Currie,
global head of Commodities
Research in the Global
Investment Research
Division at Goldman Sachs,
a crucial task is “coupling
the rapid advances in
energy supply with
investments that enable
society to benefit, whether
in manufacturing,
transportation or the
generation of power.”

As that process unfolds, Goldman Sachs is focused on helping bring important stakeholders together to overcome impediments. “We don’t just have a role as an advisor and source of capital for energy companies,” Currie says. “We can also help facilitate the dialogue that is needed right now between policy on one side and finance on the other.”



## View video

Jeff Currie speaks about the shale revolution and the path to balancing supply and demand. Go to: goldmansachs.com/annual-report-2013/jeff-currie




RELIABLE, RESILIENT,
CLEAN AND COMPACT:
ON-SITE DISTRIBUTED
POWER IS GAINING
ATTENTION – AND
TRACTION

Bloom Energy, one of many innovative businesses for which Goldman Sachs has provided advice and financing, is part of a growing movement toward distributed on-site energy production. Its main concept: fuel cells that turn natural gas or biogas into electricity — cleanly, reliably and at a competitive cost for commercial enterprises including data centers, government facilities and utilities. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Bloom’s fuel cells were up and running when other sources of power were unavailable.

View video
KR Sridhar, CEO, explains Bloom Energy’s vision: ensuring that everyone on the planet has access to reliable, affordable, sustainable power. Go to: goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/our-conferences/builders-and-innovators-2013

Rethinking the Grid

## THE GOLDMAN SACHS CLEAN ENERGY ECOSYSTEM
SUMMIT EXPLORED NEW APPROACHES FOR
DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY

In 2013, Goldman Sachs hosted the Second Annual Clean Energy Ecosystem Summit in Menlo Park, California. This conference brought together leaders of the world’s most innovative energy start-ups; key decision makers of the largest energy, technology and industrial companies globally; influential investors; and leaders across research, government and finance to share insights, foster a dynamic dialogue and – ultimately – be a catalyst for growth and innovation in clean energy.

View video
Thought leaders from inside and outside the firm share insights on renewable oils, emerging energy collaborations and other clean energy topics: goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/our-conferences/clean-energy-ecosystem-summit



Clean energy and renewable companies are not only driving change in the production of energy but also in its consumption

With a growing global population and increasing per capita consumption of energy, finding new ways to produce energy is of paramount importance. “We have made good progress toward our target of financing and investing $40 billion in clean energy over the next decade,” says Stuart Bernstein, global head of both the Clean Technology and Renewables Group and the Venture Capital Coverage Group at Goldman Sachs. “Our work is wide ranging in industries from renewable power production to electric vehicles to grid optimization to demand response.” Highlighting our work in solar, Bernstein says, “While there continues to be innovation upstream producing photovoltaic panels more efficiently, our work with downstream solar clients allowed companies installing photovoltaic panels on homes, businesses and military installations to provide lower energy costs to their end users.”

View video
Stuart Bernstein describes the commercial opportunity of clean energy and renewables. Go to: goldmansachs.com/ annual-report-2013/stuart-bernstein



# As the industry evolves,
energy companies are
positioning for success with
support from innovative
financing solutions

WHEN NRG ENERGY, INC., America's large competitive generation business, complete the IPO of NRG Yield, it created a first-of-its-kind business in the U.S. that is focused on keeping pace with the country's growing need for environmentally responsible power. NRG Yield consists predominantly of renewable and gas-fired generation capacity that has been contracted over the long term by its utility customers. NRG Yield also proved to be a compelling investment opportunity for a variety of investors. The key: securities the offered generally stable, long-term cash flow with the prospect for growth. Yield Company structures enable energy businesses such as NRG to expand the investor base for its portfolio of assets, creating a cost-of-capital advantage to economically fund the acquisit and development of assets that are well-positioned for the future. Co-led by Goldman Sachs, the $495 million offering attracted a wide range of yield-conscious investors. A portion of the proceeds from the IPO allows the company to continue investing in the future of the industry, such as the 250-megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch, a utility-scale power plant with 10 vast solar arrays that follow the path of the sun, and capture up to 25 percent more energy than traditional systems.

Goldman Sachs team members who supported the NRG Yield IPO: John Yanchek, Chuck Park, Jeff Pollard, Georgios Triantafyllou, Olympia McNerney, Matt Gibson, Shaan Goswami, Investment Banking Division





IN THE SPECTRUM OF
ENERGY SOURCES, WIND
IS MAKING AN IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTION



As both developed and emerging market economies seek to create more diversified energy streams, wind power, both stand-alone and grid-connected, is becoming a more substantial energy source. In India, ReNew Power, whose mission is to enable the country to meet ambitious renewable energy targets, has already become a leader in the fast-growing renewable energy industry, with close to 400 megawatts of operating wind capacity. To date, Goldman Sachs and affiliated funds have invested $320 million to help ReNew Power expand, and Goldman Sachs has entered into a deal with ReNew to purchase wind power for our office in Bangalore.



## ENTREPRENEURSHIP

## THE NEXT GENERATION
OF ENTREPRENEURS IS
CAPITALIZING ON A FASTER
INNOVATION CYCLE, NEW
TECHNOLOGIES AND A MORE
CONNECTED LANDSCAPE

In 2013, a rising generation of technology-savvy entrepreneurs brought new products and disruptive ideas into the global spotlight. The most productive innovators of 2013 set ambitious goals and were successful due to their creativity, market insights, unshakable fortitude and strategic execution. At Goldman Sachs, we work with new entrants and disruptive companies that change the way businesses compete and drive progress.






## IN A WORLD OF
LARGELY INCREMENTAL
INNOVATION, RADICAL
THINKERS CAN HAVE
THE BIGGEST IMPACT

NO ONE EPITOMIZES TRANSFORMATION more than Elon Musk. From his trailblazing electric car company, Tesla Motors, to his proposed solar-powered Hyperloop intercity transporter, Musk’s ideas are intended not merely to challenge convention — but to shatter it. Simply put, Musk doesn’t know how to think small. As his ideas continue to move from concept to reality, they often do so with the assistance of Goldman Sachs. For example, in 2013, we helped to raise over $1 billion in financing for Tesla Motors, serving as sole manager and lead left bookrunner for respective offerings of common stock and convertible bonds.




STRONG
NETWORKS AMONG
ENTREPRENEURS ARE
HELPING INNOVATORS
GROW THEIR
BUSINESSES AND
SCALE QUICKLY



“The 2013 Builders & Innovators Summit brought together a group of entrepreneurs that are doing really interesting work — so that they can network, and have an opportunity to interact with other innovators who have been successful at building businesses and establishing their platforms. Our goal is for the entrepreneurs to take away best practices, connections and relationships that will help them achieve their goals.” — David Solomon, co-head of the Investment Banking Division at Goldman Sachs

The Summit gives 100 rising entrepreneurs the chance to share ideas among their peers and learn from some of the most seasoned business and financial leaders in the world.

## View video

David Solomon on the challenges and opportunities facing entrepreneurs today. Go to: goldmansachs.com/annual-report-2013/david-solomon



First-movers do not always rise to the top – creativity, a sound business model and a keen understanding of consumer preferences set enduring market leaders apart

DANIEL EK AND MARTIN LORENTZON in Sweden saw a sea change in the way the world discovers, buys and listens to music. Founded in 2008, Spotify became a global leader in online music subscription because Ek and Lorentzon identified the right mix of a successful freemium model, social networking features and a service that gives users access to over 20 million tracks. The company has grown with strategic advice and financing from a number of investors, including Goldman Sachs. Spotify now has over 24 million active users and over 6 million paying subscribers worldwide.
“When you’re an entrepreneur, your passion and vision are so strong that it’s almost impossible for somebody to knock you over.”



Julie Rice, SoulCycle co-founder and co-CEO, helped found the popular indoor cycling chain because she believed spin class “could be so much more.”



“I’m not selling something that’s just a product for me. This is my life, and I’m all in.”

Ben Milne, Dowla co-founder and CEO, founded a stand-alone payment network and infrastructure after seeing his profits diminished by credit card fees.



ENTREPRENEURS
WITH THE RIGHT
ANSWER, AT THE
RIGHT MOMENT,
EXPERIENCE RAPID
GROWTH
“Take advantage of the opportunities in front of you, take a risk, jump.”



Elizabeth Cutler, SoulCycle co-founder and co-CEO, looks forward to expanding her company to new cities, overseas and across the Internet.



“If you’re doing something you’re deeply passionate about, that’s giving you meaning, that you believe in, the journey is as much a satisfactory experience as the goal.”

Daniel Lubetzky, KIND Healthy Snacks founder and CEO, created a revolutionary line of healthy snacks made from ingredients you can see and pronounce \( ^{®} \) 

## View their videos

Go to: goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/our-conferences/builders-and-innovators-2013

As data becomes a key strategic resource for businesses, powerful data storage solutions are becoming mission-critical. Nimble Storage CEO Suresh Vasudevan saw this opportunity and helped companies around the world rethink their traditional approaches to data storage. The idea: a hybrid, Flash-optimized storage platform powered by a new storage operating system that integrates the speed of solid-state storage with the efficiency of high-capacity disk storage. The result: a new solution that delivers higher performance, uses less hardware and provides next-generation support through an innovative cloud-based service. In December, Nimble raised $193 million in its IPO, lead managed by Goldman Sachs.



# U.S. entrepreneurs are continuing to create new jobs

18
We’ve continued to expand Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Small Businesses program in the U.S., helping entrepreneurs across the country to create jobs and economic opportunity by providing greater access to education, capital and business support services. Through collaboration with leading business schools, the $500 million program delivers an integrated curriculum of management classes and the professional support to develop a strategic and customized business growth plan. In a recent survey conducted by Babson College, 63.7 percent of program graduates increased revenues within six months and 44.8 percent added new jobs.



## Read the report

Stimulating Small Business Growth at: goldmansachs.com/citizenship/10000-small-businesses/US/news-and-events/10ksb-impact-report-2014/program-report.pdf

## Adding New Jobs

45%
of 10,000 Small Businesses participants added new jobs 6 months after graduating

98%

of the businesses in the U.S. have fewer than

20
EMPLOYEES

18%

For comparison,
18 percent of U.S.
small businesses
surveyed by the NSBA
added jobs from July
2012 to July 2013

of all jobs provided in the U.S. are from small businesses

# In the U.K., local economies benefit meaningfully from communities of entrepreneurs



10

In the United Kingdom, high-growth entrepreneurial businesses generate a disproportionate number of jobs and innovations. Such businesses are the primary focus of 10,000 Small Businesses U.K., a Goldman Sachs Foundation initiative that offers entrepreneurs business training, networking opportunities and support in accessing capital. A key objective of the program is to help create networks of local “communities of entrepreneurs” across the country. Community building was a major focus of the last gathering of program alumni in London, who convened not only for the chance to hear about growth strategies from notable corporate leaders, but also for the opportunity to meet other entrepreneurs, make business connections and find solutions to commonly shared problems.
“Small business owners are, by their very nature, very entrepreneurial. Often, they’re experts in their field. What they sometimes aren’t, are experts in running a business. Our 10,000 Small Businesses program aims to give people core skills necessary to grow a business.” — Michelle Pinggera, international chief of staff at Goldman Sachs



## View video

Michelle Pinggera on developing entrepreneurs and 10,000 Small Businesses U.K. Go to: goldmansachs.com/annualreport-2013/michelle-pinggera
20
NO



CLOSING THE CREDIT GAP: PROVIDING CAPITAL FOR WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS GROWS BUSINESSES AND HELPS LOCAL COMMUNITIES

THE GOLDMAN SACHS 10,000 Women initiative reached an important milestone in December when the 10,000th woman was enrolled in business and management education. To further deepen its commitment to women entrepreneurs around the world, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women recently launched a $50 million new partnership with IFC to create the first-ever global finance facility for women-owned small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which will enable approximately 100,000 women to access capital. New research by Goldman Sachs, Giving Credit Where It Is Due, shows that access to credit is the biggest constraint on growth for women-owned SMEs, and that closing this credit gap for women could increase per capita income in BRIC and Next 11 countries by an average of 12 percent by 2030. Coupled with the business and management education that 10,000 Women will continue to provide globally, the capital this new partnership will catalyze will give women entrepreneurs a greater chance of reaching their full potential. The Goldman Sachs Foundation will provide a $32 million anchor investment in order to catalyze capital from commercial investors and bilateral donors. The facility will extend lines of credit and share risk with local banks in emerging markets, enabling them to on-lend to women-owned SMEs. In order to spur innovative approaches to lending to women entrepreneurs, The Goldman Sachs Foundation will provide an $18 million anchor donation to fund capacity building support for banks and women borrowers. This support will address the barriers to banks deploying capital and women entrepreneurs accessing it.

## View video

Learn about how 10,000 Women is helping to create access to capital for women entrepreneurs. Go to: goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/focus-on/investing-in-women/capital-for-women-entrepreneurs.html



## RISK MANAGEMENT

## IN TODAY'S COMPLEX
ENVIRONMENT, CLIENTS
ARE FOCUSED NOT ONLY
ON GROWTH, BUT ALSO ON
NAVIGATING A WORLD OF
COMPLICATED AND, OFTEN,
INTERCONNECTED RISKS

From fluctuating currencies to shareholder activists and myriad environmental challenges, assessing and managing risk is increasingly complex — and critical. That’s why, more than ever, both companies and investors view risk as a highly strategic issue — and why we have seen a rapid rise in risk consciousness more broadly. Our clients turn to Goldman Sachs for our deep risk management expertise to help them manage their most important and complex risk exposures.







# FOR COMPANY
LEADERS, ACTIVIST
INVESTORS PRESENT
NEW CHALLENGES —
AND OPPORTUNITIES

According to Gene Sykes, co-head of Global Mergers & Acquisitions at Goldman Sachs, the rise of shareholder activism is one of the most profound recent shifts in corporate governance.

## Q: What's different?

A: Through proxy rules and other changes, large shareholders have gained more power, whether they’re seeking return on capital or trying to influence M&A strategy.

## Q: How are companies responding?

A: By understanding that the relationship has fundamentally changed. They can no longer make big decisions without possible pushback — or they may be forced to make big decisions they might not make on their own.

## Q: How does it affect Goldman Sachs?

A: It’s an issue we have to help clients manage because it affects all public companies. It’s now at the center of M&A and other aspects of our business.

## View video

Gene Sykes explores the origins and evolution of the activist shareholder movement. Go to: goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/trends-in-our-business/investment-banking/sykes/index.html



Risk management has become a C-suite issue, driving company leaders to seek more sophisticated analysis and advice



## “THE WORLD IS MORE COMPLEX, markets are more volatile, and the economy, with each passing year, is more global in nature,” says Jim Esposito, head of the EMEA Financing Group at Goldman Sachs.

“With global interconnectedness on the rise, company managers now view risk management as a strategic priority, spanning a variety of markets including currencies, commodities, credit and equities.” Esposito adds that “clients seek our advice because risk management is part of our DNA.”

## View video

Jim Esposito on risk management.
Go to: goldmansachs.com/annual-report-2013/jim-esposito




AS CHALLENGES RISE, THE
VALUE OF AN INTEGRATED
RISK MANAGEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE HAS
BECOME CLEARER
THAN EVER



“We always look comprehensively and consistently across risks, both in the analytics we use and in the way our risk managers work together and are integrated.

Our job is to look around corners and figure out what could happen that we may not yet have anticipated," says Liz Robinson, Global Treasurer of Goldman Sachs. "Instead of looking separately at market risk versus credit risk versus reputational, liquidity or operational risk, we look across the spectrum of those risks to understand how they interrelate."

View video
Liz Robinson describes the complexity of global risk management. Go to: goldmansachs.com/annual-report-2013/liz-robinson



Goldman Sachs team members supporting the Avanza transaction: Eduard van Wyk, Michal Antosik, Giovanni Rigodanza, Thomas Turner, Nicola Stewart, Michael Marsh, Francisco Cabeza, Investment Banking Division

IN SEEKING TO INCREASE THE FLEXIBILITY of the capital structure at one of its portfolio companies — Spanish bus company Avanza Group — Doughty Hanson, the private equity firm, had two goals in mind. First, like many companies across Europe, it sought to replace a rigid, syndicated loan facility with a new financing structure that would allow greater flexibility and reduce reliance on bank capital. Second, it sought to ensure that any new capital structure would remain in place should the firm decide to monetize its stake in Avanza in the future. With the help of Goldman Sachs, Doughty Hanson overcame both challenges with the issuance of €490 million in high-yield bonds with an innovative feature known as “portability,” which ensured that financing could remain in place when the company was purchased by new owners.




Kevin Smith, Kyung-Ah Park and David Sperry,
members of the Goldman Sachs Environmental Markets Group

## As companies consider their risk profile, environmental risk management is increasingly important

From the pressures of rising population and consumption to urbanization and climate change, the need to pursue sustainability and manage environmental risks is a growing imperative both for our clients and for Goldman Sachs. The Environmental Markets Group at Goldman Sachs works closely with deal teams to conduct enhanced due diligence on transactions that involve significant environmental issues and, where appropriate, advise clients on how to mitigate these risks. Whether it is working with an extractive company in strengthening its commitment to sustainable development or engaging with an emerging market power company in facilitating the adoption of industry best practices, through proactive engagement with our clients we are able to differentiate our advice and create a better outcome for the environment, our clients and our own risk management. Given the breadth of the clients we work with, over time, we also play a part in facilitating better environmental practices and policies across industries and geographies, and ensuring a more sustainable outcome.

Our approach to environmental risk management is guided by our Environmental Policy Framework and 14 sector and subsector guidelines. Go to: goldmansachs.com/environmentalmarkets

Managing Risks Within

The strength and integrity of our client franchise is vital to the firm’s continued success. Sustaining the firm’s focus on the interrelationship between client service, business standards and reputational risk is the responsibility of the Client and Business Standards Committee (CBSC).

How does the CBSC operate?

Convening senior leaders several times a month, the CBSC is able to address pressing issues from multiple perspectives because it includes representatives from all of our client-facing divisions and our major control functions at the firm.

Allowing time for open discussion at the beginning of every meeting, committee members are free to raise any concerns related to clients, business standards and reputational risk, whether specific to Goldman Sachs or the broader financial services industry.

Receiving regular reports from both client-facing and control divisions, the CBSC monitors the current state of our client franchise, challenges facing our clients and the financial performance of our businesses.

Focusing on key risks — every report to the CBSC from our business units and control functions must provide an assessment of ongoing and emerging risks. By requiring business units to engage in the discipline of preparing key risk assessments, the committee ensures that reputational risk remains at the forefront of business leaders’ thinking.

Working with a network of divisional and regional CBSCs — subcommittees ensure that distant risk issues rise to the top, and that every level of the firm remains focused on the importance of the client franchise and managing reputational risk.

Go to: goldmansachs.com/business-standards



# IN A CONSTANTLY CHANGING
WORLD, OUR ABILITY TO RECRUIT,
DEVELOP AND MOTIVATE THE MOST
TALENTED AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
PEOPLE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO
SERVING OUR CLIENTS

“We’ve built a culture that values teamwork, collaboration and dialogue and a workplace where people know they will learn, that they’re valued, and that they will make an impact.

Our ability to serve our clients with excellence depends on our people," says Edith Cooper, global head of Human Capital Management at Goldman Sachs. "That's why we must not only attract talented people, but make sure they continue to develop. In 2013, we invested heavily in professional development and promoting our core values, with the certainty," says Cooper "that it's the power of the whole that really makes an impact on our clients and the world."



View video
Edith Cooper, global head of Human Capital Management, speaks about the people and culture at Goldman Sachs. Go to: goldmansachs.com/annual-report-2013/edith-cooper




Mark Matthews, Executive Office; Helen Lee, Technology; Sumedha Majumdar, GSBank

# HELPING DEVELOP
EXCEPTIONAL MANAGERS

We believe there is a direct link between effective leadership and client success, and we integrate leadership development at every level of our organization. At the top, Pine Street leverages our culture, business principles and decades of leadership experience to define the expectations of our leaders and their responsibilities to the firm, our people and our clients. Pine Street utilizes a variety of channels — including classroom sessions, executive coaching and experience-based learning — to provide practical training to help our leaders fulfill those expectations and responsibilities. We provide intensive sessions for managing directors hired laterally to Goldman Sachs, to ensure a smooth transition during their first three months at the firm. Another important program is our Managing Director Leadership Acceleration Initiative. This innovative six-month engagement for high-potential leaders brings together cross-disciplinary groups to work together on strategic assignments aimed at addressing some of the firm’s most pressing issues.

Among the most important responsibilities of Goldman Sachs leaders is furthering our unique, highly collaborative culture that places a premium on teamwork, integrity and excellence. Our culture is the DNA of our firm and essential to our success. It has helped us recruit, develop and retain generations of talented people who thrive on collaborating in a team environment, solving challenges and providing outstanding service to our clients.



# RECRUITING AND
DEVELOPING THE
NEXT GENERATION

We are competing for the best people globally. Not only must we offer superior career opportunities; we must evolve our talent management strategy to keep pace with the changing needs of the market. This year, we increased our presence across social media outlets, and trained leaders to better manage a generation that is more globally aware and technologically proficient than ever before. We also enriched the extensive professional and leadership offerings of Goldman Sachs University, with hundreds of courses delivered in the classroom, through webcasts and convenient e-learning modules. Most importantly, we continued to emphasize an apprenticeship culture in which our junior team members learn by working closely with seasoned professionals. We believe this is critical to developing the next generation of Goldman Sachs leaders, who will best serve our clients, manage our capital, manage our risk and grow our business.




Elyse Goodman, Investment Management Division, participant in the Returnship program

# STRENGTHENING THE
TALENT POOL THROUGH
A COMMITMENT
TO DIVERSITY

We believe that diversity in the workplace is a powerful competitive advantage, and our commitment to diversity was demonstrated throughout 2013. Goldman Sachs was once again named one of Fortune magazine’s 100 Best Companies to Work For, and a Best Place to Work by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, an advocacy group for LGBT Americans. We also continued to promote diversity through a number of important initiatives. These include: our Returnship Program which helps people, many of them women, restart their careers after an extended and voluntary absence from the workforce, and our Veterans Integration Program, which provides servicemen and servicewomen exiting the military with an opportunity to develop their professional skills and strengthen their understanding of financial services, preparing them for future careers where many of the skills they learned during their service, including teamwork and leadership, are valued.





(top) Laura Posthumus, Internal Audit, and (bottom) Caleb West, Finance, two of the participants in the Veteran’s Integration Program

## BUILDING A BRIDGE TO
OPPORTUNITY WHERE
IT IS LACKING

We also believe in promoting diversity and apprenticeship in the outside world. That’s why we were the first firm to support the London Evening Standard’s Ladder for London, a campaign to match unemployed young adults with internships in a wide range of industries. In 2013, a group of 10 interns worked in various parts of our London office, filling positions in Technology, Operations, Human Capital Management, Securities, Investment Banking, and Corporate Services & Real Estate. In the year since the campaign began, 400 companies have joined the effort. More than 11,200 young adults have greatly enhanced their career prospects — an important achievement in a city where one in four young adults is unemployed.



The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Founded in 1869, the firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices in all major financial centers around the world.

We report our activities in the following four business segments:

## Investment Banking

We provide a broad range of investment banking services to a diverse group of corporations, financial institutions, investment funds and governments. Services include strategic advisory assignments with respect to mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, corporate defense activities, risk management, restructurings and spin-offs, and debt and equity underwriting of public offerings and private placements, including domestic and cross-border transactions, as well as derivative transactions directly related to these activities.

## Institutional Client Services

We facilitate client transactions and make markets in fixed income, equity, currency and commodity products, primarily with institutional clients such as corporations, financial institutions, investment funds and governments. We also make markets in and clear client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide and provide financing, securities lending and other prime brokerage services to institutional clients.

## Investing & Lending

We invest in and originate loans to provide financing to clients. These investments and loans are typically longer term in nature. We make investments, some of which are consolidated, directly and indirectly through funds that we manage, in debt securities and loans, public and private equity securities, and real estate entities.

## Investment Management

We provide investment management services and offer investment products (primarily through separately managed accounts and commingled vehicles, such as mutual funds and private investment funds) across all major asset classes to a diverse set of institutional and individual clients. We also offer wealth advisory services, including portfolio management and financial counseling, and brokerage and other transaction services to high-net-worth individuals and families.

## Investment Banking

Net Revenues (in millions)



## Institutional Client Services

Net Revenues (in millions)



## Investing & Lending

Net Revenues (in millions)



## Investment Management

Net Revenues (in millions)






<table><tr><td rowspan="2">$ and share amounts in millions, except per share amounts</td><td colspan="3">For the Year Ended or as of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Results</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues</td><td>$ 34,206</td><td>$ 34,163</td><td>$ 28,811</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>11,737</td><td>11,207</td><td>6,169</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>8,040</td><td>7,475</td><td>4,442</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings applicable to common shareholders</td><td>7,726</td><td>7,292</td><td>2,510</td></tr><tr><td>Return on average common shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>11.0%</td><td>10.7%</td><td>3.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Common Share Data</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Diluted earnings per common share</td><td>$ 15.46</td><td>$ 14.13</td><td>$ 4.51</td></tr><tr><td>Average diluted common shares outstanding</td><td>499.6</td><td>516.1</td><td>556.9</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends declared per common share</td><td>$ 2.05</td><td>$ 1.77</td><td>$ 1.40</td></tr><tr><td>Book value per common share</td><td>152.48</td><td>144.67</td><td>130.31</td></tr><tr><td>Tangible book value per common share \( ^{1} \)</td><td>143.11</td><td>134.06</td><td>119.72</td></tr><tr><td>Ending stock price</td><td>177.26</td><td>127.56</td><td>90.43</td></tr><tr><td>Financial Condition and Selected Ratios</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$911,507</td><td>$938,555</td><td>$923,225</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>160,965</td><td>167,305</td><td>173,545</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>78,467</td><td>75,716</td><td>70,379</td></tr><tr><td>Leverage ratio \( ^{2} \)</td><td>11.6x</td><td>12.4x</td><td>13.1x</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 common ratio 3</td><td>14.6%</td><td>14.5%</td><td>12.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 capital ratio 3</td><td>16.7%</td><td>16.7%</td><td>13.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Selected Data</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total staff</td><td>32,900</td><td>32,400</td><td>33,300</td></tr><tr><td>Assets under supervision (in billions)</td><td>$ 1,042</td><td>$ 965</td><td>$ 895</td></tr></table>

1. Tangible book value per common share is computed by dividing tangible common shareholders' equity (total shareholders' equity less preferred stock, goodwill and identifiable intangible assets) by the number of common shares outstanding, including restricted stock units granted to employees with no future service requirements. See "Financial Information — Management's Discussion and Analysis — Equity Capital — Other Capital Metrics" for further information about our tangible common shareholders' equity and tangible book value per common share, which are both non-GAAP measures.

2. The leverage ratio equals total assets divided by total shareholders' equity.

3. The Tier 1 common ratio and the Tier 1 capital ratio are computed using risk-weighted assets (RWAs) calculated in accordance with the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital requirements, which are based on Basel 1, and as of December 2013 also reflect the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements which became effective on January 1, 2013. The Tier 1 common ratio and the Tier 1 capital ratio as of December 2012 and December 2011 are prior to the implementation of the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements. The Tier 1 common ratio equals Tier 1 common capital divided by RWAs. See “Financial Information — Management’s Discussion and Analysis — Equity Capital — Consolidated Regulatory Capital Ratios” for further information about our Tier 1 common ratio, which is a non-GAAP measure, and our Tier 1 capital ratio.



## Financial Information — Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Introduction 32
Executive Overview 33
Business Environment 35
Critical Accounting Policies 37
Recent Accounting Developments 40
Use of Estimates 41
Results of Operations 42
Regulatory Developments 55
Balance Sheet and Funding Sources 57
Equity Capital 64
Off-Balance-Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations 75
Overview and Structure of Risk Management 78
Liquidity Risk Management 83
Market Risk Management 90
Credit Risk Management 97
Operational Risk Management 105
Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses 106

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 108

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 109

Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Earnings 110
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income 111
Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition 112
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity 113
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows 114

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Note 1 — Description of Business 115
Note 2 — Basis of Presentation 115
Note 3 — Significant Accounting Policies 116
Note 4 — Financial Instruments Owned, at Fair Value and Financial Instruments Sold, But Not Yet Purchased, at Fair Value 121
Note 5 — Fair Value Measurements 123
Note 6 — Cash Instruments 125
Note 7 — Derivatives and Hedging Activities 134
Note 8 — Fair Value Option 151
Note 9 — Collateralized Agreements and Financings 160
Note 10 — Securitization Activities 165
Note 11 — Variable Interest Entities 168
Note 12 — Other Assets 172
Note 13 — Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets 173
Note 14 — Deposits 176
Note 15 — Short-Term Borrowings 177
Note 16 — Long-Term Borrowings 177
Note 17 — Other Liabilities and Accrued Expenses 180
Note 18 — Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees 181
Note 19 — Shareholders’ Equity 187
Note 20 — Regulation and Capital Adequacy 190
Note 21 — Earnings Per Common Share 195
Note 22 — Transactions with Affiliated Funds 195
Note 23 — Interest Income and Interest Expense 196
Note 24 — Income Taxes 197
Note 25 — Business Segments 200
Note 26 — Credit Concentrations 204
Note 27 — Legal Proceedings 205
Note 28 — Employee Benefit Plans 212
Note 29 — Employee Incentive Plans 212
Note 30 — Parent Company 215

Supplemental Financial Information
Quarterly Results 216
Common Stock Price Range 217
Common Stock Performance 218
Selected Financial Data 219
Statistical Disclosures 220



## Introduction

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Founded in 1869, the firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices in all major financial centers around the world.

We report our activities in four business segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending and Investment Management. See “Results of Operations” below for further information about our business segments.

When we use the terms “Goldman Sachs,” “the firm,” “we,” “us” and “our,” we mean Group Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries.

References to “the 2013 Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. All references to 2013, 2012 and 2011 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2013, December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Any reference to a future year refers to a year ending on December 31 of that year. Certain reclassifications have been made to previously reported amounts to conform to the current presentation.

In this discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations, we have included information that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are not historical facts, but instead represent only our beliefs regarding future events, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and outside our control. This information includes statements other than historical information or statements of current condition and may relate to our future plans and objectives and results, among other things, and may also include statements about the effect of changes to the capital and leverage rules applicable to banks and bank holding companies, the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our businesses and operations, and various legal proceedings or mortgage-related contingencies as set forth under “Legal Proceedings” and “Certain Mortgage-Related Contingencies” in Notes 27 and 18, respectively, to the consolidated financial statements, as well as statements about the results of our Dodd-Frank Act and firm stress tests, statements about the objectives and effectiveness of our risk management and liquidity policies, statements about trends in or growth opportunities for our businesses, statements about our future status, activities or reporting under U.S. or non-U.S. banking and financial regulation, and statements about our investment banking transaction backlog. By identifying these statements for you in this manner, we are alerting you to the possibility that our actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ from those indicated in these forward-looking statements include, among others, those discussed below under “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” as well as “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K and “Cautionary Statement Pursuant to the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K.



## Executive Overview

The firm generated net earnings of $8.04 billion for 2013, compared with $7.48 billion for 2012 and $4.44 billion for 2011. Our diluted earnings per common share were $15.46 for 2013, compared with $14.13 for 2012 and $4.51 for 2011. Return on average common shareholders' equity (ROE) \( ^{1} \)  was 11.0% for 2013, compared with 10.7% for 2012 and 3.7% for 2011.

Book value per common share increased approximately 5% to $152.48 and tangible book value per common share  \( ^{2} \)  increased approximately 7% to $143.11 compared with the end of 2012. \( ^{3} \)  During the year, the firm repurchased 39.3 million shares of its common stock for a total cost of $6.17 billion, while maintaining strong capital levels. Our Tier 1 capital ratio was 16.7% and our Tier 1 common ratio  $4 \(  was 14.6% as of December 2013 (in each case under Basel I and also reflecting the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements which became effective on January 1, 2013). \) 

The firm generated net revenues of $34.21 billion for 2013. These results reflected significantly higher net revenues in Investment Banking, as well as higher net revenues in Investing & Lending and Investment Management compared with 2012. These increases were offset by lower net revenues in Institutional Client Services compared with 2012.

An overview of net revenues for each of our business segments is provided below.

## Investment Banking

Net revenues in Investment Banking increased significantly compared with 2012, reflecting significantly higher net revenues in Underwriting, due to strong net revenues in both equity and debt underwriting. Net revenues in equity underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, reflecting an increase in client activity, particularly in initial public offerings. Net revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, principally due to leveraged finance activity. Net revenues in Financial Advisory were essentially unchanged compared with 2012.

## Institutional Client Services

Net revenues in Institutional Client Services decreased compared with 2012, reflecting lower net revenues in both Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and Equities.

The decrease in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution compared with 2012 reflected significantly lower net revenues in interest rate products compared with a solid 2012, and significantly lower net revenues in mortgages compared with a strong 2012. In addition, net revenues in currencies were slightly lower, while net revenues in credit products and commodities were essentially unchanged compared with 2012. Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution operated in a generally challenging environment during much of 2013, as macroeconomic concerns and uncertainty led to challenging market-making conditions and generally lower levels of activity.



The decrease in Equities compared with 2012 was due to the sale of our Americas reinsurance business \( ^{1} \)  in 2013 and the sale of our hedge fund administration business in 2012. Net revenues in equities client execution (excluding net revenues from our Americas reinsurance business) were higher compared with 2012, including significantly higher net revenues in cash products, partially offset by significantly lower net revenues in derivatives. Commissions and fees were slightly higher compared with 2012. Securities services net revenues were significantly lower compared with 2012, primarily due to the sale of our hedge fund administration business in 2012 (2012 included a gain on sale of 494 million). During 2013, Equities operated in an environment characterized by a significant increase in global equity prices, particularly in Japan and the U.S., and generally lower volatility levels.

The net loss attributable to the impact of changes in our own credit spreads on borrowings for which the fair value option was elected was $296 million ($220 million and $76 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2013, compared with a net loss of $714 million ($433 million and $281 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2012.

## Investing & Lending

Net revenues in Investing & Lending increased compared with 2012, reflecting a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, driven by company-specific events and stronger corporate performance, as well as significantly higher global equity prices. In addition, net gains and net interest income from debt securities and loans were slightly higher, while other net revenues, related to our consolidated investments, were lower compared with 2012.

## Investment Management

Net revenues in Investment Management increased compared with 2012, reflecting higher management and other fees, primarily due to higher average assets under supervision. During the year, total assets under supervision increased $77 billion to $1.04 trillion. Long-term assets under supervision increased $81 billion, including net inflows of $41 billion \( ^{2} \) , reflecting inflows in fixed income and equity assets, partially offset by outflows in alternative investment assets. Net market appreciation of $40 billion during the year was primarily in equity assets. Liquidity products decreased $4 billion.

Our businesses, by their nature, do not produce predictable earnings. Our results in any given period can be materially affected by conditions in global financial markets, economic conditions generally and other factors. For a further discussion of the factors that may affect our future operating results, see “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below, as well as “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K.



## Business Environment

Real gross domestic product (GDP), although generally rising, appeared to remain subdued in most major economies. Market sentiment improved in advanced economies, supported by better private sector growth prospects in the United States and signs of a turnaround in the Euro area, while monetary policy generally remained accommodative. Improvements in the U.S. economy reflected favorable developments in unemployment and housing, even though a reduction in fiscal spending weighed on growth. These improvements resulted in tighter credit spreads, significantly higher global equity prices and generally lower levels of volatility. However, signals during the year from the U.S. Federal Reserve that it would begin tapering its asset purchase program contributed to a rise in U.S. interest rates and a more challenging environment, particularly for emerging markets. In addition, continued political uncertainty, particularly the political debate in the United States surrounding the government shutdown and a potential breach of the debt ceiling, generally resulted in heightened risk aversion. These concerns also weighed on investment banking activity as industry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity declined compared with 2012. Industry-wide equity underwriting activity improved and industry-wide debt underwriting activity remained solid. For a further discussion of how market conditions may affect our businesses, see “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below as well as “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K.

## Global

During 2013, real GDP growth appeared to decline in many advanced economies and emerging markets. In advanced economies, the slowdown primarily reflected a decline in fixed investment growth in the United States and continued weakness in the Euro area. In emerging markets, growth in domestic demand decreased and current account balances worsened. Unemployment levels declined in some economies compared with 2012, including the United States, but increased in others, particularly in the Euro area. The rate of unemployment continued to remain elevated in many advanced economies. During 2013, the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan each left policy interest rates unchanged, while the European Central Bank reduced its policy interest rate. In December 2013, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced that it would begin to scale back its asset purchase program by $10 billion to $75 billion per month. The U.S. dollar weakened against both the Euro and the British pound, while it strengthened significantly against the Japanese yen.

## United States

In the United States, real GDP increased by 1.9% in 2013, compared with an increase of 2.8% in 2012. Growth decelerated on the back of a significant contraction in federal government spending as a result of sequestration, as well as a slowdown in fixed investment. House prices, house sales and housing starts increased, although the rise in U.S. bond yields drove mortgage interest rates higher. Industrial production expanded in 2013, but at a slower pace than in the previous year. Although political uncertainty around the federal government shutdown led to some temporary deterioration, business and consumer confidence generally improved during the year, primarily reflecting continued improvement in the private sector. Measures of inflation were lower compared with 2012. The unemployment rate declined during 2013, but remained elevated. The U.S. Federal Reserve maintained its federal funds rate at a target range of zero to 0.25% during the year and announced in December 2013 a reduction in its monthly program to purchase U.S. Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities. In addition, the U.S. Federal Reserve affirmed its commitment to keep short-term interest rates exceptionally low for some time, even after the unemployment rate falls to 6.5% or inflation rises materially. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note rose by 126 basis points during 2013 to 3.04%. In equity markets, the NASDAQ Composite Index, the S&P 500 Index and the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by 38%, 30% and 26%, respectively, during 2013.



## Europe

In the Euro area, real GDP declined by 0.4% in 2013, compared with a decrease of 0.6% in 2012. The contraction was principally due to continued weakness in domestic demand, primarily reflecting further declines in fixed investment and consumer spending. Business and consumer confidence remained at low levels and measures of core inflation decelerated further during the year. The unemployment rate remained elevated, particularly in Italy and Spain. Political uncertainty in Italy and the debt crisis in Cyprus temporarily increased market volatility earlier in the year, while private sector lending conditions remained very tight in periphery countries. To address these issues, the European Central Bank decreased its main refinancing operations rate by 50 basis points to 0.25%, and adopted forward guidance for the future path of interest rates as a new part of its monetary policy tools. The Euro appreciated by 5% against the U.S. dollar. In the United Kingdom, real GDP increased by 1.8% in 2013, compared with an increase of 0.3% in 2012. The Bank of England maintained its official bank rate at 0.50% and also introduced forward guidance for the future path of interest rates, contingent on the evolution of employment and inflation. The British pound appreciated by 2% against the U.S. dollar. Long-term government bond yields generally increased during the year, except in the periphery countries where yields fell. In equity markets, the DAX Index, the CAC 40 Index, the Euro Stoxx 50 Index and the FTSE 100 Index increased by 2.5%, 18%, 18% and 14%, respectively, during 2013.

## Asia

In Japan, real GDP increased by 1.6% in 2013, compared with an increase of 1.4% in 2012. Growth was supported by significant increases in private housing investment and in public fixed investment. However, the trade balance continued to deteriorate during 2013. Measures of inflation turned positive during the year, but remain far from the Bank of Japan’s newly adopted 2% inflation target. In addition, the Bank of Japan, under new leadership, introduced a new program of quantitative and qualitative monetary easing, which included a significant increase in the size and mandate of its asset purchases, as well as a commitment to a more targeted communication strategy. The Bank of Japan also changed its main operating target for money market operations from the uncollateralized overnight call rate to the monetary base, which is set to increase annually by approximately 60-70 trillion yen. The yield on 10-year Japanese government bonds fell by 5 basis points during the year to 0.74%. The Japanese yen depreciated by 21% against the U.S. dollar and, in equity markets, the Nikkei 225 Index increased by 57%. In China, real GDP increased by 7.7% in 2013, broadly in line with the increase in the previous year, although impacted by less supportive monetary policies and tightening financial conditions. Measures of inflation remained moderate and The People’s Bank of China kept the reserve requirement ratio unchanged. The Chinese yuan appreciated by 3% against the U.S. dollar and, in equity markets, the Shanghai Composite Index fell by 7%. In India, real GDP increased by an estimated 4.7% in 2013, compared with an increase of 5.1% in 2012. Growth decelerated, primarily reflecting a further softening in domestic demand growth and only slight improvements in the current account balance. The rate of wholesale inflation declined compared with 2012. The Indian rupee depreciated by 12% against the U.S. dollar, while, in equity markets, the BSE Sensex Index increased by 9%. Equity markets in Hong Kong and South Korea were slightly higher, as the Hang Seng Index increased by 3% and the KOSPI Composite Index increased by 1% during 2013.

## Other Markets

In Brazil, real GDP increased by an estimated 2.2% in 2013, compared with an increase of 1.0% in 2012. Growth accelerated on the back of increasing domestic demand and fixed investment. The Brazilian real depreciated by 15% against the U.S. dollar and, in equity markets, the Bovespa Index decreased by 15% during 2013. In Russia, real GDP increased by 1.3% in 2013, compared with an increase of 3.4% in 2012. This slowdown primarily reflected a decline in domestic demand growth and a contraction in investment growth, particularly during the middle of the year. The Russian ruble depreciated by 8% against the U.S. dollar, while, in equity markets, the MICEX Index increased by 2% during 2013.



## Critical Accounting Policies

## Fair Value

Fair Value Hierarchy. Financial instruments owned, at fair value and Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value (i.e., inventory), as well as certain other financial assets and financial liabilities, are reflected in our consolidated statements of financial condition at fair value (i.e., marked-to-market), with related gains or losses generally recognized in our consolidated statements of earnings. The use of fair value to measure financial instruments is fundamental to our risk management practices and is our most critical accounting policy.

The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount 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. We measure certain financial assets and financial liabilities as a portfolio (i.e., based on its net exposure to market and/or credit risks). In determining fair value, the hierarchy under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) gives (i) the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities (level 1 inputs), (ii) the next priority to inputs other than level 1 inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly (level 2 inputs), and (iii) the lowest priority to inputs that cannot be observed in market activity (level 3 inputs). Assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to their fair value measurement.

The fair values for substantially all of our financial assets and financial liabilities are based on observable prices and inputs and are classified in levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Certain level 2 and level 3 financial assets and financial liabilities may require appropriate valuation adjustments that a market participant would require to arrive at fair value for factors such as counterparty and the firm’s credit quality, funding risk, transfer restrictions, liquidity and bid/offer spreads. Valuation adjustments are generally based on market evidence.
Instruments categorized within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are those which require one or more significant inputs that are not observable. As of December 2013 and December 2012, level 3 assets represented 4.4% and 5.0%, respectively, of our total assets. Absent evidence to the contrary, instruments classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are initially valued at transaction price, which is considered to be the best initial estimate of fair value. Subsequent to the transaction date, we use other methodologies to determine fair value, which vary based on the type of instrument. Estimating the fair value of level 3 financial instruments requires judgments to be made. These judgments include:

• determining the appropriate valuation methodology and/or model for each type of level 3 financial instrument;

• determining model inputs based on an evaluation of all relevant empirical market data, including prices evidenced by market transactions, interest rates, credit spreads, volatilities and correlations; and

• determining appropriate valuation adjustments, including those related to illiquidity or counterparty credit quality.

Regardless of the methodology, valuation inputs and assumptions are only changed when corroborated by substantive evidence.

Controls Over Valuation of Financial Instruments. Market makers and investment professionals in our revenue-producing units are responsible for pricing our financial instruments. Our control infrastructure is independent of the revenue-producing units and is fundamental to ensuring that all of our financial instruments are appropriately valued at market-clearing levels. In the event that there is a difference of opinion in situations where estimating the fair value of financial instruments requires judgment (e.g., calibration to market comparables or trade comparison, as described below), the final valuation decision is made by senior managers in control and support functions that are independent of the revenue-producing units. This independent price verification is critical to ensuring that our financial instruments are properly valued.



Price Verification. All financial instruments at fair value in levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are subject to our independent price verification process. The objective of price verification is to have an informed and independent opinion with regard to the valuation of financial instruments under review. Instruments that have one or more significant inputs which cannot be corroborated by external market data are classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Price verification strategies utilized by our independent control and support functions include:

• Trade Comparison. Analysis of trade data (both internal and external where available) is used to determine the most relevant pricing inputs and valuations.

• External Price Comparison. Valuations and prices are compared to pricing data obtained from third parties (e.g., broker or dealers, MarkIt, Bloomberg, IDC, TRACE). Data obtained from various sources is compared to ensure consistency and validity. When broker or dealer quotations or third-party pricing vendors are used for valuation or price verification, greater priority is generally given to executable quotations.

• Calibration to Market Comparables. Market-based transactions are used to corroborate the valuation of positions with similar characteristics, risks and components.

• Relative Value Analyses. Market-based transactions are analyzed to determine the similarity, measured in terms of risk, liquidity and return, of one instrument relative to another or, for a given instrument, of one maturity relative to another.

• Collateral Analyses. Margin calls on derivatives are analyzed to determine implied values which are used to corroborate our valuations.

• Execution of Trades. Where appropriate, trading desks are instructed to execute trades in order to provide evidence of market-clearing levels.

• Backtesting. Valuations are corroborated by comparison to values realized upon sales.

See Notes 5 through 8 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about fair value measurements.
Review of Net Revenues. Independent control and support functions ensure adherence to our pricing policy through a combination of daily procedures, including the explanation and attribution of net revenues based on the underlying factors. Through this process we independently validate net revenues, identify and resolve potential fair value or trade booking issues on a timely basis and seek to ensure that risks are being properly categorized and quantified.

Review of Valuation Models. The firm’s independent model validation group, consisting of quantitative professionals who are separate from model developers, performs an independent model approval process. This process incorporates a review of a diverse set of model and trade parameters across a broad range of values (including extreme and/or improbable conditions) in order to critically evaluate:

• the model’s suitability for valuation and risk management of a particular instrument type;

• the model’s accuracy in reflecting the characteristics of the related product and its significant risks;

• the suitability of the calculation techniques incorporated in the model;

• the model’s consistency with models for similar products; and

• the model’s sensitivity to input parameters and assumptions.

New or changed models are reviewed and approved prior to being put into use. Models are evaluated and re-approved annually to assess the impact of any changes in the product or market and any market developments in pricing theories.



Level 3 Financial Assets at Fair Value. The table below presents financial assets measured at fair value and the amount of such assets that are classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Total level 3 financial assets were $40.01 billion and $47.10 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. See Notes 5 through 8 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about changes in level 3 financial assets and fair value measurements.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December 2013</td><td colspan="2">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Total at Fair Value</td><td>Level 3 Total</td><td>Total at Fair Value</td><td>Level 3 Total</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper, certificates of deposit, time deposits and other money market instruments</td><td>$ 8,608</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 6,057</td><td>$ —</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>71,072</td><td>—</td><td>93,241</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>40,944</td><td>40</td><td>62,250</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate</td><td>6,596</td><td>2,692</td><td>9,805</td><td>3,389</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate</td><td>9,025</td><td>1,961</td><td>8,216</td><td>1,619</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>17,400</td><td>9,324</td><td>22,407</td><td>11,235</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>17,412</td><td>2,873</td><td>20,981</td><td>2,821</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>1,476</td><td>257</td><td>2,477</td><td>619</td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations</td><td>3,129</td><td>807</td><td>2,251</td><td>1,185</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures</td><td>101,024</td><td>14,685</td><td>96,454</td><td>14,855</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>4,556</td><td>—</td><td>11,696</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total cash instruments</td><td>281,242</td><td>32,639</td><td>335,835</td><td>35,749</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives</td><td>57,879</td><td>7,076</td><td>71,176</td><td>9,920</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>339,121</td><td>39,715</td><td>407,011</td><td>45,669</td></tr><tr><td>Securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes</td><td>31,937</td><td>—</td><td>30,484</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell</td><td>161,297</td><td>63</td><td>141,331</td><td>278</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed</td><td>60,384</td><td>—</td><td>38,395</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties</td><td>7,416</td><td>235</td><td>7,866</td><td>641</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets 1</td><td>18</td><td>—</td><td>13,426</td><td>507</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$600,173</td><td>$40,013</td><td>$638,513</td><td>$47,095</td></tr></table>

1. December 2012 consists of assets classified as held for sale related to our Americas reinsurance business, in which a majority stake was sold in April 2013, primarily consisting of securities accounted for as available-for-sale and insurance separate account assets. See Notes 3 and 12 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about the sale of our Americas reinsurance business.



Goodwill. Goodwill is the cost of acquired companies in excess of the fair value of net assets, including identifiable intangible assets, at the acquisition date. Goodwill is assessed annually in the fourth quarter for impairment, or more frequently if events occur or circumstances change that indicate an impairment may exist, by first assessing qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If the results of the qualitative assessment are not conclusive, a quantitative goodwill test would be performed by comparing the estimated fair value of each reporting unit with its estimated net book value.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, we assessed goodwill for impairment. The qualitative assessment required management to make judgments and to evaluate several factors, which included, but were not limited to, macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance, entity-specific events, events affecting reporting units and sustained changes in our stock price. Based on our evaluation of these factors, we determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of the reporting units exceeded its respective carrying amount, and therefore, we determined that goodwill was not impaired and that a quantitative goodwill impairment test was not required.

If we experience a prolonged period of weakness in the business environment or financial markets, our goodwill could be impaired in the future. In addition, significant changes to critical inputs of the goodwill impairment test (e.g., cost of equity) could cause the estimated fair value of our reporting units to decline, which could result in an impairment of goodwill in the future.

See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our goodwill.
Identifiable Intangible Assets. We amortize our identifiable intangible assets over their estimated lives or based on economic usage for certain commodities-related intangibles. Identifiable intangible assets are tested for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances suggest that an asset’s or asset group’s carrying value may not be fully recoverable. See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements for the carrying value and estimated remaining lives of our identifiable intangible assets by major asset class.

A prolonged period of market weakness or significant changes in regulation could adversely impact our businesses and impair the value of our identifiable intangible assets. In addition, certain events could indicate a potential impairment of our identifiable intangible assets, including weaker business performance resulting in a decrease in our customer base and decreases in revenues from commodities-related customer contracts and relationships. Management judgment is required to evaluate whether indications of potential impairment have occurred, and to test intangibles for impairment if required.

An impairment loss, generally calculated as the difference between the estimated fair value and the carrying value of an asset or asset group, is recognized if the total of the estimated undiscounted cash flows relating to the asset or asset group is less than the corresponding carrying value.

See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements for impairments of our identifiable intangible assets.

## Recent Accounting Developments

See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for information about Recent Accounting Developments.



## Use of Estimates

The use of generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions. In addition to the estimates we make in connection with fair value measurements, and the accounting for goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, the use of estimates and assumptions is also important in determining provisions for losses that may arise from litigation, regulatory proceedings and tax audits.

We estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation and regulatory proceedings to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. In addition, we estimate the upper end of the range of reasonably possible aggregate loss in excess of the related reserves for litigation proceedings where the firm believes the risk of loss is more than slight. See Notes 18 and 27 to the consolidated financial statements for information on certain judicial, regulatory and legal proceedings.
Significant judgment is required in making these estimates and our final liabilities may ultimately be materially different. Our total estimated liability in respect of litigation and regulatory proceedings is determined on a case-by-case basis and represents an estimate of probable losses after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case or proceeding, our experience and the experience of others in similar cases or proceedings, and the opinions and views of legal counsel.

In accounting for income taxes, we estimate and provide for potential liabilities that may arise out of tax audits to the extent that uncertain tax positions fail to meet the recognition standard under FASB Accounting Standards Codification 740. See Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about accounting for income taxes.



## Results of Operations

The composition of our net revenues has varied over time as financial markets and the scope of our operations have changed. The composition of net revenues can also vary over the shorter term due to fluctuations in U.S. and global economic and market conditions. See “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below and “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K for a further discussion of the impact of economic and market conditions on our results of operations.

## Financial Overview

The table below presents an overview of our financial results.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">$ in millions, except per share amounts</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues</td><td>$34,206</td><td>$34,163</td><td>$28,811</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>11,737</td><td>11,207</td><td>6,169</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>8,040</td><td>7,475</td><td>4,442</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings applicable to common shareholders</td><td>7,726</td><td>7,292</td><td>2,510</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted earnings per common share</td><td>15.46</td><td>14.13</td><td>4.51 \( ^{2} \)</td></tr><tr><td>Return on average common shareholders&#x27; equity  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>11.0%</td><td>10.7%</td><td>3.7%  \( {}^{2} \)</td></tr></table>

1. ROE is computed by dividing net earnings applicable to common shareholders by average monthly common shareholders' equity. The table below presents our average common shareholders' equity.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">Average for the Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$77,353</td><td>$72,530</td><td>$72,708</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock</td><td>(6,892)</td><td>(4,392)</td><td>(3,990)</td></tr><tr><td>Common shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$70,461</td><td>$68,138</td><td>$68,718</td></tr></table>

2. Excluding the impact of the preferred dividend of $1.64 billion in the first quarter of 2011 (calculated as the difference between the carrying value and the redemption value of the preferred stock), related to the redemption of our 10% Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series G (Series G Preferred Stock) held by Berkshire Hathaway, diluted earnings per common share were $7.46 and ROE was 5.9% for 2011. We believe that presenting our results for 2011 excluding this dividend is meaningful, as it increases the comparability of period-to-period results. Diluted earnings per common share and ROE excluding this dividend are non-GAAP measures and may not be comparable to similar non-GAAP measures used by other companies. The tables below present the calculation of net earnings applicable to common shareholders, diluted earnings per common share and average common shareholders' equity excluding the impact of this dividend.

<table><tr><td>in millions, except per share amount</td><td>Year Ended December 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings applicable to common shareholders</td><td>$ 2,510</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of the Series G Preferred Stock dividend</td><td>1,643</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings applicable to common shareholders, excluding the impact of the Series G Preferred Stock dividend</td><td>4,153</td></tr><tr><td>Divided by: average diluted common shares outstanding</td><td>556.9</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted earnings per common share, excluding the impact of the Series G Preferred Stock dividend</td><td>$ 7.46</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Year Ended December 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$72,708</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock</td><td>(3,990)</td></tr><tr><td>Common shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>68,718</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of the Series G Preferred Stock dividend</td><td>1,264</td></tr><tr><td>Common shareholders&#x27; equity, excluding the impact of the Series G Preferred Stock dividend</td><td>$69,982</td></tr></table>



## Net Revenues

2013 versus 2012. Net revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $34.21 billion for 2013, essentially unchanged compared with 2012. 2013 included significantly higher investment banking revenues, as well as higher other principal transactions revenues and investment management revenues. In addition, commissions and fees were slightly higher compared with 2012. These increases were offset by lower market-making revenues and lower net interest income compared with 2012.

2012 versus 2011. Net revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $34.16 billion for 2012, 19% higher than 2011, reflecting significantly higher other principal transactions revenues, as well as higher market-making revenues, investment banking revenues and investment management revenues compared with 2011. These increases were partially offset by significantly lower net interest income and lower commissions and fees compared with 2011.

## Non-interest Revenues
Investment banking

During 2013, investment banking revenues reflected an operating environment generally characterized by improved industry-wide equity underwriting activity, particularly in initial public offerings, as global equity prices significantly increased during the year. In addition, industry-wide debt underwriting activity remained solid, and included significantly higher leveraged finance activity, as interest rates remained low. However, ongoing macroeconomic concerns continued to weigh on investment banking activity as industry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity declined compared with 2012. If macroeconomic concerns continue and result in lower levels of client activity, investment banking revenues would likely be negatively impacted.

2013 versus 2012. Investment banking revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $6.00 billion for 2013, 22% higher than 2012, reflecting significantly higher revenues in underwriting, due to strong revenues in both equity and debt underwriting. Revenues in equity underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, reflecting an increase in client activity, particularly in initial public offerings. Revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, principally due to leveraged finance activity. Revenues in financial advisory were essentially unchanged compared with 2012.
2012 versus 2011. Investment banking revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $4.94 billion for 2012, 13% higher than 2011, reflecting significantly higher revenues in underwriting, due to strong revenues in debt underwriting. Revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2011, primarily reflecting higher revenues from investment-grade and leveraged finance activity. Revenues in equity underwriting were lower compared with 2011, primarily reflecting a decline in industry-wide initial public offerings. Revenues in financial advisory were essentially unchanged compared with 2011.

## Investment management

During 2013, investment management revenues reflected an operating environment generally characterized by improved asset prices, particularly in equities, resulting in appreciation in the value of client assets. In addition, the mix of average assets under supervision shifted slightly compared with 2012 from liquidity products to long-term assets under supervision, primarily due to growth in equity and fixed income assets. In the future, if asset prices were to decline, or investors favor asset classes that typically generate lower fees or investors withdraw their assets, investment management revenues would likely be negatively impacted. In addition, continued concerns about the global economic outlook could result in downward pressure on assets under supervision.

2013 versus 2012. Investment management revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.19 billion for 2013, 5% higher than 2012, reflecting higher management and other fees, primarily due to higher average assets under supervision.

2012 versus 2011. Investment management revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $4.97 billion for 2012, 6% higher than 2011, due to significantly higher incentive fees, partially offset by slightly lower management and other fees.

## Commissions and fees

During 2013, commissions and fees reflected an environment characterized by higher average daily volumes in listed cash equities in Asia and Europe and lower average daily volumes in listed cash equities in the United States, and generally lower volatility levels compared with 2012. If market volumes were to decline, commissions and fees would likely be negatively impacted.

2013 versus 2012. Commissions and fees on the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.26 billion for 2013, slightly higher than 2012, primarily reflecting higher commissions and fees in Asia and Europe. During 2013, our average daily volumes were higher in Asia and Europe and lower in the United States compared with 2012, consistent with listed cash equity market volumes.



2012 versus 2011. Commissions and fees on the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.16 billion for 2012, 16% lower than 2011, reflecting lower commissions and fees in the United States, Europe and Asia. Our average daily volumes during 2012 were lower in each of these regions compared with 2011, consistent with listed cash equity market volumes.

## Market making

“Market making” is comprised of revenues (excluding net interest) from client execution activities related to making markets in interest rate products, credit products, mortgages, currencies, commodities and equity products. Market-making activities are included in our Institutional Client Services segment.

During 2013, market-making revenues reflected a challenging operating environment that required continual reassessment of the outlook for the global economy, as uncertainty about when the U.S. Federal Reserve would begin tapering its asset purchase program, as well as constant global political risk and uncertainty, were interspersed with improvements in the U.S. economy over the course of the year. As a result, our clients' risk appetite and activity levels fluctuated during 2013. Compared with 2012, activity levels were generally lower, global equity prices significantly increased and credit spreads tightened. If macroeconomic concerns continue over the long term, market-making revenues would likely continue to be negatively impacted.

2013 versus 2012. Market-making revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $9.37 billion for 2013, 17% lower than 2012. The decrease compared with 2012 was primarily due to significantly lower revenues in equity products, mortgages and interest rate products, as well as lower revenues in currencies. The decrease in equity products was due to the sale of our Americas reinsurance business in 2013, the sale of our hedge fund administration business in 2012 (2012 included a gain on sale of $494 million) and lower revenues in derivatives, partially offset by significantly higher revenues in cash products compared with 2012. Revenues in commodities were higher, while revenues in credit products were essentially unchanged compared with 2012. In December 2013, we completed the sale of a majority stake in our European insurance business and recognized a gain of $211 million.

2012 versus 2011. Market-making revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $11.35 billion for 2012, 22% higher than 2011, primarily reflecting significantly higher revenues in mortgages and higher revenues in interest rate products, credit products and equity cash products, partially offset by significantly lower revenues in commodities. In addition, market-making revenues included significantly higher revenues in securities services compared with 2011, reflecting a gain of $494 million on the sale of our hedge fund administration business.

## Other principal transactions

“Other principal transactions” is comprised of revenues (excluding net interest) from our investing activities and the origination of loans to provide financing to clients. In addition, “Other principal transactions” includes revenues related to our consolidated investments. Other principal transactions are included in our Investing & Lending segment.

During 2013, other principal transactions revenues generally reflected favorable company-specific events and strong corporate performance, as well as the impact of significantly higher global equity prices and tighter corporate credit spreads. However, concerns about the outlook for the global economy and uncertainty over financial regulatory reform continue to impact the global marketplace. If equity markets decline or credit spreads widen, other principal transactions revenues would likely be negatively impacted.

2013 versus 2012. Other principal transactions revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $6.99 billion for 2013, 19% higher than 2012, reflecting a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, driven by company-specific events and stronger corporate performance, as well as significantly higher global equity prices. In addition, net gains from debt securities and loans were slightly higher, while revenues related to our consolidated investments were lower compared with 2012.

2012 versus 2011. Other principal transactions revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.87 billion for 2012 compared with $1.51 billion for 2011. The increase compared with 2011 reflected a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, primarily in public equities, principally due to the impact of an increase in global equity prices during 2012 after equity prices in Europe and Asia declined significantly during 2011. Net gains from equity securities included a gain in 2012 and a loss in 2011 related to our investment in the ordinary shares of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited (ICBC). The increase compared with 2011 also reflected a significant increase in net gains from debt securities and loans, primarily due to approximately $1 billion of unrealized losses related to relationship lending activities, including the effect of hedges, in 2011 and the impact of a more favorable credit environment as credit spreads tightened during 2012 after widening during 2011. These increases were partially offset by lower revenues related to our consolidated investments.



## Net Interest Income

2013 versus 2012. Net interest income on the consolidated statements of earnings was $3.39 billion for 2013, 13% lower than 2012. The decrease compared with 2012 was primarily due to lower average yields on financial instruments owned, at fair value, partially offset by lower interest expense on financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value and collateralized financings.

2012 versus 2011. Net interest income on the consolidated statements of earnings was $3.88 billion for 2012, 25% lower than 2011. The decrease compared with 2011 was primarily due to lower average yields on financial instruments owned, at fair value and collateralized agreements.

See “Statistical Disclosures — Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity” for further information about our sources of net interest income.

## Operating Expenses

Our operating expenses are primarily influenced by compensation, headcount and levels of business activity. Compensation and benefits includes salaries, discretionary compensation, amortization of equity awards and other items such as benefits. Discretionary compensation is significantly impacted by, among other factors, the level of net revenues, overall financial performance, prevailing labor markets, business mix, the structure of our share-based compensation programs and the external environment.

The table below presents our operating expenses and total staff (which includes employees, consultants and temporary staff).

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Compensation and benefits</td><td>$12,613</td><td>$12,944</td><td>$12,223</td></tr><tr><td>Brokerage, clearing, exchange and distribution fees</td><td>2,341</td><td>2,208</td><td>2,463</td></tr><tr><td>Market development</td><td>541</td><td>509</td><td>640</td></tr><tr><td>Communications and technology</td><td>776</td><td>782</td><td>828</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>1,322</td><td>1,738</td><td>1,865</td></tr><tr><td>Occupancy</td><td>839</td><td>875</td><td>1,030</td></tr><tr><td>Professional fees</td><td>930</td><td>867</td><td>992</td></tr><tr><td>Insurance reserves  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>176</td><td>598</td><td>529</td></tr><tr><td>Other expenses</td><td>2,931</td><td>2,435</td><td>2,072</td></tr><tr><td>Total non-compensation expenses</td><td>9,856</td><td>10,012</td><td>10,419</td></tr><tr><td>Total operating expenses</td><td>$22,469</td><td>$22,956</td><td>$22,642</td></tr><tr><td>Total staff at period-end</td><td>32,900</td><td>32,400</td><td>33,300</td></tr></table>

1. Related revenues are included in “Market making” in the consolidated statements of earnings.



2013 versus 2012. Operating expenses on the consolidated statements of earnings were $22.47 billion for 2013, 2% lower than 2012. Compensation and benefits expenses on the consolidated statements of earnings were $12.61 billion for 2013, 3% lower compared with $12.94 billion for 2012. The ratio of compensation and benefits to net revenues for 2013 was 36.9% compared with 37.9% for 2012. Total staff increased 2% during 2013.

Non-compensation expenses on the consolidated statements of earnings were $9.86 billion for 2013, 2% lower than 2012. The decrease compared with 2012 included a decline in insurance reserves, reflecting the sale of our Americas reinsurance business, and a decrease in depreciation and amortization expenses, primarily reflecting lower impairment charges and lower operating expenses related to consolidated investments. These decreases were partially offset by an increase in other expenses, due to higher net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings, and higher brokerage, clearing, exchange and distribution fees. Net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings for 2013 were $962 million (primarily comprised of net provisions for mortgage-related matters) compared with $448 million for 2012 (including a settlement with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) regarding the independent foreclosure review). 2013 included a charitable contribution of $155 million to Goldman Sachs Gives, our donor-advised fund. Compensation was reduced to fund this charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives. The firm asks its participating managing directors to make recommendations regarding potential charitable recipients for this contribution.

2012 versus 2011. Operating expenses on the consolidated statements of earnings were $22.96 billion for 2012, essentially unchanged compared with 2011. Compensation and benefits expenses on the consolidated statements of earnings were $12.94 billion for 2012, 6% higher compared with $12.22 billion for 2011. The ratio of compensation and benefits to net revenues for 2012 was 37.9%, compared with 42.4% for 2011. Total staff decreased 3% during 2012.
Non-compensation expenses on the consolidated statements of earnings were $10.01 billion for 2012, 4% lower compared with 2011. The decrease compared with 2011 primarily reflected lower brokerage, clearing, exchange and distribution fees, lower occupancy expenses and a decrease in depreciation and amortization expenses, principally due to lower impairment charges. In addition, market development expenses and professional fees declined compared with 2011, primarily reflecting the impact of expense reduction initiatives. These decreases were partially offset by higher other expenses and increased insurance reserves related to our reinsurance business. The increase in other expenses compared with 2011 primarily reflected higher net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings and higher charitable contributions. Net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings were $448 million during 2012 (including a settlement with the Federal Reserve Board regarding the independent foreclosure review) compared with $175 million for 2011. Charitable contributions were $225 million during 2012, including $159 million to Goldman Sachs Gives, our donor-advised fund, and $10 million to The Goldman Sachs Foundation, compared with $163 million during 2011, including $78 million to Goldman Sachs Gives and $25 million to The Goldman Sachs Foundation. Compensation was reduced to fund the charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives. The firm asks its participating managing directors to make recommendations regarding potential charitable recipients for this contribution.

## Provision for Taxes

The effective income tax rate for 2013 was 31.5%, down from 33.3% for 2012. The decrease from 33.3% to 31.5% was primarily due to a determination that certain non-U.S. earnings will be permanently reinvested abroad.

The effective income tax rate for 2012 was 33.3%, up from 28.0% for 2011. The increase from 28.0% to 33.3% was primarily due to the earnings mix and a decrease in the impact of permanent benefits.

The rules related to the deferral of U.S. tax on certain non-repatriated active financing income expired effective December 31, 2013. This change is not expected to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows for the year ending December 2014.



## Segment Operating Results

The table below presents the net revenues, operating expenses and pre-tax earnings/(loss) of our segments.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Investment Banking</td><td>Net revenues</td><td>$ 6,004</td><td>$ 4,926</td><td>$ 4,355</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>3,475</td><td>3,330</td><td>2,995</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 2,529</td><td>$ 1,596</td><td>$ 1,360</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Institutional Client Services</td><td>Net revenues</td><td>$15,721</td><td>$18,124</td><td>$17,280</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>11,782</td><td>12,480</td><td>12,837</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 3,939</td><td>$ 5,644</td><td>$ 4,443</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>Net revenues</td><td>$ 7,018</td><td>$ 5,891</td><td>$ 2,142</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>2,684</td><td>2,666</td><td>2,673</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings/(loss)</td><td>$ 4,334</td><td>$ 3,225</td><td>$ (531)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Investment Management</td><td>Net revenues</td><td>$ 5,463</td><td>$ 5,222</td><td>$ 5,034</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>4,354</td><td>4,294</td><td>4,020</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 1,109</td><td>$ 928</td><td>$ 1,014</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Total</td><td>Net revenues</td><td>$34,206</td><td>$34,163</td><td>$28,811</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>22,469</td><td>22,956</td><td>22,642</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$11,737</td><td>$11,207</td><td>$ 6,169</td></tr></table>

Total operating expenses in the table above include the following expenses that have not been allocated to our segments:

• charitable contributions of $155 million for 2013, $169 million for 2012 and $103 million for 2011; and

• real estate-related exit costs of $19 million for 2013, $17 million for 2012 and $14 million for 2011. Real estate-related exit costs are included in “Depreciation and amortization” and “Occupancy” in the consolidated statements of earnings.
Net revenues in our segments include allocations of interest income and interest expense to specific securities, commodities and other positions in relation to the cash generated by, or funding requirements of, such underlying positions. See Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our business segments.

The cost drivers of Goldman Sachs taken as a whole — compensation, headcount and levels of business activity — are broadly similar in each of our business segments. Compensation and benefits expenses within our segments reflect, among other factors, the overall performance of Goldman Sachs as well as the performance of individual businesses. Consequently, pre-tax margins in one segment of our business may be significantly affected by the performance of our other business segments. A discussion of segment operating results follows.



## Investment Banking

Our Investment Banking segment is comprised of:

Financial Advisory. Includes strategic advisory assignments with respect to mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, corporate defense activities, risk management, restructurings and spin-offs, and derivative transactions directly related to these client advisory assignments.

Underwriting. Includes public offerings and private placements, including domestic and cross-border transactions, of a wide range of securities, loans and other financial instruments, and derivative transactions directly related to these client underwriting activities.

The table below presents the operating results of our Investment Banking segment.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Financial Advisory</td><td>$1,978</td><td>$1,975</td><td>$1,987</td></tr><tr><td>Equity underwriting</td><td>1,659</td><td>987</td><td>1,085</td></tr><tr><td>Debt underwriting</td><td>2,367</td><td>1,964</td><td>1,283</td></tr><tr><td>Total Underwriting</td><td>4,026</td><td>2,951</td><td>2,368</td></tr><tr><td>Total net revenues</td><td>6,004</td><td>4,926</td><td>4,355</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>3,475</td><td>3,330</td><td>2,995</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$2,529</td><td>$1,596</td><td>$1,360</td></tr></table>

The table below presents our financial advisory and underwriting transaction volumes. \( ^{1} \) 

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in billions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Announced mergers and acquisitions</td><td>$ 625</td><td>$ 739</td><td>$ 616</td></tr><tr><td>Completed mergers and acquisitions</td><td>633</td><td>575</td><td>656</td></tr><tr><td>Equity and equity-related offerings  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>91</td><td>57</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Debt offerings  \( {}^{3} \)</td><td>280</td><td>242</td><td>206</td></tr></table>

1. Source: Thomson Reuters. Announced and completed mergers and acquisitions volumes are based on full credit to each of the advisors in a transaction. Equity and equity-related offerings and debt offerings are based on full credit for single book managers and equal credit for joint book managers. Transaction volumes may not be indicative of net revenues in a given period. In addition, transaction volumes for prior periods may vary from amounts previously reported due to the subsequent withdrawal or a change in the value of a transaction.

2. Includes Rule 144A and public common stock offerings, convertible offerings and rights offerings.

3. Includes non-convertible preferred stock, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities and taxable municipal debt. Includes publicly registered and Rule 144A issues. Excludes leveraged loans.
2013 versus 2012. Net revenues in Investment Banking were $6.00 billion for 2013, 22% higher than 2012.

Net revenues in Financial Advisory were $1.98 billion, essentially unchanged compared with 2012. Net revenues in Underwriting were $4.03 billion, 36% higher than 2012, due to strong net revenues in both equity and debt underwriting. Net revenues in equity underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, reflecting an increase in client activity, particularly in initial public offerings. Net revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, principally due to leveraged finance activity.

During 2013, Investment Banking operated in an environment generally characterized by improved industry-wide equity underwriting activity, particularly in initial public offerings, as global equity prices significantly increased during the year. In addition, industry-wide debt underwriting activity remained solid, and included significantly higher leveraged finance activity, as interest rates remained low. However, ongoing macroeconomic concerns continued to weigh on investment banking activity as industry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity declined compared with 2012. If macroeconomic concerns continue and result in lower levels of client activity, net revenues in Investment Banking would likely be negatively impacted.

During 2013, our investment banking transaction backlog increased significantly due to significantly higher estimated net revenues from both potential advisory transactions and potential underwriting transactions. The increase in underwriting reflects significantly higher estimated net revenues from potential equity underwriting transactions, primarily in initial public offerings, and higher estimated net revenues from potential debt underwriting transactions, principally from leveraged finance activity.



Our investment banking transaction backlog represents an estimate of our future net revenues from investment banking transactions where we believe that future revenue realization is more likely than not. We believe changes in our investment banking transaction backlog may be a useful indicator of client activity levels which, over the long term, impact our net revenues. However, the time frame for completion and corresponding revenue recognition of transactions in our backlog varies based on the nature of the assignment, as certain transactions may remain in our backlog for longer periods of time and others may enter and leave within the same reporting period. In addition, our transaction backlog is subject to certain limitations, such as assumptions about the likelihood that individual client transactions will occur in the future. Transactions may be cancelled or modified, and transactions not included in the estimate may also occur.

Operating expenses were $3.48 billion for 2013, 4% higher than 2012, due to increased compensation and benefits expenses, primarily resulting from higher net revenues. Pretax earnings were $2.53 billion in 2013, 58% higher than 2012.

2012 versus 2011. Net revenues in Investment Banking were $4.93 billion for 2012, 13% higher than 2011.

Net revenues in Financial Advisory were $1.98 billion, essentially unchanged compared with 2011. Net revenues in Underwriting were $2.95 billion, 25% higher than 2011, due to strong net revenues in debt underwriting. Net revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2011, primarily reflecting higher net revenues from investment-grade and leveraged finance activity. Net revenues in equity underwriting were lower compared with 2011, primarily reflecting a decline in industry-wide initial public offerings.
During 2012, Investment Banking operated in an environment generally characterized by continued concerns about the outlook for the global economy and political uncertainty. These concerns weighed on investment banking activity, as completed mergers and acquisitions activity declined compared with 2011, and equity and equity-related underwriting activity remained low, particularly in initial public offerings. However, industry-wide debt underwriting activity improved compared with 2011, as credit spreads tightened and interest rates remained low.

During 2012, our investment banking transaction backlog increased due to an increase in potential debt underwriting transactions, primarily reflecting an increase in leveraged finance transactions, and an increase in potential advisory transactions. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in potential equity underwriting transactions compared with the end of 2011, reflecting uncertainty in market conditions.

Operating expenses were $3.33 billion for 2012, 11% higher than 2011, due to increased compensation and benefits expenses, primarily resulting from higher net revenues. Pre-tax earnings were $1.60 billion in 2012, 17% higher than 2011.



## Institutional Client Services

Our Institutional Client Services segment is comprised of:

Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution. Includes client execution activities related to making markets in interest rate products, credit products, mortgages, currencies and commodities.

We generate market-making revenues in these activities in three ways:

• In large, highly liquid markets (such as markets for U.S. Treasury bills or certain mortgage pass-through certificates), we execute a high volume of transactions for our clients for modest spreads and fees.

• In less liquid markets (such as mid-cap corporate bonds, growth market currencies or certain non-agency mortgage-backed securities), we execute transactions for our clients for spreads and fees that are generally somewhat larger.

• We also structure and execute transactions involving customized or tailor-made products that address our clients’ risk exposures, investment objectives or other complex needs (such as a jet fuel hedge for an airline).

Given the focus on the mortgage market, our mortgage activities are further described below.

Our activities in mortgages include commercial mortgage-related securities, loans and derivatives, residential mortgage-related securities, loans and derivatives (including U.S. government agency-issued collateralized mortgage obligations, other prime, subprime and Alt-A securities and loans), and other asset-backed securities, loans and derivatives.

We buy, hold and sell long and short mortgage positions, primarily for market making for our clients. Our inventory therefore changes based on client demands and is generally held for short-term periods.

See Notes 18 and 27 to the consolidated financial statements for information about exposure to mortgage repurchase requests, mortgage rescissions and mortgage-related litigation.
Equities. Includes client execution activities related to making markets in equity products and commissions and fees from executing and clearing institutional client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide, as well as over-the-counter transactions. Equities also includes our securities services business, which provides financing, securities lending and other prime brokerage services to institutional clients, including hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds and foundations, and generates revenues primarily in the form of interest rate spreads or fees.

The table below presents the operating results of our Institutional Client Services segment.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution</td><td>$ 8,651</td><td>$ 9,914</td><td>$ 9,018</td></tr><tr><td>Equities client execution  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>2,594</td><td>3,171</td><td>3,031</td></tr><tr><td>Commissions and fees</td><td>3,103</td><td>3,053</td><td>3,633</td></tr><tr><td>Securities services</td><td>1,373</td><td>1,986</td><td>1,598</td></tr><tr><td>Total Equities</td><td>7,070</td><td>8,210</td><td>8,262</td></tr><tr><td>Total net revenues</td><td>15,721</td><td>18,124</td><td>17,280</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>11,782</td><td>12,480</td><td>12,837</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 3,939</td><td>$ 5,644</td><td>$ 4,443</td></tr></table>

1. In April 2013, we completed the sale of a majority stake in our Americas reinsurance business and no longer consolidate this business. Net revenues related to the Americas reinsurance business were $317 million for 2013, $1.08 billion for 2012 and $880 million for 2011. See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about this sale.

2013 versus 2012. Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were $15.72 billion for 2013, 13% lower than 2012.

Net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution were $8.65 billion for 2013, 13% lower than 2012, reflecting significantly lower net revenues in interest rate products compared with a solid 2012, and significantly lower net revenues in mortgages compared with a strong 2012. The decrease in interest rate products and mortgages primarily reflected the impact of a more challenging environment and lower activity levels compared with 2012. In addition, net revenues in currencies were slightly lower, while net revenues in credit products and commodities were essentially unchanged compared with 2012. In December 2013, we completed the sale of a majority stake in our European insurance business and recognized a gain of $211 million.



Net revenues in Equities were $7.07 billion for 2013, 14% lower compared with 2012, due to the sale of our Americas reinsurance business \( ^{1} \)  in 2013 and the sale of our hedge fund administration business in 2012. Net revenues in equities client execution (excluding net revenues from our Americas reinsurance business) were higher compared with 2012, including significantly higher net revenues in cash products, partially offset by significantly lower net revenues in derivatives. Commissions and fees were slightly higher compared with 2012, reflecting higher commissions and fees in Asia and Europe, partially offset by lower commissions and fees in the United States. Our average daily volumes during 2013 were higher in Asia and Europe and lower in the United States compared with 2012, consistent with listed cash equity market volumes. Securities services net revenues were significantly lower compared with 2012, primarily due to the sale of our hedge fund administration business in 2012 (2012 included a gain on sale of $494 million). During 2013, Equities operated in an environment characterized by a significant increase in global equity prices, particularly in Japan and the U.S., and generally lower volatility levels.

The net loss attributable to the impact of changes in our own credit spreads on borrowings for which the fair value option was elected was $296 million ($220 million and $76 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2013, compared with a net loss of $714 million ($433 million and $281 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2012.

During 2013, Institutional Client Services operated in a challenging environment that required continual reassessment of the outlook for the global economy, as uncertainty about when the U.S. Federal Reserve would begin tapering its asset purchase program, as well as constant global political risk and uncertainty, were interspersed with improvements in the U.S. economy over the course of the year. As a result, our clients' risk appetite and activity levels fluctuated during 2013. Compared with 2012, activity levels were generally lower, global equity prices significantly increased and credit spreads tightened. If macroeconomic concerns continue over the long term, net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and Equities would likely continue to be negatively impacted.
Operating expenses were $11.78 billion for 2013, 6% lower than 2012, due to decreased compensation and benefits expenses, primarily resulting from lower net revenues, and lower expenses as a result of the sale of a majority stake in our Americas reinsurance business in April 2013. These decreases were partially offset by increased net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings, primarily comprised of net provisions for mortgage-related matters, and higher brokerage, clearing, exchange and distribution fees. Pre-tax earnings were $3.94 billion in 2013, 30% lower than 2012.

2012 versus 2011. Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were $18.12 billion for 2012, 5% higher than 2011.

Net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution were $9.91 billion for 2012, 10% higher than 2011. These results reflected strong net revenues in mortgages, which were significantly higher compared with 2011 in both residential and commercial products. In addition, net revenues in credit products and interest rate products were solid and higher compared with 2011. The increase in mortgages, credit products and interest rates primarily reflected the impact of improved market-making conditions, including tighter credit spreads, compared with 2011. These increases were partially offset by significantly lower net revenues in commodities and slightly lower net revenues in currencies. The decrease in commodities primarily reflected more challenging market-making conditions, in part driven by lower levels of market volatility.



Net revenues in Equities were $8.21 billion for 2012, essentially unchanged compared with 2011. Net revenues in securities services were significantly higher compared with 2011, reflecting a gain of $494 million on the sale of our hedge fund administration business. In addition, equities client execution net revenues were higher than 2011, primarily reflecting significantly higher results in cash products, principally due to increased levels of client activity. These increases were offset by lower commissions and fees, reflecting declines in the United States, Europe and Asia. Our average daily volumes during 2012 were lower in each of these regions compared with 2011, consistent with listed cash equity market volumes. During 2012, Equities operated in an environment generally characterized by an increase in global equity prices and lower volatility levels.

The net loss attributable to the impact of changes in our own credit spreads on borrowings for which the fair value option was elected was $714 million ($433 million and $281 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2012, compared with a net gain of $596 million ($399 million and $197 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2011.

During 2012, Institutional Client Services operated in an environment generally characterized by continued broad market concerns and uncertainties, although positive developments helped to improve market conditions. These developments included certain central bank actions to ease monetary policy and address funding risks for European financial institutions. In addition, the U.S. economy posted stable to improving economic data, including favorable developments in unemployment and housing. These improvements resulted in tighter credit spreads, higher global equity prices and lower levels of volatility. However, concerns about the outlook for the global economy and continued political uncertainty, particularly the political debate in the United States surrounding the fiscal cliff, generally resulted in client risk aversion and lower activity levels. Also, uncertainty over financial regulatory reform persisted.
Operating expenses were $12.48 billion for 2012, 3% lower than 2011, primarily due to lower brokerage, clearing, exchange and distribution fees, and lower impairment charges, partially offset by higher net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings. Pretax earnings were $5.64 billion in 2012, 27% higher than 2011.

## Investing & Lending

Investing & Lending includes our investing activities and the origination of loans to provide financing to clients. These investments, some of which are consolidated, and loans are typically longer-term in nature. We make investments, directly and indirectly through funds that we manage, in debt securities and loans, public and private equity securities, and real estate entities.

The table below presents the operating results of our Investing & Lending segment.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Equity securities</td><td>$3,930</td><td>$2,800</td><td>$ 603</td></tr><tr><td>Debt securities and loans</td><td>1,947</td><td>1,850</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1,141</td><td>1,241</td><td>1,443</td></tr><tr><td>Total net revenues</td><td>7,018</td><td>5,891</td><td>2,142</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>2,684</td><td>2,666</td><td>2,673</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings/(loss)</td><td>$4,334</td><td>$3,225</td><td>$ (531)</td></tr></table>

2013 versus 2012. Net revenues in Investing & Lending were $7.02 billion for 2013, 19% higher than 2012, reflecting a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, driven by company-specific events and stronger corporate performance, as well as significantly higher global equity prices. In addition, net gains and net interest income from debt securities and loans were slightly higher, while other net revenues, related to our consolidated investments, were lower compared with 2012. If equity markets decline or credit spreads widen, net revenues in Investing & Lending would likely be negatively impacted.

Operating expenses were $2.68 billion for 2013, essentially unchanged compared with 2012. Operating expenses during 2013 included lower impairment charges and lower operating expenses related to consolidated investments, partially offset by increased compensation and benefits expenses due to higher net revenues compared with 2012. Pre-tax earnings were $4.33 billion in 2013, 34% higher than 2012.



2012 versus 2011. Net revenues in Investing & Lending were $5.89 billion for 2012 compared with $2.14 billion for 2011. The increase compared with 2011 reflected a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, primarily in public equities, principally due to the impact of an increase in global equity prices during 2012 after equity prices in Europe and Asia declined significantly during 2011. Net gains from equity securities included a gain of $408 million in 2012 and a loss of $517 million in 2011 related to our investment in the ordinary shares of ICBC. The increase compared with 2011 also reflected a significant increase in net gains from debt securities and loans, primarily due to approximately $1 billion of unrealized losses related to relationship lending activities, including the effect of hedges, in 2011 and the impact of a more favorable credit environment as credit spreads tightened during 2012 after widening during 2011. These increases were partially offset by lower other net revenues, principally related to our consolidated investments.

Operating expenses were $2.67 billion for 2012, essentially unchanged compared with 2011. Pre-tax earnings were $3.23 billion in 2012, compared with a pre-tax loss of $531 million in 2011.

## Investment Management

Investment Management provides investment management services and offers investment products (primarily through separately managed accounts and commingled vehicles, such as mutual funds and private investment funds) across all major asset classes to a diverse set of institutional and individual clients. Investment Management also offers wealth advisory services, including portfolio management and financial counseling, and brokerage and other transaction services to high-net-worth individuals and families.

Assets under supervision include assets under management and other client assets. Assets under management include client assets where we earn a fee for managing assets on a discretionary basis. This includes net assets in our mutual funds, hedge funds, credit funds and private equity funds (including real estate funds), and separately managed accounts for institutional and individual investors. Other client assets include client assets invested with third-party managers, bank deposits and advisory relationships where we earn a fee for advisory and other services, but do not have investment discretion. Assets under supervision do not include the self-directed brokerage assets of our clients. Long-term assets under supervision represent assets under supervision excluding liquidity products. Liquidity products represent money markets and bank deposit assets.

Assets under supervision typically generate fees as a percentage of net asset value, which vary by asset class and are affected by investment performance as well as asset inflows and redemptions. Asset classes such as alternative investment and equity assets typically generate higher fees relative to fixed income and liquidity product assets. The average effective management fee (which excludes non-asset-based fees) we earned on our assets under supervision was 40 basis points for 2013, 39 basis points for 2012 and 41 basis points for 2011.

In certain circumstances, we are also entitled to receive incentive fees based on a percentage of a fund’s or a separately managed account’s return, or when the return exceeds a specified benchmark or other performance targets. Incentive fees are recognized only when all material contingencies are resolved.



The table below presents the operating results of our Investment Management segment.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Management and other fees</td><td>$4,386</td><td>$4,105</td><td>$4,188</td></tr><tr><td>Incentive fees</td><td>662</td><td>701</td><td>323</td></tr><tr><td>Transaction revenues</td><td>415</td><td>416</td><td>523</td></tr><tr><td>Total net revenues</td><td>5,463</td><td>5,222</td><td>5,034</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>4,354</td><td>4,294</td><td>4,020</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$1,109</td><td>$ 928</td><td>$1,014</td></tr></table>

The tables below present our period-end assets under supervision (AUS) by asset class and by distribution channel, as well as a summary of the changes in our assets under supervision.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in billions</td><td colspan="3">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Assets under management</td><td>$ 919</td><td>$ 854</td><td>$ 828</td></tr><tr><td>Other client assets</td><td>123</td><td>111</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>Total AUS</td><td>$1,042</td><td>$ 965</td><td>$ 895</td></tr><tr><td>Asset Class</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Alternative investments  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>$ 142</td><td>$ 151</td><td>$ 148</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>208</td><td>153</td><td>147</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>446</td><td>411</td><td>353</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term AUS</td><td>796</td><td>715</td><td>648</td></tr><tr><td>Liquidity products</td><td>246</td><td>250</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>Total AUS</td><td>$1,042</td><td>$ 965</td><td>$ 895</td></tr><tr><td>Distribution Channel</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Directly distributed:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Institutional</td><td>$ 363</td><td>$ 343</td><td>$ 294</td></tr><tr><td>High-net-worth individuals</td><td>330</td><td>294</td><td>274</td></tr><tr><td>Third-party distributed:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Institutional, high-net-worth individuals and retail</td><td>349</td><td>328</td><td>327</td></tr><tr><td>Total AUS</td><td>$1,042</td><td>$ 965</td><td>$ 895</td></tr></table>

1. Primarily includes hedge funds, credit funds, private equity, real estate, currencies, commodities and asset allocation strategies.

Total AUS $1,042 $ 965 $ 895

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in billions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>$ 965</td><td>$895</td><td>$917</td></tr><tr><td>Net inflows/(outflows)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Alternative investments</td><td>(13)</td><td>1</td><td>(1)</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>13</td><td>(17)</td><td>(5)</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>41</td><td>34</td><td>(9)</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term AUS net inflows/(outflows)</td><td>41  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>18  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>(15)  \( {}^{3} \)</td></tr><tr><td>Liquidity products</td><td>(4)</td><td>3</td><td>(12)</td></tr><tr><td>Total AUS net inflows/(outflows)</td><td>37</td><td>21</td><td>(27)</td></tr><tr><td>Net market appreciation/(depreciation)</td><td>40</td><td>49</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>$1,042</td><td>$965</td><td>$895</td></tr></table>

1. Fixed income flows for 2013 include $10 billion in assets managed by the firm related to our Americas reinsurance business, in which a majority stake was sold in April 2013, that were previously excluded from assets under supervision as they were assets of a consolidated subsidiary.

2. Includes $34 billion of fixed income asset inflows in connection with our acquisition of Dwight Asset Management Company LLC and $5 billion of fixed income and equity asset outflows related to our liquidation of Goldman Sachs Asset Management Korea Co., Ltd.

3. Includes $6 billion of asset inflows across all asset classes in connection with our acquisitions of Goldman Sachs Australia Pty Ltd and Benchmark Asset Management Company Private Limited.

The table below presents our average monthly assets under supervision by asset class.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in billions</td><td colspan="3">Average for the Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Alternative investments</td><td>$ 145</td><td>$149</td><td>$152</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>180</td><td>153</td><td>162</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>425</td><td>384</td><td>353</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term AUS</td><td>750</td><td>686</td><td>667</td></tr><tr><td>Liquidity products</td><td>235</td><td>238</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>Total AUS</td><td>$ 985</td><td>$924</td><td>$907</td></tr></table>



2013 versus 2012. Net revenues in Investment Management were $5.46 billion for 2013, 5% higher than 2012, reflecting higher management and other fees, primarily due to higher average assets under supervision. During the year, total assets under supervision increased $77 billion to $1.04 trillion. Long-term assets under supervision increased $81 billion, including net inflows of $41 billion \(^{1} \), reflecting inflows in fixed income and equity assets, partially offset by outflows in alternative investment assets. Net market appreciation of $40 billion during the year was primarily in equity assets. Liquidity products decreased $4 billion.

During 2013, Investment Management operated in an environment generally characterized by improved asset prices, particularly in equities, resulting in appreciation in the value of client assets. In addition, the mix of average assets under supervision shifted slightly compared with 2012 from liquidity products to long-term assets under supervision, primarily due to growth in equity and fixed income assets. In the future, if asset prices were to decline, or investors favor asset classes that typically generate lower fees or investors withdraw their assets, net revenues in Investment Management would likely be negatively impacted. In addition, continued concerns about the global economic outlook could result in downward pressure on assets under supervision.

Operating expenses were $4.35 billion for 2013, up slightly compared to 2012, due to increased compensation and benefits expenses, primarily resulting from higher net revenues. Pre-tax earnings were $1.11 billion in 2013, 20% higher than 2012.

2012 versus 2011. Net revenues in Investment Management were $5.22 billion for 2012, 4% higher than 2011, due to significantly higher incentive fees, partially offset by lower transaction revenues and slightly lower management and other fees. During 2012, assets under supervision increased $70 billion to $965 billion. Long-term assets under supervision increased $67 billion, including net inflows of $18 billion \(^{2} \), reflecting inflows in fixed income assets, partially offset by outflows in equity assets. Net market appreciation of $49 billion during 2012 was primarily in fixed income and equity assets. In addition, liquidity products increased $3 billion.

During 2012, Investment Management operated in an environment generally characterized by improved asset prices, resulting in appreciation in the value of client assets. However, the mix of average assets under supervision shifted slightly from asset classes that typically generate higher fees, primarily equity and alternative investment assets, to asset classes that typically generate lower fees, primarily fixed income assets, compared with 2011.
Operating expenses were $4.29 billion for 2012, 7% higher than 2011, due to increased compensation and benefits expenses. Pre-tax earnings were $928 million in 2012, 8% lower than 2011.

## Geographic Data

See Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements for a summary of our total net revenues, pre-tax earnings and net earnings by geographic region.

## Regulatory Developments

Our businesses are subject to significant and evolving regulation. The U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), enacted in July 2010, significantly altered the financial regulatory regime within which we operate. In addition, other reforms have been adopted or are being considered by other regulators and policy makers worldwide. The Dodd-Frank Act and these other reforms may affect our businesses. We expect that the principal areas of impact from regulatory reform for us will be increased regulatory capital requirements and increased regulation and restriction on certain activities. However, given that many of the new and proposed rules are highly complex, the full impact of regulatory reform will not be known until the rules are implemented and market practices develop under the final regulations.

See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K for more information on the laws, rules and regulations and proposed laws, rules and regulations that apply to us and our operations. In addition, see “Equity Capital — Revised Capital Framework” below and Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for information about regulatory developments as they relate to our regulatory capital, leverage and liquidity ratios.

## Impact of Increased Regulation and Restriction on Certain Activities

There has been increased regulation of, and limitations on, our activities, including the Dodd-Frank prohibition on “proprietary trading” and the limitation on the sponsorship of, and investment in covered funds (as defined in the Volcker Rule). In addition, there are increased regulation of, and restrictions on, over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets and transactions, particularly related to swaps and security-based swaps.



Volcker Rule. In December 2013, the final rules to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule” were adopted. We are required to be in compliance with the rule (including the development of an extensive compliance program) by July 2015 with certain provisions of the rule subject to possible extensions through July 2017.

The Volcker rule prohibits “proprietary trading,” but will allow activities such as underwriting, market making and risk-mitigation hedging. In anticipation of the final rule, we evaluated this prohibition and determined that businesses that engage in “bright line” proprietary trading were most likely to be prohibited. In 2010 and 2011, we liquidated substantially all of our Global Macro Proprietary and Principal Strategies trading positions.

Based on what we know as of the date of this filing, we do not expect the impact of the prohibition of proprietary trading to be material to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, the rule is highly complex, and its impact will not be known until market practices are fully developed.

In addition to the prohibition on proprietary trading, the Volcker rule limits the sponsorship of, and investment in, “covered funds” (as defined in the rule) by banking entities, including Group Inc. and its subsidiaries. It also limits certain types of transactions between us and our sponsored funds, similar to the limitations on transactions between depository institutions and their affiliates as described below under “— Transactions with Affiliates.” Covered funds include our private equity funds, certain of our credit and real estate funds, and our hedge funds. The limitation on investments in covered funds requires us to reduce our investment in each such fund to 3% or less of the fund’s net asset value, and to reduce our aggregate investment in all such funds to 3% or less of our Tier 1 capital. In anticipation of the final rule, we limited our initial investment in certain new covered funds to 3% of the fund’s net asset value.
We continue to manage our existing funds, taking into account the transition periods under the Volcker Rule. As a result, in March 2012, we began redeeming certain interests in our hedge funds and will continue to do so.

For certain of our covered funds, in order to be compliant with the Volcker Rule by the prescribed compliance date, to the extent that the underlying investments of the particular funds are not sold, the firm may be required to sell its investments in such funds. If that occurs, the firm may receive a value for its investments that is less than the then carrying value as there could be a limited secondary market for these investments and the firm may be unable to sell them in orderly transactions.

Although our net revenues from investments in our private equity, credit, real estate and hedge funds may vary from period to period, our aggregate net revenues from these investments were not material to our aggregate total net revenues over the period from 1999 through 2013.

Swap Dealers and Derivatives Regulation. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides for significantly increased regulation of and restrictions on derivative markets, and we have registered certain subsidiaries as “swap dealers” under the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rules. See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K for a discussion of the requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act and the status of SEC and CFTC rulemaking, as well as non-U.S. regulation, in this area. The full application of new derivatives rules across different national and regulatory jurisdictions has not yet been fully established.



## Balance Sheet and Funding Sources

## Balance Sheet Management

One of our most important risk management disciplines is our ability to manage the size and composition of our balance sheet. While our asset base changes due to client activity, market fluctuations and business opportunities, the size and composition of our balance sheet reflect (i) our overall risk tolerance, (ii) our ability to access stable funding sources and (iii) the amount of equity capital we hold.

Although our balance sheet fluctuates on a day-to-day basis, our total assets at quarterly and year-end dates are generally not materially different from those occurring within our reporting periods.

In order to ensure appropriate risk management, we seek to maintain a liquid balance sheet and have processes in place to dynamically manage our assets and liabilities which include:

• quarterly planning;

• business-specific limits;

• monitoring of key metrics; and

• scenario analyses.

Quarterly Planning. We prepare a quarterly balance sheet plan that combines our projected total assets and composition of assets with our expected funding sources and capital levels for the upcoming quarter. The objectives of this quarterly planning process are:

• to develop our near-term balance sheet projections, taking into account the general state of the financial markets and expected business activity levels;

• to ensure that our projected assets are supported by an adequate amount and tenor of funding and that our projected capital and liquidity metrics are within management guidelines and regulatory requirements; and

• to allow business risk managers and managers from our independent control and support functions to objectively evaluate balance sheet limit requests from business managers in the context of the firm’s overall balance sheet constraints. These constraints include the firm’s liability profile and equity capital levels, maturities and plans for new debt and equity issuances, share repurchases, deposit trends and secured funding transactions.

To prepare our quarterly balance sheet plan, business risk managers and managers from our independent control and support functions meet with business managers to review current and prior period metrics and discuss expectations for the upcoming quarter. The specific metrics reviewed include asset and liability size and composition, aged inventory, limit utilization, risk and performance measures, and capital usage.

Our consolidated quarterly plan, including our balance sheet plans by business, funding and capital projections, and projected capital and liquidity metrics, is reviewed by the Firmwide Finance Committee. See “Overview and Structure of Risk Management” for an overview of our risk management structure.



Business-Specific Limits. The Firmwide Finance Committee sets asset and liability limits for each business and aged inventory limits for certain financial instruments as a disincentive to hold inventory over longer periods of time. These limits are set at levels which are generally close to actual operating levels in order to ensure prompt escalation and discussion among business managers and managers in our independent control and support functions on a routine basis. The Firmwide Finance Committee reviews and approves balance sheet limits on a quarterly basis and may also approve changes in limits on an ad hoc basis in response to changing business needs or market conditions.

Monitoring of Key Metrics. We monitor key balance sheet metrics daily both by business and on a consolidated basis, including asset and liability size and composition, aged inventory, limit utilization, risk measures and capital usage. We allocate assets to businesses and review and analyze movements resulting from new business activity as well as market fluctuations.

Scenario Analyses. We conduct scenario analyses to determine how we would manage the size and composition of our balance sheet and maintain appropriate funding, liquidity and capital positions in a variety of situations:

• These scenarios cover short-term and long-term time horizons using various macroeconomic and firm-specific assumptions. We use these analyses to assist us in developing longer-term funding plans, including the level of unsecured debt issuances, the size of our secured funding program and the amount and composition of our equity capital. We also consider any potential future constraints, such as limits on our ability to grow our asset base in the absence of appropriate funding.

• Through our capital planning and stress testing process, which incorporates our internally designed stress tests and those required under the CCAR and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests (DFAST) as well as our resolution and recovery planning, we further analyze how we would manage our balance sheet and risks through the duration of a severe crisis, and we develop plans to access funding, generate liquidity, and/or redeploy or issue equity capital, as appropriate.

## Balance Sheet Allocation

In addition to preparing our consolidated statements of financial condition in accordance with U.S. GAAP, we prepare a balance sheet that generally allocates assets to our businesses, which is a non-GAAP presentation and may not be comparable to similar non-GAAP presentations used by other companies. We believe that presenting our assets on this basis is meaningful because it is consistent with the way management views and manages risks associated with the firm’s assets and better enables investors to assess the liquidity of the firm’s assets.

Below is a description of the captions in the following table, which presents this balance sheet allocation.

Excess Liquidity and Cash. We maintain substantial excess liquidity to meet a broad range of potential cash outflows and collateral needs in the event of a stressed environment. See “Liquidity Risk Management” below for details on the composition and sizing of our excess liquidity pool or “Global Core Excess” (GCE). In addition to our excess liquidity, we maintain other operating cash balances, primarily for use in specific currencies, entities, or jurisdictions where we do not have immediate access to parent company liquidity.

Secured Client Financing. We provide collateralized financing for client positions, including margin loans secured by client collateral, securities borrowed, and resale agreements primarily collateralized by government obligations. As a result of client activities, we are required to segregate cash and securities to satisfy regulatory requirements. Our secured client financing arrangements, which are generally short-term, are accounted for at fair value or at amounts that approximate fair value, and include daily margin requirements to mitigate counterparty credit risk.



Institutional Client Services. In Institutional Client Services, we maintain inventory positions to facilitate market-making in fixed income, equity, currency and commodity products. Additionally, as part of market-making activities, we enter into resale or securities borrowing arrangements to obtain securities which we can use to cover transactions in which we or our clients have sold securities that have not yet been purchased. The receivables in Institutional Client Services primarily relate to securities transactions.

Investing & Lending. In Investing & Lending, we make investments and originate loans to provide financing to clients. These investments and loans are typically longer-term in nature. We make investments, directly and indirectly through funds that we manage, in debt securities, loans, public and private equity securities, real estate entities and other investments.

Other Assets. Other assets are generally less liquid, non-financial assets, including property, leasehold improvements and equipment, goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, income tax-related receivables, equity-method investments, assets classified as held for sale and miscellaneous receivables.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Excess liquidity (Global Core Excess)</td><td>$184,070</td><td>$174,622</td></tr><tr><td>Other cash</td><td>5,793</td><td>6,839</td></tr><tr><td>Excess liquidity and cash</td><td>189,863</td><td>181,461</td></tr><tr><td>Secured client financing</td><td>263,386</td><td>229,442</td></tr><tr><td>Inventory</td><td>255,534</td><td>318,323</td></tr><tr><td>Secured financing agreements</td><td>79,635</td><td>76,277</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables</td><td>39,557</td><td>36,273</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional Client Services</td><td>374,726</td><td>430,873</td></tr><tr><td>Public equity \( ^{1} \)</td><td>4,308</td><td>5,948</td></tr><tr><td>Private equity</td><td>16,236</td><td>17,401</td></tr><tr><td>Debt \( ^{2} \)</td><td>23,274</td><td>25,386</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables and other \( ^{3} \)</td><td>17,205</td><td>8,421</td></tr><tr><td>Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>61,023</td><td>57,156</td></tr><tr><td>Total inventory and related assets</td><td>435,749</td><td>488,029</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>22,509</td><td>39,623 \( ^{4} \)</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$911,507</td><td>$938,555</td></tr></table>

1. December 2012 includes $2.08 billion related to our investment in the ordinary shares of ICBC, which was sold in the first half of 2013.

2. Includes $15.76 billion and $16.50 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, of direct loans primarily extended to corporate and private wealth management clients that are accounted for at fair value.

3. Includes $14.90 billion and $6.50 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, of loans held for investment that are accounted for at amortized cost, net of estimated uncollectible amounts. Such loans are primarily comprised of corporate loans and loans to private wealth management clients.

4. Includes assets related to our Americas reinsurance business classified as held for sale, in which a majority stake was sold in April 2013. See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements for further information.



The tables below present the reconciliation of this balance sheet allocation to our U.S. GAAP balance sheet. In the tables below, total assets for Institutional Client Services and Investing & Lending represent the inventory and related assets. These amounts differ from total assets by business segment disclosed in Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements because total assets disclosed in Note 25 include allocations of our excess liquidity and cash, secured client financing and other assets.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="6">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Excess Liquidity and Cash \( ^{1} \)</td><td>Secured Client Financing</td><td>Institutional Client Services</td><td>Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>Other Assets</td><td>Total Assets</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents</td><td>$ 61,133</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 61,133</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes</td><td>—</td><td>49,671</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>49,671</td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell and federal funds sold</td><td>64,595</td><td>61,510</td><td>35,081</td><td>546</td><td>—</td><td>161,732</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed</td><td>25,113</td><td>94,899</td><td>44,554</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>164,566</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from brokers, dealers and clearing organizations</td><td>—</td><td>6,650</td><td>17,098</td><td>92</td><td>—</td><td>23,840</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties</td><td>—</td><td>50,656</td><td>22,459</td><td>15,820</td><td>—</td><td>88,935</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>39,022</td><td>—</td><td>255,534</td><td>44,565</td><td>—</td><td>339,121</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>22,509</td><td>22,509</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$189,863</td><td>$263,386</td><td>$374,726</td><td>$61,023</td><td>$22,509</td><td>$911,507</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="6">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Excess Liquidity and Cash \( ^{1} \)</td><td>Secured Client Financing</td><td>Institutional Client Services</td><td>Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>Other Assets</td><td>Total Assets</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents</td><td>$ 72,669</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 72,669</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes</td><td>—</td><td>49,671</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>49,671</td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell and federal funds sold</td><td>28,018</td><td>84,064</td><td>28,960</td><td>292</td><td>—</td><td>141,334</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed</td><td>41,699</td><td>47,877</td><td>47,317</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>136,893</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from brokers, dealers and clearing organizations</td><td>—</td><td>4,400</td><td>14,044</td><td>36</td><td>—</td><td>18,480</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties</td><td>—</td><td>43,430</td><td>22,229</td><td>7,215</td><td>—</td><td>72,874</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>39,075</td><td>—</td><td>318,323</td><td>49,613</td><td>—</td><td>407,011</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>39,623</td><td>39,623</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$181,461</td><td>$229,442</td><td>$430,873</td><td>$57,156</td><td>$39,623</td><td>$938,555</td></tr></table>

1. Includes unencumbered cash, U.S. government and federal agency obligations (including highly liquid U.S. federal agency mortgage-backed obligations), and German, French, Japanese and United Kingdom government obligations.

As of December 2013, total assets decreased $27.05 billion from December 2012 due to a decrease in assets related to institutional client services and other assets, partially offset by an increase in secured client financing and excess liquidity and cash. Assets related to institutional client services decreased $56.15 billion primarily due to a decrease in financial instruments owned, at fair value as a result of decreases in U.S. government and federal agency obligations, non-U.S. government and agency obligations, derivatives and commodities. In addition, other assets decreased $17.11 billion primarily due to the sale of a majority stake in our Americas reinsurance business in April 2013. Secured client financing increased $33.94 billion reflecting an increase in collateralized agreements, primarily due to an increase in client activity. Excess liquidity and cash also increased $8.40 billion reflecting an increase in collateralized agreements, partially offset by a decrease in cash and cash equivalents.



## Balance Sheet Analysis and Metrics

As of December 2013, total assets on our consolidated statements of financial condition were $911.51 billion, a decrease of $27.05 billion from December 2012. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease in financial instruments owned, at fair value of $67.89 billion, primarily due to decreases in U.S. government and federal agency obligations, non-U.S. government and agency obligations, derivatives and commodities, and a decrease in other assets of $17.11 billion, primarily due to the sale of a majority stake in our Americas reinsurance business in April 2013. These decreases were partially offset by an increase in collateralized agreements of $48.07 billion, due to firm and client activity.

As of December 2013, total liabilities on our consolidated statements of financial condition were $833.04 billion, a decrease of $29.80 billion from December 2012. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease in other liabilities and accrued expenses of $26.35 billion, primarily due to the sale of a majority stake in both our Americas reinsurance business in April 2013 and our European insurance business in December 2013, and a decrease in collateralized financings of $9.24 billion, primarily due to firm financing activities. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in payables to customers and counterparties of $10.21 billion.

As of December 2013, our total securities sold under agreements to repurchase, accounted for as collateralized financings, were $164.78 billion, which was 5% higher and 4% higher than the daily average amount of repurchase agreements during the quarter ended and year ended December 2013, respectively. The increase in our repurchase agreements relative to the daily average during 2013 was primarily due to an increase in client activity at the end of the period. As of December 2012, our total securities sold under agreements to repurchase, accounted for as collateralized financings, were $171.81 billion, which was essentially unchanged and 3% higher than the daily average amount of repurchase agreements during the quarter ended and year ended December 2012, respectively. The increase in our repurchase agreements relative to the daily average during 2012 was primarily due to an increase in firm financing activities at the end of the period. The level of our repurchase agreements fluctuates between and within periods, primarily due to providing clients with access to highly liquid collateral, such as U.S. government and federal agency, and investment-grade sovereign obligations through collateralized financing activities.
The table below presents information on our assets, unsecured long-term borrowings, shareholders' equity and leverage ratios.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$911,507</td><td>$938,555</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>$160,965</td><td>$167,305</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders’ equity</td><td>$ 78,467</td><td>$ 75,716</td></tr><tr><td>Leverage ratio</td><td>11.6x</td><td>12.4x</td></tr><tr><td>Debt to equity ratio</td><td>2.1x</td><td>2.2x</td></tr></table>

Leverage ratio. The leverage ratio equals total assets divided by total shareholders' equity and measures the proportion of equity and debt the firm is using to finance assets. This ratio is different from the Tier 1 leverage ratio included in “Equity Capital — Consolidated Regulatory Capital Ratios” below, and further described in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements.

Debt to equity ratio. The debt to equity ratio equals unsecured long-term borrowings divided by total shareholders' equity.



## Funding Sources

Our primary sources of funding are secured financings, unsecured long-term and short-term borrowings, and deposits. We seek to maintain broad and diversified funding sources globally across products, programs, markets, currencies and creditors to avoid funding concentrations.

We raise funding through a number of different products, including:

• collateralized financings, such as repurchase agreements, securities loaned and other secured financings;

• long-term unsecured debt (including structured notes) through syndicated U.S. registered offerings, U.S. registered and Rule 144A medium-term note programs, offshore medium-term note offerings and other debt offerings;

• savings and demand deposits through deposit sweep programs and time deposits through internal and third-party broker-dealers; and

• short-term unsecured debt through U.S. and non-U.S. hybrid financial instruments, commercial paper and promissory note issuances and other methods.

Our funding is primarily raised in U.S. dollar, Euro, British pound and Japanese yen. We generally distribute our funding products through our own sales force and third-party distributors to a large, diverse creditor base in a variety of markets in the Americas, Europe and Asia. We believe that our relationships with our creditors are critical to our liquidity. Our creditors include banks, governments, securities lenders, pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds and individuals. We have imposed various internal guidelines to monitor creditor concentration across our funding programs.
Secured Funding. We fund a significant amount of inventory on a secured basis. Secured funding is less sensitive to changes in our credit quality than unsecured funding, due to our posting of collateral to our lenders. Nonetheless, we continually analyze the refinancing risk of our secured funding activities, taking into account trade tenors, maturity profiles, counterparty concentrations, collateral eligibility and counterparty rollover probabilities. We seek to mitigate our refinancing risk by executing term trades with staggered maturities, diversifying counterparties, raising excess secured funding, and pre-funding residual risk through our GCE.

We seek to raise secured funding with a term appropriate for the liquidity of the assets that are being financed, and we seek longer maturities for secured funding collateralized by asset classes that may be harder to fund on a secured basis especially during times of market stress. Substantially all of our secured funding, excluding funding collateralized by liquid government obligations, is executed for tenors of one month or greater. Assets that may be harder to fund on a secured basis during times of market stress include certain financial instruments in the following categories: mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities, non-investment grade corporate debt securities, equities and convertible debentures and emerging market securities. Assets that are classified as level 3 in the fair value hierarchy are generally funded on an unsecured basis. See Notes 5 and 6 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about the classification of financial instruments in the fair value hierarchy and “— Unsecured Long-Term Borrowings” below for further information about the use of unsecured long-term borrowings as a source of funding.



The weighted average maturity of our secured funding, excluding funding collateralized by highly liquid securities eligible for inclusion in our GCE, exceeded 100 days as of December 2013.

A majority of our secured funding for securities not eligible for inclusion in the GCE is executed through term repurchase agreements and securities lending contracts. We also raise financing through other types of collateralized financings, such as secured loans and notes.
GS Bank USA has access to funding through the Federal Reserve Bank discount window. While we do not rely on this funding in our liquidity planning and stress testing, we maintain policies and procedures necessary to access this funding and test discount window borrowing procedures.

Unsecured Long-Term Borrowings. We issue unsecured long-term borrowings as a source of funding for inventory and other assets and to finance a portion of our GCE. We issue in different tenors, currencies and products to maximize the diversification of our investor base. The table below presents our quarterly unsecured long-term borrowings maturity profile through the fourth quarter of 2019 as of December 2013.

Unsecured Long-Term Borrowings Maturity Profile
$ in millions



The weighted average maturity of our unsecured long-term borrowings as of December 2013 was approximately eight years. To mitigate refinancing risk, we seek to limit the principal amount of debt maturing on any one day or during any week or year. We enter into interest rate swaps to convert a substantial portion of our long-term borrowings into floating-rate obligations in order to manage our exposure to interest rates. See Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our unsecured long-term borrowings.



Deposits. As part of our efforts to diversify our funding base, deposits have become a more meaningful share of our funding activities mainly through GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs International Bank (GSIB). The table below presents the type and sources of our deposits.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Type of Deposit</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Savings and Demand  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>Time  \( {}^{2} \)</td></tr><tr><td>Private bank deposits  \( {}^{3} \)</td><td>30,475</td><td>212</td></tr><tr><td>Certificates of deposit</td><td>—</td><td>19,709</td></tr><tr><td>Deposit sweep programs  \( {}^{4} \)</td><td>15,511</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional</td><td>33</td><td>4,867</td></tr><tr><td>Total  \( {}^{5} \)</td><td>46,019</td><td>24,788</td></tr></table>

1. Represents deposits with no stated maturity.

2. Weighted average maturity of approximately three years.

3. Substantially all were from overnight deposit sweep programs related to private wealth management clients.

4. Represents long-term contractual agreements with several U.S. broker-dealers who sweep client cash to FDIC-insured deposits.

5. Deposits insured by the FDIC as of December 2013 were approximately $41.22 billion.

Unsecured Short-Term Borrowings. A significant portion of our short-term borrowings was originally long-term debt that is scheduled to mature within one year of the reporting date. We use short-term borrowings to finance liquid assets and for other cash management purposes. We issue hybrid financial instruments, commercial paper and promissory notes.

As of December 2013, our unsecured short-term borrowings, including the current portion of unsecured long-term borrowings, were $44.69 billion. See Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our unsecured short-term borrowings.

## Equity Capital

Capital adequacy is of critical importance to us. Our objective is to be conservatively capitalized in terms of the amount and composition of our equity base, both relative to our risk exposures and compared to external requirements and benchmarks. Accordingly, we have in place a comprehensive capital management policy that provides a framework and set of guidelines to assist us in determining the level and composition of capital that we target and maintain.

We determine the appropriate level and composition of our equity capital by considering multiple factors including our current and future consolidated regulatory capital requirements, the results of our capital planning and stress testing process and other factors such as rating agency guidelines, subsidiary capital requirements, the business environment, conditions in the financial markets, and assessments of potential future losses due to adverse changes in our business and market environments. Our capital planning and stress testing process incorporates our internally designed stress tests and those required under CCAR and DFAST, and is also designed to identify and measure material risks associated with our business activities, including market risk, credit risk and operational risk. We project sources and uses of capital given a range of business environments, including stressed conditions. In addition, as part of our comprehensive capital management policy, we maintain a contingency capital plan that provides a framework for analyzing and responding to an actual or perceived capital shortfall.

As required by the Federal Reserve Board’s annual CCAR guidelines, U.S. bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or greater submit capital plans for review by the Federal Reserve Board. The purpose of the Federal Reserve Board’s review is to ensure that these institutions have a robust, forward-looking capital planning process that accounts for their unique risks and that permits continued operations during times of economic and financial stress.



The Federal Reserve Board evaluates a bank holding company based, in part, on whether it has the capital necessary to continue operating under the baseline and stress scenarios provided by the Federal Reserve Board and under the scenarios developed by the bank holding company. This evaluation also takes into account a bank holding company’s process for identifying risk, its controls and governance for capital planning, and its guidelines for making capital planning decisions. In addition, as part of its review, the Federal Reserve Board evaluates a bank holding company’s plan to make capital distributions (i.e., dividend payments, repurchases or redemptions of stock, subordinated debt or other capital securities) across a range of macroeconomic scenarios and firm-specific assumptions. Additionally, the Federal Reserve Board evaluates a bank holding company’s plan to issue capital.

In addition, the DFAST rules require us to conduct stress tests on a semi-annual basis and publish a summary of certain results. The annual DFAST submission is incorporated into the CCAR submission. The Federal Reserve Board also conducts its own annual stress tests and publishes a summary of certain results.

As part of our initial 2013 CCAR submission, the Federal Reserve Board informed us that it did not object to our proposed capital actions, including the repurchase of outstanding common stock, a potential increase in our quarterly common stock dividend and the possible issuance, redemption and modification of other capital securities through the first quarter of 2014. As required by the Federal Reserve Board, we resubmitted our 2013 capital plan in September 2013, incorporating certain enhancements to our stress testing process. In December 2013, the Federal Reserve Board informed us that it did not object to our resubmitted capital plan. We submitted our 2014 CCAR to the Federal Reserve in January 2014 and expect to publish a summary of our annual DFAST results in March 2014. See “Business — Available Information” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

In addition, we submitted the results of our mid-cycle DFAST to the Federal Reserve Board in July 2013 and published a summary of our mid-cycle DFAST results under our internally developed severely adverse scenario in September 2013. Our internally developed severely adverse scenario is designed to stress the firm’s risks and idiosyncratic vulnerabilities and assess the firm’s pro-forma capital position and ratios under the hypothetical stressed environment. We provide additional information on our internal stress testing process, our internally developed severely adverse scenario used for mid-cycle DFAST and a summary of the results on our web site as described under “Business — Available Information” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

Our consolidated regulatory capital requirements are determined by the Federal Reserve Board, as described below.

As of December 2013, our total shareholders’ equity was $78.47 billion (consisting of common shareholders’ equity of $71.27 billion and preferred stock of $7.20 billion). As of December 2012, our total shareholders’ equity was $75.72 billion (consisting of common shareholders’ equity of $69.52 billion and preferred stock of $6.20 billion). See “— Consolidated Regulatory Capital Ratios” below for information regarding the impact of regulatory developments.

## Consolidated Regulatory Capital

The Federal Reserve Board is the primary regulator of Group Inc., a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHC Act) and a financial holding company under amendments to the BHC Act effected by the U.S. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. As a bank holding company, we are subject to consolidated risk-based regulatory capital requirements. These requirements are computed in accordance with the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital regulations which, as of December 2013, were based on the Basel I Capital Accord of the Basel Committee and also reflected the Federal Reserve Board’s revised market risk regulatory capital requirements which became effective on January 1, 2013. These capital requirements are expressed as capital ratios that compare measures of capital to risk-weighted assets (RWAs). The capital regulations also include requirements with respect to leverage. The firm’s capital levels are also subject to qualitative judgments by its regulators about components of capital, risk weightings and other factors. Beginning January 1, 2014, the Federal Reserve Board implemented revised consolidated regulatory capital and leverage requirements.

See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the firm’s current RWAs, required minimum capital ratios and the Revised Capital Framework (defined below).



## Consolidated Regulatory Capital Ratios

The table below presents information about our regulatory capital ratios and Tier 1 leverage ratio under Basel I, as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board. The information as of December 2013 reflects the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements. The information as of December 2012 is prior to the implementation of these revised market risk regulatory capital requirements. In the table below:

• Equity investments in certain entities primarily represent a portion of our nonconsolidated equity investments.

• Disallowed deferred tax assets represent certain deferred tax assets that are excluded from regulatory capital based upon an assessment which, in addition to other factors, includes an estimate of future taxable income.

• Debt valuation adjustment represents the cumulative change in the fair value of our unsecured borrowings attributable to the impact of changes in our own credit spreads (net of tax at the applicable tax rate).

• Other adjustments within our Tier 1 common capital include net unrealized gains/(losses) on available-for-sale securities (net of tax at the applicable tax rate), the cumulative change in our pension and postretirement liabilities (net of tax at the applicable tax rate) and investments in certain nonconsolidated entities.

• Qualifying subordinated debt represents subordinated debt issued by Group Inc. with an original term to maturity of five years or greater. The outstanding amount of subordinated debt qualifying for Tier 2 capital is reduced, or discounted, upon reaching a remaining maturity of five years. See Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information about our subordinated debt.

As of December

<table><tr><td>$ in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Common shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$ 71,267</td><td>$ 69,516</td></tr><tr><td>Goodwill</td><td>(3,705)</td><td>(3,702)</td></tr><tr><td>Identifiable intangible assets</td><td>(671)</td><td>(1,397)</td></tr><tr><td>Equity investments in certain entities</td><td>(3,314)</td><td>(4,805)</td></tr><tr><td>Disallowed deferred tax assets</td><td>(498)</td><td>(1,261)</td></tr><tr><td>Debt valuation adjustment</td><td>10</td><td>(180)</td></tr><tr><td>Other adjustments</td><td>159</td><td>(124)</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 Common Capital</td><td>63,248</td><td>58,047</td></tr><tr><td>Perpetual non-cumulative preferred stock</td><td>7,200</td><td>6,200</td></tr><tr><td>Junior subordinated debt issued to trusts  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>2,063</td><td>2,750</td></tr><tr><td>Other adjustments</td><td>(40)</td><td>(20)</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 Capital</td><td>72,471</td><td>66,977</td></tr><tr><td>Qualifying subordinated debt</td><td>12,773</td><td>13,342</td></tr><tr><td>Junior subordinated debt issued to trusts  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>687</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other adjustments</td><td>172</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 2 Capital</td><td>13,632</td><td>13,429</td></tr><tr><td>Total Capital</td><td>$ 86,103</td><td>$ 80,406</td></tr><tr><td>Credit RWAs</td><td>$ 268,247</td><td>$ 287,526</td></tr><tr><td>Market RWAs</td><td>164,979</td><td>112,402</td></tr><tr><td>Total RWAs</td><td>$ 433,226</td><td>$ 399,928</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 Common Ratio  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>14.6%</td><td>14.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 Capital Ratio</td><td>16.7%</td><td>16.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Total Capital Ratio</td><td>19.9%</td><td>20.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 Leverage Ratio  \( {}^{3} \)</td><td>8.1%</td><td>7.3%</td></tr></table>

1. On January 1, 2013, we began to incorporate the Dodd-Frank Act’s phase-out of regulatory capital treatment for junior subordinated debt issued to trusts by allowing for only 75% of these capital instruments to be included in Tier 1 capital and 25% to be designated as Tier 2 capital in the calculation of our current capital ratios. In July 2013, the Agencies finalized the phase-out provisions of these capital instruments. See Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information about the junior subordinated debt issued to trusts.

2. The Tier 1 common ratio equals Tier 1 common capital divided by RWAs. We believe that the Tier 1 common ratio is meaningful because it is one of the measures that we, our regulators and investors use to assess capital adequacy. The Tier 1 common ratio is a non-GAAP measure and may not be comparable to similar non-GAAP measures used by other companies.

3. See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information about the firm’s Tier 1 leverage ratio.



Our Tier 1 capital ratio was 16.7%, unchanged compared with December 2012 primarily reflecting an increase in RWAs, offset by an increase in Tier 1 capital. The increase in RWAs was primarily driven by the implementation of the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements. These requirements are a significant part of the regulatory capital changes that will ultimately be reflected in our Basel III capital ratios.

The table below presents the changes in Tier 1 common capital, Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital during 2013 and 2012.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">Year Ended</td></tr><tr><td>December 2013</td><td>December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 Common Capital</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of period</td><td>$58,047</td><td>$55,162</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in common shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>1,751</td><td>2,237</td></tr><tr><td>(Increase)/decrease in goodwill</td><td>(3)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in identifiable intangible assets</td><td>726</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>(Increase)/decrease in equity investments in certain entities</td><td>1,491</td><td>(249)</td></tr><tr><td>(Increase)/decrease in disallowed deferred tax assets</td><td>763</td><td>(188)</td></tr><tr><td>Change in debt valuation adjustment</td><td>190</td><td>484</td></tr><tr><td>Change in other adjustments</td><td>283</td><td>232</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of period</td><td>$63,248</td><td>$58,047</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 Capital</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of period</td><td>$66,977</td><td>$63,262</td></tr><tr><td>Net increase in Tier 1 common capital</td><td>5,201</td><td>2,885</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in perpetual non-cumulative preferred stock</td><td>1,000</td><td>3,100</td></tr><tr><td>Change in junior subordinated debt issued to trusts</td><td>—</td><td>(2,250)</td></tr><tr><td>Redesignation of junior subordinated debt issued to trusts</td><td>(687)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Change in other adjustments</td><td>(20)</td><td>(20)</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of period</td><td>72,471</td><td>66,977</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 2 Capital</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of period</td><td>13,429</td><td>13,881</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in qualifying subordinated debt</td><td>(569)</td><td>(486)</td></tr><tr><td>Redesignation of junior subordinated debt issued to trusts</td><td>687</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Change in other adjustments</td><td>85</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of period</td><td>13,632</td><td>13,429</td></tr><tr><td>Total Capital</td><td>$86,103</td><td>$80,406</td></tr></table>

See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K and Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information about our regulatory capital ratios and related regulatory requirements, including pending and proposed regulatory changes.

## Risk-Weighted Assets

RWAs under the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital requirements are calculated based on measures of credit risk and market risk.

RWAs for credit risk reflect amounts for on-balance-sheet and off-balance-sheet exposures. Credit risk requirements for on-balance-sheet assets, such as receivables and cash, are generally based on the balance sheet value. Credit risk requirements for securities financing transactions are determined based upon the positive net exposure for each trade, and include the effect of counterparty netting and collateral, as applicable. For off-balance-sheet exposures, including commitments and guarantees, a credit equivalent amount is calculated based on the notional amount of each trade. Requirements for OTC derivatives are based on a combination of positive net exposure and a percentage of the notional amount of each trade, and include the effect of counterparty netting and collateral, as applicable. All such assets and exposures are then assigned a risk weight depending on, among other things, whether the counterparty is a sovereign, bank or a qualifying securities firm or other entity (or if collateral is held, depending on the nature of the collateral).

As of December 2012, RWAs for market risk were determined by reference to the firm’s Value-at-Risk (VaR) model, supplemented by the standardized measurement method used to determine RWAs for specific risk for certain positions. Under the Federal Reserve Board’s revised market risk regulatory capital requirements, which became effective on January 1, 2013, the methodology for calculating RWAs for market risk was changed. RWAs for market risk are determined using VaR, stressed VaR, incremental risk, comprehensive risk and a standardized measurement method for specific risk.



VaR is the potential loss in value of inventory positions, as well as certain other financial assets and financial liabilities, due to adverse market movements over a defined time horizon with a specified confidence level. For both risk management purposes and regulatory capital calculations we use a single VaR model which captures risks including interest rates, equity prices, currency rates and commodity prices. VaR used for regulatory capital requirements (regulatory VaR) differs from risk management VaR due to different time horizons and confidence levels (10-day and 99% for regulatory VaR vs. one-day and 95% for risk management VaR), as well as differences in the scope of positions on which VaR is calculated. Stressed VaR is the potential loss in value of inventory positions during a period of significant market stress. Incremental risk is the potential loss in value of non-securitized inventory positions due to the default or credit migration of issuers of financial instruments over a one-year time horizon. Comprehensive risk is the potential loss in value, due to price risk and defaults, within the firm's credit correlation positions. The standardized measurement method is used to determine RWAs for specific risk for certain positions by applying supervisory defined risk-weighting factors to such positions after applicable netting is performed.

We provide additional information on regulatory VaR, stressed VaR, incremental risk, comprehensive risk and the standardized measurement method for specific risk on our web site as described under “Business — Available Information” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K.
The table below presents information on the components of RWAs within our consolidated regulatory capital ratios, which were based on Basel I, as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board, and also reflected the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements.

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Credit RWAs</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC derivatives</td><td>$ 94,753</td></tr><tr><td>Commitments and guarantees 1</td><td>47,397</td></tr><tr><td>Securities financing transactions 2</td><td>30,010</td></tr><tr><td>Other 3</td><td>96,087</td></tr><tr><td>Total Credit RWAs</td><td>268,247</td></tr><tr><td>Market RWAs</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory VaR</td><td>13,425</td></tr><tr><td>Stressed VaR</td><td>38,250</td></tr><tr><td>Incremental risk</td><td>9,463</td></tr><tr><td>Comprehensive risk</td><td>18,150</td></tr><tr><td>Specific risk</td><td>85,691</td></tr><tr><td>Total Market RWAs</td><td>164,979</td></tr><tr><td>Total RWAs 4</td><td>$433,226</td></tr></table>

1. Principally includes certain commitments to extend credit and letters of credit.

2. Represents resale and repurchase agreements and securities borrowed and loaned transactions.

3. Principally includes receivables from customers, certain loans, other assets, and cash and cash equivalents.

4. Under the current regulatory capital framework, there is no explicit requirement for Operational risk.



The table below presents the changes in these RWAs from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013.

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Period Ended December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-Weighted Assets</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, December 31, 2012</td><td>$399,928</td></tr><tr><td>Credit RWAs</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in OTC derivatives</td><td>(12,516)</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in commitments and guarantees</td><td>1,390</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in securities financing transactions</td><td>(17,059)</td></tr><tr><td>Change in other</td><td>8,906</td></tr><tr><td>Change in Credit RWAs</td><td>(19,279)</td></tr><tr><td>Market RWAs</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Increase related to the revised market risk rules</td><td>127,608</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in regulatory VaR</td><td>(2,038)</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in stressed VaR</td><td>(13,700)</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in incremental risk</td><td>(17,350)</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in comprehensive risk</td><td>(9,568)</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease in specific risk</td><td>(32,375)</td></tr><tr><td>Change in Market RWAs</td><td>52,577</td></tr><tr><td>Total RWAs, end of period</td><td>$433,226</td></tr></table>

Credit RWAs decreased $19.28 billion compared with December 2012, primarily due to a decrease in securities financing exposure. Market RWAs increased by $52.58 billion compared with December 2012, reflecting the impact of the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements, which became effective on January 1, 2013, partially offset by, among other things, a decrease in specific risk due to a decrease in inventory.

We also attribute RWAs to our business segments. As of December 2013, approximately 80% of RWAs were attributed to our Institutional Client Services segment and substantially all of the remaining RWAs were attributed to our Investing & Lending segment.

## Revised Capital Framework

The Agencies have approved revised risk-based capital and leverage ratio regulations establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations (Revised Capital Framework). These regulations are largely based on the Basel Committee’s December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards (Basel III), and significantly revise the risk-based capital and leverage ratio requirements applicable to bank holding companies as compared to the previous U.S. risk-based capital and leverage ratio rules, and thereby, implement certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Under the Revised Capital Framework, Group Inc. is an “Advanced approach” banking organization. See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about the Revised Capital Framework, including the difference between the “Standardized approach” and the Basel III Advanced approach.

Estimated Capital Ratios. We estimate that the firm’s ratio of Basel III Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) to RWAs calculated under the Basel III Advanced approach (Basel III Advanced CET1 ratio) as of December 2013 would have been 9.8% on a fully phased-in basis (i.e., after the expiration of transition provisions). The estimate of the Basel III Advanced CET1 ratio will continue to evolve as we assess the details of these rules and discuss their interpretation and application with our regulators.

Management believes that the estimated Basel III Advanced CET1 ratio is meaningful because it is one of the measures that we, our regulators and investors use to assess capital adequacy. The estimated Basel III Advanced CET1 ratio is a non-GAAP measure as of December 2013 and may not be comparable to similar non-GAAP measures used by other companies (as of that date). It will become a formal regulatory measure for the firm on April 1, 2014.



The table below presents a reconciliation of our common shareholders’ equity to the estimated Basel III Advanced CET1 on a fully phased-in basis.

<table><tr><td>$ in millions</td><td>As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Common shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$ 71,267</td></tr><tr><td>Goodwill</td><td>(3,705)</td></tr><tr><td>Identifiable intangible assets</td><td>(671)</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred tax liabilities</td><td>908</td></tr><tr><td>Goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, net of deferred tax liabilities</td><td>(3,468)</td></tr><tr><td>Deductions for investments in nonconsolidated financial institutions  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>(9,091)</td></tr><tr><td>Other adjustments  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>(489)</td></tr><tr><td>Basel III CET1</td><td>$ 58,219</td></tr><tr><td>Basel III Advanced RWAs</td><td>$594,662</td></tr><tr><td>Basel III Advanced CET1 Ratio</td><td>9.8%</td></tr></table>

1. This deduction, which represents the fully phased-in requirement, is the amount by which our investments in the capital of nonconsolidated financial institutions exceed certain prescribed thresholds. During both the transitional period and thereafter, no deduction will be required if the applicable proportion of our investments in the capital of nonconsolidated financial institutions falls below the prescribed thresholds.

2. Principally includes credit valuation adjustments on derivative liabilities and debt valuation adjustments, as well as other required credit risk-based deductions.

In addition, beginning with the first quarter of 2015, subject to transitional provisions, we will also be required to disclose ratios calculated under the Standardized approach. Our estimated CET1 ratio under the Standardized approach (Standardized CET1 ratio) on a fully phased-in basis was approximately 60 basis points lower than our estimated Basel III Advanced CET1 ratio in the table above.

Both the Basel III Advanced CET1 ratio and the Standardized CET1 ratio are subject to transitional provisions. Reflecting the transitional provisions that became effective January 1, 2014, our estimated Basel III Advanced CET1 ratio and our estimated Standardized CET1 ratio are approximately 150 basis points higher than the respective CET1 ratios on a fully phased-in basis as of December 2013.
Effective January 1, 2014, Group Inc.'s capital and leverage ratios are calculated under, and subject to the minimums as defined in, the Revised Capital Framework. The changes to the definition of capital and minimum ratios, subject to transitional provisions, were effective beginning January 1, 2014. RWAs are based on Basel I Adjusted, as defined in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements. The firm will transition to Basel III beginning on April 1, 2014. Including the impact of the changes to the definition of regulatory capital and reflecting the transitional provisions effective in 2014, our estimated CET1 ratio (CET1 to RWAs on a Basel I Adjusted basis) as of December 2013 would have been essentially unchanged as compared to our Tier 1 common ratio under Basel I.

Regulatory Leverage Ratios. The Revised Capital Framework increased the minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio applicable to us from 3% to 4% effective January 1, 2014.

In addition, the Revised Capital Framework will introduce a new Tier 1 supplementary leverage ratio (supplementary leverage ratio) for Advanced approach banking organizations. The supplementary leverage ratio compares Tier 1 capital (as defined under the Revised Capital Framework) to a measure of leverage exposure, defined as the sum of the firm’s assets less certain CET1 deductions plus certain off-balance-sheet exposures, including a measure of derivatives exposures and commitments. The Revised Capital Framework requires a minimum supplementary leverage ratio of 3%, effective January 1, 2018, but with disclosure required beginning in the first quarter of 2015. In addition, subsequent to the approval of the Revised Capital Framework, the Agencies issued a proposal to increase the minimum supplementary leverage ratio requirement for the largest U.S. banks (those deemed to be global systemically important banking institutions (G-SIBs) under the Basel G-SIB framework). These proposals would require the firm and other G-SIBs to meet a 5% supplementary leverage ratio (comprised of the minimum requirement of 3% plus a 2% buffer). As of December 2013, our estimated supplementary leverage ratio based on the Revised Capital Framework approximates this proposed minimum.

In addition, the Basel Committee recently finalized revisions that would increase the size of the leverage exposure for purposes of the supplementary leverage ratio, but would retain a minimum supplementary leverage ratio requirement of 3%. It is not known with certainty at this point whether the U.S. regulators will adopt this revised definition of leverage into their rules and proposals for the supplementary leverage ratio.



## Other Developments

The Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board (established at the direction of the leaders of the Group of 20) have also recently issued several consultative papers which propose further changes to capital regulations. In particular, the Basel Committee has issued consultation papers on a “Fundamental Review of the Trading Book” and “Revisions to the Securitization Framework” that could have an impact on the level of the firm’s RWAs and regulatory capital ratios.

The European Union (EU) finalized legislation to implement Basel III, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The Dodd-Frank Act, other reform initiatives proposed and announced by the Agencies, the Basel Committee, and other governmental entities and regulators (including the EU and the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority (FSA) which was replaced by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on April 1, 2013) are not in all cases consistent with one another, which adds further uncertainty to the firm's future capital, leverage and liquidity requirements, and those of the firm's subsidiaries.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains provisions that require the registration of all swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants. The firm has registered certain subsidiaries as “swap dealers” under the CFTC rules, including GS&Co., GS Bank USA, Goldman Sachs International (GSI), and J. Aron & Company. These entities and other entities that would require registration under the CFTC or SEC rules will be subject to regulatory capital requirements, which have not been finalized by the CFTC and SEC.

## Capital Planning and Stress Testing Process

Our capital planning and stress testing process incorporates our internally designed stress tests and those required under CCAR and DFAS1. The process is designed to identify and measure material risks associated with our business activities. We also attribute capital usage to each of our businesses and maintain a contingency capital plan.
Stress Testing. Our stress testing process incorporates an internal capital adequacy assessment with the objective of ensuring that the firm is appropriately capitalized relative to the risks in our business. As part of our assessment, we project sources and uses of capital given a range of business environments, including stressed conditions. Our stress scenarios incorporate our internally designed stress tests and those required under CCAR and DFAS1 and are designed to capture our specific vulnerabilities and risks and to analyze whether the firm holds an appropriate amount of capital. Our goal is to hold sufficient capital to ensure we remain adequately capitalized after experiencing a severe stress event. Our assessment of capital adequacy is viewed in tandem with our assessment of liquidity adequacy and is integrated into the overall risk management structure, governance and policy framework of the firm.

Internal Risk-Based Capital Assessment. As part of our capital planning and stress testing process, we perform an internal risk-based capital assessment. This assessment incorporates market risk, credit risk and operational risk. Market risk is calculated by using VaR calculations supplemented by risk-based add-ons which include risks related to rare events (tail risks). Credit risk utilizes assumptions about our counterparties' probability of default and the size of our losses in the event of a default. Operational risk is calculated based on scenarios incorporating multiple types of operational failures as well as incorporating internal and external actual loss experience. Backtesting is used to gauge the effectiveness of models at capturing and measuring relevant risks.

Capital Attribution. We attribute capital usage to each of our businesses based upon regulatory capital requirements as well as our internal risk-based capital assessment. We manage the levels of our capital usage based upon the established balance sheet and risk limits.

Contingency Capital Plan. As part of our comprehensive capital management policy, we maintain a contingency capital plan. Our contingency capital plan provides a framework for analyzing and responding to a perceived or actual capital deficiency, including, but not limited to, identification of drivers of a capital deficiency, as well as mitigants and potential actions. It outlines the appropriate communication procedures to follow during a crisis period, including internal dissemination of information as well as ensuring timely communication with external stakeholders.



## Rating Agency Guidelines

The credit rating agencies assign credit ratings to the obligations of Group Inc., which directly issues or guarantees substantially all of the firm’s senior unsecured obligations. GS&Co., GSI and GSIB have been assigned long- and short-term issuer ratings by certain credit rating agencies. GS Bank USA has also been assigned long- and short-term issuer ratings, as well as ratings on its long-term and short-term bank deposits. In addition, credit rating agencies have assigned ratings to debt obligations of certain other subsidiaries of Group Inc.

The level and composition of our equity capital are among the many factors considered in determining our credit ratings. Each agency has its own definition of eligible capital and methodology for evaluating capital adequacy, and assessments are generally based on a combination of factors rather than a single calculation. See “Liquidity Risk Management — Credit Ratings” for further information about credit ratings of Group Inc., GS Bank USA, GS&Co., GSI and GSIB.

## Subsidiary Capital Requirements

Many of our subsidiaries, including GS Bank USA and our broker-dealer subsidiaries, are subject to separate regulation and capital requirements of the jurisdictions in which they operate.

GS Bank USA. GS Bank USA is subject to minimum capital requirements that are calculated in a manner similar to those applicable to bank holding companies and computes its risk-based capital ratios in accordance with the regulatory capital requirements applicable to state member banks, which, as of December 2013, were based on Basel I, and also reflected the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board. The capital regulations also include requirements with respect to leverage. See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about GS Bank USA’s regulatory capital ratios. GS Bank USA is also subject to the Revised Capital Framework, beginning January 1, 2014.
In addition to revisions to the risk-based capital ratios, GS Bank USA is now subject to a 4% minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio requirement, and as an Advanced approach banking organization, will be subject to a new minimum supplementary leverage ratio (as described above) of 3% effective January 1, 2018.

Shortly after the approval of the Revised Capital Framework, the Agencies issued a proposal that also requires that U.S. insured depository institution subsidiaries of U.S. G-SIBs, such as GS Bank USA, meet a “well-capitalized” supplementary leverage ratio requirement of 6%. If these proposals are enacted as proposed, these higher requirements would be effective beginning January 1, 2018. As of December 2013, GS Bank USA’s estimated supplementary leverage ratio based on the Revised Capital Framework approximates this proposed minimum.

In addition, the Basel Committee’s recently finalized revisions regarding the supplementary leverage ratio discussed above may also be applicable to GS Bank USA.

See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about the Revised Capital Framework as it relates to GS Bank USA and incremental capital requirements for domestic systemically important banking institutions.

For purposes of assessing the adequacy of its capital, GS Bank USA also performs an internal capital adequacy assessment which is similar to that performed by Group Inc. In addition, the rules adopted by the Federal Reserve Board under the Dodd-Frank Act require GS Bank USA to conduct stress tests on an annual basis and publish a summary of certain results. GS Bank USA submitted its annual DFAST stress results to the Federal Reserve in January 2014 and expects to publish a summary of its results in March 2014. GS Bank USA’s capital levels and prompt corrective action classification are subject to qualitative judgments by its regulators about components of capital, risk weightings and other factors.



GSI. Our regulated U.K. broker-dealer, GSI, is one of the firm’s principal non-U.S. regulated subsidiaries and is regulated by the PRA and the FCA. As of December 2013 and December 2012, GSI was subject to capital regulations, which were based on the Basel Committee’s June 2006 Framework (Basel II) as modified by the Basel Committee’s February 2011 Revisions to the Basel II market risk framework and as implemented in the European Union through the Capital Requirements Directives. As of December 2013 and December 2012, GSI had a Tier 1 capital ratio of 14.4% and 11.5%, respectively, and a Total capital ratio of 18.5% and 16.9%, respectively. The minimum Tier 1 capital ratio under PRA rules was 4%, and the minimum Total capital ratio was 8%. The PRA has significantly revised its capital regulations effective beginning January 1, 2014; the revised regulations are largely based on Basel III and, similar to the Revised Capital Framework, also introduce leverage ratio reporting requirements.

Other Subsidiaries. We expect that the capital requirements of several of our subsidiaries are likely to increase in the future due to the various developments arising from the Basel Committee, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other governmental entities and regulators. See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for information about the capital requirements of our other regulated subsidiaries and the potential impact of regulatory reform.

Subsidiaries not subject to separate regulatory capital requirements may hold capital to satisfy local tax and legal guidelines, rating agency requirements (for entities with assigned credit ratings) or internal policies, including policies concerning the minimum amount of capital a subsidiary should hold based on its underlying level of risk. In certain instances, Group Inc. may be limited in its ability to access capital held at certain subsidiaries as a result of regulatory, tax or other constraints. As of December 2013 and December 2012, Group Inc.'s equity investment in subsidiaries was $73.39 billion and $73.32 billion, respectively, compared with its total shareholders' equity of $78.47 billion and $75.72 billion, respectively.

Guarantees of Subsidiaries. Group Inc. has guaranteed the payment obligations of GS&Co., GS Bank USA, and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. (GSEC) subject to certain exceptions. In November 2008, Group Inc. contributed subsidiaries into GS Bank USA, and Group Inc. agreed to guarantee certain losses, including credit-related losses, relating to assets held by the contributed entities. In connection with this guarantee, Group Inc. also agreed to pledge to GS Bank USA certain collateral, including interests in subsidiaries and other illiquid assets.
Our capital invested in non-U.S. subsidiaries is generally exposed to foreign exchange risk, substantially all of which is managed through a combination of derivatives and non-U.S. denominated debt.

## Equity Capital Management

We principally manage our capital through issuances and repurchases of our common stock. We may also, from time to time, issue or repurchase our preferred stock, junior subordinated debt issued to trusts, and other subordinated debt or other forms of capital as business conditions warrant and subject to approval of the Federal Reserve Board. We manage our capital requirements principally by setting limits on balance sheet assets and/or limits on risk, in each case both at the consolidated and business levels. We attribute capital usage to each of our businesses based upon our regulatory capital requirements, as well as our internal risk-based capital assessment. We manage the levels of our capital usage based upon the established balance sheet and risk limits.

See Notes 16 and 19 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our preferred stock, junior subordinated debt issued to trusts and other subordinated debt.

Berkshire Hathaway Warrant. On October 1, 2013, Berkshire Hathaway exercised in full a warrant to purchase shares of the firm’s common stock. The warrant, as amended in March 2013, required net share settlement, and the firm delivered 13.1 million shares of common stock to Berkshire Hathaway on October 4, 2013. The number of shares delivered represented the value of the difference between the average closing price of the firm’s common stock over the 10 trading days preceding October 1, 2013 and the exercise price of $115.00 multiplied by the number of shares of common stock (43.5 million) covered by the warrant. The impact to both the firm’s book value per common share and tangible book value per common share was a reduction of approximately 3%.



Share Repurchase Program. We seek to use our share repurchase program to help maintain the appropriate level of common equity. The repurchase program is effected primarily through regular open-market purchases, the amounts and timing of which are determined primarily by our current and projected capital positions, but which may also be influenced by general market conditions and the prevailing price and trading volumes of our common stock.

On April 15, 2013, the Board of Directors of Group Inc. (Board) authorized the repurchase of an additional 75.0 million shares of common stock pursuant to the firm’s existing share repurchase program. As of December 2013, under the share repurchase program approved by the Board, we can repurchase up to 57.2 million additional shares of common stock; however, any such repurchases are subject to the approval of the Federal Reserve Board. See “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities” in Part II, Item 5 of the 2013 Form 10-K and Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information on our repurchase program and see above for information about the annual CCAR.

## Other Capital Metrics

The table below presents information on our shareholders' equity and book value per common share.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions, except per share amounts</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders’ equity</td><td>$78,467</td><td>$75,716</td></tr><tr><td>Common shareholders’ equity</td><td>71,267</td><td>69,516</td></tr><tr><td>Tangible common shareholders’ equity</td><td>66,891</td><td>64,417</td></tr><tr><td>Book value per common share</td><td>152.48</td><td>144.67</td></tr><tr><td>Tangible book value per common share</td><td>143.11</td><td>134.06</td></tr></table>

Tangible common shareholders' equity. Tangible common shareholders' equity equals total shareholders' equity less preferred stock, goodwill and identifiable intangible assets. We believe that tangible common shareholders' equity is meaningful because it is a measure that we and investors use to assess capital adequacy. Tangible common shareholders' equity is a non-GAAP measure and may not be comparable to similar non-GAAP measures used by other companies.

The table below presents the reconciliation of total shareholders' equity to tangible common shareholders' equity.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$78,467</td><td>$75,716</td></tr><tr><td>Deduct: Preferred stock</td><td>(7,200)</td><td>(6,200)</td></tr><tr><td>Common shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>71,267</td><td>69,516</td></tr><tr><td>Deduct: Goodwill and identifiable intangible assets</td><td>(4,376)</td><td>(5,099)</td></tr><tr><td>Tangible common shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$66,891</td><td>$64,417</td></tr></table>

Book value and tangible book value per common share. Book value and tangible book value per common share are based on common shares outstanding, including restricted stock units granted to employees with no future service requirements, of 467.4 million and 480.5 million as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. We believe that tangible book value per common share (tangible common shareholders' equity divided by common shares outstanding) is meaningful because it is a measure that we and investors use to assess capital adequacy. Tangible book value per common share is a non-GAAP measure and may not be comparable to similar non-GAAP measures used by other companies.



## Off-Balance-Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations

## Off-Balance-Sheet Arrangements

We have various types of off-balance-sheet arrangements that we enter into in the ordinary course of business. Our involvement in these arrangements can take many different forms, including:

• purchasing or retaining residual and other interests in special purpose entities such as mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securitization vehicles;

• holding senior and subordinated debt, interests in limited and general partnerships, and preferred and common stock in other nonconsolidated vehicles;

• entering into interest rate, foreign currency, equity, commodity and credit derivatives, including total return swaps;

• entering into operating leases; and

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

We enter into these arrangements for a variety of business purposes, including securitizations. The securitization vehicles that purchase mortgages, corporate bonds, and other types of financial assets are critical to the functioning of several significant investor markets, including the mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities markets, since they offer investors access to specific cash flows and risks created through the securitization process.

We also enter into these arrangements to underwrite client securitization transactions; provide secondary market liquidity; make investments in performing and nonperforming debt, equity, real estate and other assets; provide investors with credit-linked and asset-repackaged notes; and receive or provide letters of credit to satisfy margin requirements and to facilitate the clearance and settlement process.

Our financial interests in, and derivative transactions with, such nonconsolidated entities are generally accounted for at fair value, in the same manner as our other financial instruments, except in cases where we apply the equity method of accounting.
The table below presents where a discussion of our various off-balance-sheet arrangements may be found in the 2013 Form 10-K. In addition, see Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for a discussion of our consolidation policies.

<table><tr><td colspan="2">Type of Off-Balance-Sheet Arrangement</td><td>Disclosure in Form 10-K</td></tr><tr><td>Variable interests and other obligations, including contingent obligations, arising from variable interests in nonconsolidated VIEs</td><td>See Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Leases, letters of credit, and lending and other commitments</td><td>See “Contractual Obligations” below and Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Guarantees</td><td>See “Contractual Obligations” below and Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives</td><td>See “Credit Risk Management — Credit Exposures — OTC Derivatives” below and Notes 4, 5, 7 and 18 to the consolidated financial statements.</td><td></td></tr></table>



## Contractual Obligations

We have certain contractual obligations which require us to make future cash payments. These contractual obligations include our unsecured long-term borrowings, secured long-term financings, time deposits and contractual interest payments, all of which are included in our consolidated statements of financial condition. Our obligations to make future cash payments also include certain off-balance-sheet contractual obligations such as purchase obligations, minimum rental payments under noncancelable leases and commitments and guarantees.

The table below presents our contractual obligations, commitments and guarantees as of December 2013.

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2014</td><td>2015-2016</td><td>2017-2018</td><td>2019-Thereafter</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Amounts related to on-balance-sheet obligations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Time deposits</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 6,554</td><td>$ 4,626</td><td>$ 4,481</td><td>$ 15,661</td></tr><tr><td>Secured long-term financings 1</td><td>—</td><td>5,847</td><td>943</td><td>734</td><td>7,524</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings 2</td><td>—</td><td>45,706</td><td>43,639</td><td>71,620</td><td>160,965</td></tr><tr><td>Contractual interest payments 3</td><td>6,695</td><td>12,303</td><td>5,252</td><td>36,919</td><td>61,169</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated liabilities issued by consolidated VIEs</td><td>74</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>403</td><td>477</td></tr><tr><td>Amounts related to off-balance-sheet arrangements</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commitments to extend credit</td><td>15,069</td><td>24,214</td><td>43,356</td><td>4,988</td><td>87,627</td></tr><tr><td>Contingent and forward starting resale and securities borrowing agreements</td><td>34,410</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>34,410</td></tr><tr><td>Forward starting repurchase and secured lending agreements</td><td>8,256</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>8,256</td></tr><tr><td>Letters of credit</td><td>465</td><td>21</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>501</td></tr><tr><td>Investment commitments 4</td><td>1,359</td><td>5,387</td><td>20</td><td>350</td><td>7,116</td></tr><tr><td>Other commitments</td><td>3,734</td><td>102</td><td>54</td><td>65</td><td>3,955</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum rental payments</td><td>387</td><td>620</td><td>493</td><td>1,195</td><td>2,695</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative guarantees</td><td>517,634</td><td>180,543</td><td>39,367</td><td>57,736</td><td>795,280</td></tr><tr><td>Securities lending indemnifications</td><td>26,384</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>26,384</td></tr><tr><td>Other financial guarantees</td><td>1,361</td><td>620</td><td>1,140</td><td>1,046</td><td>4,167</td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate contractual principal amount of secured long-term financings for which the fair value option was elected exceeded the related fair value by $154 million.

2. Includes $7.48 billion of adjustments to the carrying value of certain unsecured long-term borrowings resulting from the application of hedge accounting. In addition, the aggregate contractual principal amount of unsecured long-term borrowings (principal and non-principal-protected) for which the fair value option was elected exceeded the related fair value by $92 million.

3. Represents estimated future interest payments related to unsecured long-term borrowings, secured long-term financings and time deposits based on applicable interest rates as of December 2013. Includes stated coupons, if any, on structured notes.

4. $5.66 billion of commitments to covered funds (as defined by the Volcker Rule) are included in the 2014 and 2015-2016 columns. We expect that substantially all of these commitments will not be called.

## In the table above:

• Obligations maturing within one year of our financial statement date or redeemable within one year of our financial statement date at the option of the holder are excluded and are treated as short-term obligations.

• Obligations that are repayable prior to maturity at our option are reflected at their contractual maturity dates and obligations that are redeemable prior to maturity at the option of the holders are reflected at the dates such options become exercisable.
• Amounts included in the table do not necessarily reflect the actual future cash flow requirements for these arrangements because commitments and guarantees represent notional amounts and may expire unused or be reduced or cancelled at the counterparty’s request.

• Due to the uncertainty of the timing and amounts that will ultimately be paid, our liability for unrecognized tax benefits has been excluded. See Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our unrecognized tax benefits.



See Notes 15 and 18 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our short-term borrowings and commitments and guarantees, respectively.

As of December 2013, our unsecured long-term borrowings were $160.97 billion, with maturities extending to 2061, and consisted principally of senior borrowings. See Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our unsecured long-term borrowings.

As of December 2013, our future minimum rental payments net of minimum sublease rentals under noncancelable leases were $2.70 billion. These lease commitments, principally for office space, expire on various dates through 2069. Certain agreements are subject to periodic escalation provisions for increases in real estate taxes and other charges. See Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our leases.

Our occupancy expenses include costs associated with office space held in excess of our current requirements. This excess space, the cost of which is charged to earnings as incurred, is being held for potential growth or to replace currently occupied space that we may exit in the future. We regularly evaluate our current and future space capacity in relation to current and projected staffing levels. For 2013, total occupancy expenses for space held in excess of our current requirements were not material. In addition, for 2013, we incurred exit costs of $19 million related to our office space. We may incur exit costs in the future to the extent we (i) reduce our space capacity or (ii) commit to, or occupy, new properties in the locations in which we operate and, consequently, dispose of existing space that had been held for potential growth. These exit costs may be material to our results of operations in a given period.

## Risk Management and Risk Factors

Risks are inherent in our business and include liquidity, market, credit, operational, legal, regulatory and reputational risks. For a further discussion of our risk management processes, see “Overview and Structure of Risk Management” below. Our risks include the risks across our risk categories, regions or global businesses, as well as those which have uncertain outcomes and have the potential to materially impact our financial results, our liquidity and our reputation. For a further discussion of our areas of risk, see “— Liquidity Risk Management,” “— Market Risk Management,” “— Credit Risk Management,” “— Operational Risk Management” and “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below.



## Overview and Structure of Risk Management

## Overview

We believe that effective risk management is of primary importance to the success of the firm. Accordingly, we have comprehensive risk management processes through which we monitor, evaluate and manage the risks we assume in conducting our activities. These include market, credit, liquidity, operational, legal, regulatory and reputational risk exposures. Our risk management framework is built around three core components: governance, processes and people.

Governance. Risk management governance starts with our Board, which plays an important role in reviewing and approving risk management policies and practices, both directly and through its committees, including its Risk Committee. The Board also receives regular briefings on firmwide risks, including market risk, liquidity risk, credit risk and operational risk from our independent control and support functions, including the chief risk officer, and on matters impacting our reputation from the chair of our Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee. The chief risk officer, as part of the review of the firmwide risk portfolio, regularly advises the Risk Committee of the Board of relevant risk metrics and material exposures. Next, at the most senior levels of the firm, our leaders are experienced risk managers, with a sophisticated and detailed understanding of the risks we take. Our senior managers lead and participate in risk-oriented committees, as do the leaders of our independent control and support functions — including those in Compliance, Controllers, our Credit Risk Management department (Credit Risk Management), Human Capital Management, Legal, our Market Risk Management department (Market Risk Management), Operations, our Operational Risk Management department (Operational Risk Management), Tax, Technology and Treasury.

The firm’s governance structure provides the protocol and responsibility for decision-making on risk management issues and ensures implementation of those decisions. We make extensive use of risk-related committees that meet regularly and serve as an important means to facilitate and foster ongoing discussions to identify, manage and mitigate risks.
We maintain strong communication about risk and we have a culture of collaboration in decision-making among the revenue-producing units, independent control and support functions, committees and senior management. While we believe that the first line of defense in managing risk rests with the managers in our revenue-producing units, we dedicate extensive resources to independent control and support functions in order to ensure a strong oversight structure and an appropriate segregation of duties. We regularly reinforce the firm’s strong culture of escalation and accountability across all divisions and functions.

Processes. We maintain various processes and procedures that are critical components of our risk management. First and foremost is our daily discipline of marking substantially all of the firm’s inventory to current market levels. Goldman Sachs carries its inventory at fair value, with changes in valuation reflected immediately in our risk management systems and in net revenues. We do so because we believe this discipline is one of the most effective tools for assessing and managing risk and that it provides transparent and realistic insight into our financial exposures.

We also apply a rigorous framework of limits to control risk across multiple transactions, products, businesses and markets. This includes setting credit and market risk limits at a variety of levels and monitoring these limits on a daily basis. Limits are typically set at levels that will be periodically exceeded, rather than at levels which reflect our maximum risk appetite. This fosters an ongoing dialogue on risk among revenue-producing units, independent control and support functions, committees and senior management, as well as rapid escalation of risk-related matters. See “Market Risk Management” and “Credit Risk Management” for further information on our risk limits.

Active management of our positions is another important process. Proactive mitigation of our market and credit exposures minimizes the risk that we will be required to take outsized actions during periods of stress.



We also focus on the rigor and effectiveness of the firm’s risk systems. The goal of our risk management technology is to get the right information to the right people at the right time, which requires systems that are comprehensive, reliable and timely. We devote significant time and resources to our risk management technology to ensure that it consistently provides us with complete, accurate and timely information.

People. Even the best technology serves only as a tool for helping to make informed decisions in real time about the risks we are taking. Ultimately, effective risk management requires our people to interpret our risk data on an ongoing and timely basis and adjust risk positions accordingly. In both our revenue-producing units and our independent control and support functions, the experience of our professionals, and their understanding of the nuances and limitations of each risk measure, guide the firm in assessing exposures and maintaining them within prudent levels.

We reinforce a culture of effective risk management in our training and development programs as well as the way we evaluate performance, and recognize and reward our people. Our training and development programs, including certain sessions led by the most senior leaders of the firm, are focused on the importance of risk management, client relationships and reputational excellence. As part of our annual performance review process, we assess reputational excellence including how an employee exercises good risk management and reputational judgment, and adheres to our code of conduct and compliance policies. Our review and reward processes are designed to communicate and reinforce to our professionals the link between behavior and how people are recognized, the need to focus on our clients and our reputation, and the need to always act in accordance with the highest standards of the firm.

## Structure

Ultimate oversight of risk is the responsibility of the firm’s Board. The Board oversees risk both directly and through its committees, including its Risk Committee. The Risk Committee consists of all of our independent directors. Within the firm, a series of committees with specific risk management mandates have oversight or decision-making responsibilities for risk management activities. Committee membership generally consists of senior managers from both our revenue-producing units and our independent control and support functions. We have established procedures for these committees to ensure that appropriate information barriers are in place. Our primary risk committees, most of which also have additional subcommittees or working groups, are described below. In addition to these committees, we have other risk-oriented committees which provide oversight for different businesses, activities, products, regions and legal entities. All of our firmwide, regional and divisional committees have responsibility for considering the impact of transactions and activities which they oversee on our reputation.

Membership of the firm’s risk committees is reviewed regularly and updated to reflect changes in the responsibilities of the committee members. Accordingly, the length of time that members serve on the respective committees varies as determined by the committee chairs and based on the responsibilities of the members within the firm.

In addition, independent control and support functions, which report to the chief financial officer, the general counsel and the chief administrative officer, are responsible for day-to-day oversight or monitoring of risk, as discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Internal Audit, which reports to the Audit Committee of the Board and includes professionals with a broad range of audit and industry experience, including risk management expertise, is responsible for independently assessing and validating key controls within the risk management framework.



The chart below presents an overview of our risk management governance structure, highlighting the oversight of our Board, our key risk-related committees and the independence of our control and support functions.



Management Committee. The Management Committee oversees the global activities of the firm, including all of the firm’s independent control and support functions. It provides this oversight directly and through authority delegated to committees it has established. This committee is comprised of the most senior leaders of the firm, and is chaired by the firm’s chief executive officer. The Management Committee has established various committees with delegated authority and the chairperson of the Management Committee appoints the chairpersons of these committees. Most members of the Management Committee are also members of other firmwide, divisional and regional committees. The following are the committees that are principally involved in firmwide risk management.

Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee. The Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee assesses and makes determinations regarding business standards and practices, reputational risk management, client relationships and client service, is chaired by the firm’s president and chief operating officer, and reports to the Management Committee. This committee also has responsibility for overseeing recommendations of the Business Standards Committee. This committee periodically updates and receives guidance from the Public Responsibilities Subcommittee of the Corporate Governance, Nominating and Public Responsibilities Committee of the Board. This committee has established the following two risk-related committees that report to it:



• Firmwide New Activity Committee. The Firmwide New Activity Committee is responsible for reviewing new activities and for establishing a process to identify and review previously approved activities that are significant and that have changed in complexity and/or structure or present different reputational and suitability concerns over time to consider whether these activities remain appropriate. This committee is co-chaired by the firm’s head of operations/chief operating officer for Europe, Middle East and Africa and the chief administrative officer of our Investment Management Division, who are appointed by the Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee chairperson.

• Firmwide Suitability Committee. The Firmwide Suitability Committee is responsible for setting standards and policies for product, transaction and client suitability and providing a forum for consistency across divisions, regions and products on suitability assessments. This committee also reviews suitability matters escalated from other firm committees. This committee is co-chaired by the deputy head of our Global Compliance Division and the co-head of our Investment Management Division, who are appointed by the Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee chairperson.

Firmwide Risk Committee. The Firmwide Risk Committee is globally responsible for the ongoing monitoring and management of the firm’s financial risks. Through both direct and delegated authority, the Firmwide Risk Committee approves firmwide, product, divisional and business-level limits for both market and credit risks, approves sovereign credit risk limits and reviews results of stress tests and scenario analyses. This committee is co-chaired by the firm’s chief financial officer and a senior managing director from the firm’s executive office, and reports to the Management Committee. The following four committees report to the Firmwide Risk Committee. The chairperson of the Securities Division Risk Committee is appointed by the chairpersons of the Firmwide Risk Committee; the chairpersons of the Credit Policy and Firmwide Operational Risk Committees are appointed by the firm’s chief risk officer; and the chairpersons of the Firmwide Finance Committee are appointed by the Firmwide Risk Committee.
• Securities Division Risk Committee. The Securities Division Risk Committee sets market risk limits, subject to overall firmwide risk limits, for the Securities Division based on a number of risk measures, including but not limited to VaR, stress tests, scenario analyses and balance sheet levels. This committee is chaired by the chief risk officer of our Securities Division.

• Credit Policy Committee. The Credit Policy Committee establishes and reviews broad firmwide credit policies and parameters that are implemented by Credit Risk Management. This committee is chaired by the firm’s chief credit officer.

• Firmwide Operational Risk Committee. The Firmwide Operational Risk Committee provides oversight of the ongoing development and implementation of our operational risk policies, framework and methodologies, and monitors the effectiveness of operational risk management. This committee is co-chaired by a managing director in Credit Risk Management and a managing director in Operational Risk Management.

• Firmwide Finance Committee. The Firmwide Finance Committee has oversight responsibility for liquidity risk, the size and composition of our balance sheet and capital base, and credit ratings. This committee regularly reviews our liquidity, balance sheet, funding position and capitalization, approves related policies, and makes recommendations as to any adjustments to be made in light of current events, risks, exposures and regulatory requirements. As a part of such oversight, among other things, this committee reviews and approves balance sheet limits and the size of our GCE. This committee is co-chaired by the firm’s chief financial officer and the firm’s global treasurer.



The following committees report jointly to the Firmwide Risk Committee and the Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee:

• Firmwide Commitments Committee. The Firmwide Commitments Committee reviews the firm’s underwriting and distribution activities with respect to equity and equity-related product offerings, and sets and maintains policies and procedures designed to ensure that legal, reputational, regulatory and business standards are maintained on a global basis. In addition to reviewing specific transactions, this committee periodically conducts general strategic reviews of sectors and products and establishes policies in connection with transaction practices. This committee is co-chaired by the firm’s senior strategy officer and the co-head of Global Mergers & Acquisitions, who are appointed by the Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee chairperson.

• Firmwide Capital Committee. The Firmwide Capital Committee provides approval and oversight of debt-related transactions, including principal commitments of the firm’s capital. This committee aims to ensure that business and reputational standards for underwriting and capital commitments are maintained on a global basis. This committee is co-chaired by the firm’s global treasurer and the head of credit finance for Europe, Middle East and Africa who are appointed by the Firmwide Risk Committee chairpersons.

Investment Management Division Risk Committee. The Investment Management Division Risk Committee is responsible for the ongoing monitoring and control of global market, counterparty credit and liquidity risks associated with the activities of our investment management businesses. The head of Investment Management Division risk management is the chair of this committee. The Investment Management Division Risk Committee reports to the firm’s chief risk officer.

## Conflicts Management

Conflicts of interest and the firm’s approach to dealing with them are fundamental to our client relationships, our reputation and our long-term success. The term “conflict of interest” does not have a universally accepted meaning, and conflicts can arise in many forms within a business or between businesses. The responsibility for identifying potential conflicts, as well as complying with the firm’s policies and procedures, is shared by the entire firm.

We have a multilayered approach to resolving conflicts and addressing reputational risk. The firm’s senior management oversees policies related to conflicts resolution. The firm’s senior management, the Business Selection and Conflicts Resolution Group, the Legal Department and Compliance Division, the Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee and other internal committees all play roles in the formulation of policies, standards and principles and assist in making judgments regarding the appropriate resolution of particular conflicts. Resolving potential conflicts necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular situation and the application of experienced and informed judgment.

At the transaction level, various people and groups have roles. As a general matter, the Business Selection and Conflicts Resolution Group reviews all financing and advisory assignments in Investment Banking and certain investing, lending and other activities of the firm. Various transaction oversight committees, such as the Firmwide Capital, Commitments and Suitability Committees and other committees across the firm, also review new underwriting, loans, investments and structured products. These committees work with internal and external lawyers and the Compliance Division to evaluate and address any actual or potential conflicts.

We regularly assess our policies and procedures that address conflicts of interest in an effort to conduct our business in accordance with the highest ethical standards and in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.



## Liquidity Risk Management

Liquidity is of critical importance to financial institutions. Most of the failures of financial institutions have occurred in large part due to insufficient liquidity. Accordingly, the firm has in place a comprehensive and conservative set of liquidity and funding policies to address both firm-specific and broader industry or market liquidity events. Our principal objective is to be able to fund the firm and to enable our core businesses to continue to serve clients and generate revenues, even under adverse circumstances.

We manage liquidity risk according to the following principles:

Excess Liquidity. We maintain substantial excess liquidity to meet a broad range of potential cash outflows and collateral needs in a stressed environment.

Asset-Liability Management. We assess anticipated holding periods for our assets and their expected liquidity in a stressed environment. We manage the maturities and diversity of our funding across markets, products and counterparties, and seek to maintain liabilities of appropriate tenor relative to our asset base.

Contingency Funding Plan. We maintain a contingency funding plan to provide a framework for analyzing and responding to a liquidity crisis situation or periods of market stress. This framework sets forth the plan of action to fund normal business activity in emergency and stress situations. These principles are discussed in more detail below.

## Excess Liquidity

Our most important liquidity policy is to pre-fund our estimated potential cash and collateral needs during a liquidity crisis and hold this excess liquidity in the form of unencumbered, highly liquid securities and cash. We believe that the securities held in our global core excess would be readily convertible to cash in a matter of days, through liquidation, by entering into repurchase agreements or from maturities of resale agreements, and that this cash would allow us to meet immediate obligations without needing to sell other assets or depend on additional funding from credit-sensitive markets.
As of December 2013 and December 2012, the fair value of the securities and certain overnight cash deposits included in our GCE totaled $184.07 billion and $174.62 billion, respectively. Based on the results of our internal liquidity risk model, discussed below, as well as our consideration of other factors including, but not limited to, an assessment of our potential intraday liquidity needs and a qualitative assessment of the condition of the financial markets and the firm, we believe our liquidity position as of both December 2013 and December 2012 was appropriate.

The table below presents the fair value of the securities and certain overnight cash deposits that are included in our GCE.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">Average for the Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. dollar-denominated</td><td>$136,824</td><td>$125,111</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. dollar-denominated</td><td>45,826</td><td>46,984</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$182,650</td><td>$172,095</td></tr></table>

The U.S. dollar-denominated excess is composed of (i) unencumbered U.S. government and federal agency obligations (including highly liquid U.S. federal agency mortgage-backed obligations), all of which are eligible as collateral in Federal Reserve open market operations and (ii) certain overnight U.S. dollar cash deposits. The non-U.S. dollar-denominated excess is composed of only unencumbered German, French, Japanese and United Kingdom government obligations and certain overnight cash deposits in highly liquid currencies. We strictly limit our excess liquidity to this narrowly defined list of securities and cash because they are highly liquid, even in a difficult funding environment. We do not include other potential sources of excess liquidity, such as less liquid unencumbered securities or committed credit facilities, in our GCE.



The table below presents the fair value of our GCE by asset class.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">Average for the Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Overnight cash deposits</td><td>$ 61,265</td><td>$ 52,233</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government obligations</td><td>76,019</td><td>72,379</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. federal agency obligations, including highly liquid U.S. federal agency mortgage-backed obligations</td><td>2,551</td><td>2,313</td></tr><tr><td>German, French, Japanese and United Kingdom government obligations</td><td>42,815</td><td>45,170</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 182,650</td><td>$ 172,095</td></tr></table>

Our GCE is held by Group Inc. and our major broker-dealer and bank subsidiaries, as presented in the table below.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">Average for the Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Group Inc.</td><td>$ 29,752</td><td>$ 37,405</td></tr><tr><td>Major broker-dealer subsidiaries</td><td>93,103</td><td>78,229</td></tr><tr><td>Major bank subsidiaries</td><td>59,795</td><td>56,461</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 182,650</td><td>$ 172,095</td></tr></table>

Our GCE reflects the following principles:

• The first days or weeks of a liquidity crisis are the most critical to a company’s survival.

• Focus must be maintained on all potential cash and collateral outflows, not just disruptions to financing flows. Our businesses are diverse, and our liquidity needs are determined by many factors, including market movements, collateral requirements and client commitments, all of which can change dramatically in a difficult funding environment.

• During a liquidity crisis, credit-sensitive funding, including unsecured debt and some types of secured financing agreements, may be unavailable, and the terms (e.g., interest rates, collateral provisions and tenor) or availability of other types of secured financing may change.

• As a result of our policy to pre-fund liquidity that we estimate may be needed in a crisis, we hold more unencumbered securities and have larger debt balances than our businesses would otherwise require. We believe that our liquidity is stronger with greater balances of highly liquid unencumbered securities, even though it increases our total assets and our funding costs.
We believe that our GCE provides us with a resilient source of funds that would be available in advance of potential cash and collateral outflows and gives us significant flexibility in managing through a difficult funding environment.

In order to determine the appropriate size of our GCE, we use an internal liquidity model, referred to as the Modeled Liquidity Outflow, which captures and quantifies the firm’s liquidity risks. We also consider other factors including, but not limited to, an assessment of our potential intraday liquidity needs and a qualitative assessment of the condition of the financial markets and the firm.

We distribute our GCE across entities, asset types, and clearing agents to provide us with sufficient operating liquidity to ensure timely settlement in all major markets, even in a difficult funding environment.

We maintain our GCE to enable us to meet current and potential liquidity requirements of our parent company, Group Inc., and its subsidiaries. The Modeled Liquidity Outflow incorporates a consolidated requirement for the firm as well as a standalone requirement for each of our major broker-dealer and bank subsidiaries. Liquidity held directly in each of these major subsidiaries is intended for use only by that subsidiary to meet its liquidity requirements and is assumed not to be available to Group Inc. unless (i) legally provided for and (ii) there are no additional regulatory, tax or other restrictions. In addition, the Modeled Liquidity Outflow incorporates a broader assessment of standalone liquidity requirements for other subsidiaries and we hold a portion of our GCE directly at Group Inc. to support such requirements. In addition to the GCE, we maintain operating cash balances in several of our other operating entities, primarily for use in specific currencies, entities, or jurisdictions where we do not have immediate access to parent company liquidity.

In addition to our GCE, we have a significant amount of other unencumbered cash and financial instruments, including other government obligations, high-grade money market securities, corporate obligations, marginable equities, loans and cash deposits not included in our GCE. The fair value of these assets averaged $90.77 billion for 2013 and $87.09 billion for 2012. We do not consider these assets liquid enough to be eligible for our GCE liquidity pool and therefore conservatively do not assume we will generate liquidity from these assets in our Modeled Liquidity Outflow.



Modeled Liquidity Outflow. Our Modeled Liquidity Outflow is based on conducting multiple scenarios that include combinations of market-wide and firm-specific stress. These scenarios are characterized by the following qualitative elements:

• Severely challenged market environments, including low consumer and corporate confidence, financial and political instability, adverse changes in market values, including potential declines in equity markets and widening of credit spreads.

• A firm-specific crisis potentially triggered by material losses, reputational damage, litigation, executive departure, and/or a ratings downgrade.

The following are the critical modeling parameters of the Modeled Liquidity Outflow:

• Liquidity needs over a 30-day scenario.

• A two-notch downgrade of the firm’s long-term senior unsecured credit ratings.

• A combination of contractual outflows, such as upcoming maturities of unsecured debt, and contingent outflows (e.g., actions though not contractually required, we may deem necessary in a crisis). We assume that most contingent outflows will occur within the initial days and weeks of a crisis.

• No issuance of equity or unsecured debt.

• No support from government funding facilities. Although we have access to various central bank funding programs, we do not assume reliance on them as a source of funding in a liquidity crisis.

• We do not assume asset liquidation, other than the GCE.

The Modeled Liquidity Outflow is calculated and reported to senior management on a daily basis. We regularly refine our model to reflect changes in market or economic conditions and the firm’s business mix.

The potential contractual and contingent cash and collateral outflows covered in our Modeled Liquidity Outflow include:

## Unsecured Funding

• Contractual: All upcoming maturities of unsecured long-term debt, commercial paper, promissory notes and other unsecured funding products. We assume that we will be unable to issue new unsecured debt or roll over any maturing debt.

• Contingent: Repurchases of our outstanding long-term debt, commercial paper and hybrid financial instruments in the ordinary course of business as a market maker.

## Deposits

• Contractual: All upcoming maturities of term deposits. We assume that we will be unable to raise new term deposits or rollover any maturing term deposits.

• Contingent: Withdrawals of bank deposits that have no contractual maturity. The withdrawal assumptions reflect, among other factors, the type of deposit, whether the deposit is insured or uninsured, and the firm’s relationship with the depositor.

## Secured Funding

• Contractual: A portion of upcoming contractual maturities of secured funding due to either the inability to refinance or the ability to refinance only at wider haircuts (i.e., on terms which require us to post additional collateral). Our assumptions reflect, among other factors, the quality of the underlying collateral, counterparty roll probabilities (our assessment of the counterparty’s likelihood of continuing to provide funding on a secured basis at the maturity of the trade) and counterparty concentration.

• Contingent: Adverse changes in value of financial assets pledged as collateral for financing transactions, which would necessitate additional collateral postings under those transactions.

## OTC Derivatives

• Contingent: Collateral postings to counterparties due to adverse changes in the value of our OTC derivatives, excluding those that are cleared and settled through central counterparties (OTC-cleared).

• Contingent: Other outflows of cash or collateral related to OTC derivatives, excluding OTC-cleared, including the impact of trade terminations, collateral substitutions, collateral disputes, loss of rehypothecation rights, collateral calls or termination payments required by a two-notch downgrade in our credit ratings, and collateral that has not been called by counterparties, but is available to them.



## Exchange-Traded and OTC-cleared Derivatives

• Contingent: Variation margin postings required due to adverse changes in the value of our outstanding exchange-traded and OTC-cleared derivatives.

• Contingent: An increase in initial margin and guaranty fund requirements by derivative clearing houses.

## Customer Cash and Securities

• Contingent: Liquidity outflows associated with our prime brokerage business, including withdrawals of customer credit balances, and a reduction in customer short positions, which serve as a funding source for long positions.

## Unfunded Commitments

• Contingent: Draws on our unfunded commitments. Draw assumptions reflect, among other things, the type of commitment and counterparty.

## Other

• Other upcoming large cash outflows, such as tax payments.

## Asset-Liability Management

Our liquidity risk management policies are designed to ensure we have a sufficient amount of financing, even when funding markets experience persistent stress. We seek to maintain a long-dated and diversified funding profile, taking into consideration the characteristics and liquidity profile of our assets.

Our approach to asset-liability management includes:

• Conservatively managing the overall characteristics of our funding book, with a focus on maintaining long-term, diversified sources of funding in excess of our current requirements. See “Balance Sheet and Funding Sources — Funding Sources” for additional details.

• Actively managing and monitoring our asset base, with particular focus on the liquidity, holding period and our ability to fund assets on a secured basis. This enables us to determine the most appropriate funding products and tenors. See “Balance Sheet and Funding Sources — Balance Sheet Management” for more detail on our balance sheet management process and “— Funding Sources — Secured Funding” for more detail on asset classes that may be harder to fund on a secured basis.
• Raising secured and unsecured financing that has a long tenor relative to the liquidity profile of our assets. This reduces the risk that our liabilities will come due in advance of our ability to generate liquidity from the sale of our assets. Because we maintain a highly liquid balance sheet, the holding period of certain of our assets may be materially shorter than their contractual maturity dates.

Our goal is to ensure that the firm maintains sufficient liquidity to fund its assets and meet its contractual and contingent obligations in normal times as well as during periods of market stress. Through our dynamic balance sheet management process (see “Balance Sheet and Funding Sources — Balance Sheet Management”), we use actual and projected asset balances to determine secured and unsecured funding requirements. Funding plans are reviewed and approved by the Firmwide Finance Committee on a quarterly basis. In addition, senior managers in our independent control and support functions regularly analyze, and the Firmwide Finance Committee reviews, our consolidated total capital position (unsecured long-term borrowings plus total shareholders’ equity) so that we maintain a level of long-term funding that is sufficient to meet our long-term financing requirements. In a liquidity crisis, we would first use our GCE in order to avoid reliance on asset sales (other than our GCE). However, we recognize that orderly asset sales may be prudent or necessary in a severe or persistent liquidity crisis.

Subsidiary Funding Policies. The majority of our unsecured funding is raised by Group Inc. which lends the necessary funds to its subsidiaries, some of which are regulated, to meet their asset financing, liquidity and capital requirements. In addition, Group Inc. provides its regulated subsidiaries with the necessary capital to meet their regulatory requirements. The key benefit of this approach to subsidiary funding is greater flexibility to meet the funding requirements of various subsidiaries over time. Funding is also raised at the subsidiary level through a variety of products, including secured funding, unsecured borrowings and deposits.



Our intercompany funding policies assume that, unless legally provided for, a subsidiary’s funds or securities are not freely available to its parent company or other subsidiaries. In particular, many of our subsidiaries are subject to laws that authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the flow of funds from those subsidiaries to Group Inc. Regulatory action of that kind could impede access to funds that Group Inc. needs to make payments on its obligations. Accordingly, we assume that the capital provided to our regulated subsidiaries is not available to Group Inc. or other subsidiaries and any other financing provided to our regulated subsidiaries is not available until the maturity of such financing.

Group Inc. has provided substantial amounts of equity and subordinated indebtedness, directly or indirectly, to its regulated subsidiaries. For example, as of December 2013, Group Inc. had $31.40 billion of equity and subordinated indebtedness invested in GS&Co., its principal U.S. registered broker-dealer; $26.40 billion invested in GSI, a regulated U.K. broker-dealer; $2.26 billion invested in GSEC, a U.S. registered broker-dealer; $2.82 billion invested in GSJCL, a regulated Japanese broker-dealer; $20.04 billion invested in GS Bank USA, a regulated New York State-chartered bank; and $3.50 billion invested in GSIB, a regulated U.K. bank. Group Inc. also provided, directly or indirectly, $75.77 billion of unsubordinated loans and $9.93 billion of collateral to these entities, substantially all of which was to GS&Co., GSI and GS Bank USA, as of December 2013. In addition, as of December 2013, Group Inc. had significant amounts of capital invested in and loans to its other regulated subsidiaries.

## Contingency Funding Plan

The Goldman Sachs contingency funding plan sets out the plan of action we would use to fund business activity in crisis situations and periods of market stress. The contingency funding plan outlines a list of potential risk factors, key reports and metrics that are reviewed on an ongoing basis to assist in assessing the severity of, and managing through, a liquidity crisis and/or market dislocation. The contingency funding plan also describes in detail the firm’s potential responses if our assessments indicate that the firm has entered a liquidity crisis, which include funding our potential cash and collateral needs as well as utilizing secondary sources of liquidity. Mitigants and action items to address specific risks which may arise are also described and assigned to individuals responsible for execution.
The contingency funding plan identifies key groups of individuals to foster effective coordination, control and distribution of information, all of which are critical in the management of a crisis or period of market stress. The contingency funding plan also details the responsibilities of these groups and individuals, which include making and disseminating key decisions, coordinating all contingency activities throughout the duration of the crisis or period of market stress, implementing liquidity maintenance activities and managing internal and external communication.

## Proposed Liquidity Framework

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s international framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring calls for imposition of a liquidity coverage ratio, designed to ensure that banks and bank holding companies maintain an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets based on expected cash outflows under an acute liquidity stress scenario, and a net stable funding ratio, designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of these entities over a one-year time horizon. Under the Basel Committee framework, the liquidity coverage ratio would be introduced on January 1, 2015; however, there would be a phase-in period whereby firms would have a 60% minimum in 2015 which would be raised 10% per year until it reaches 100% in 2019. The net stable funding ratio is not expected to be introduced as a requirement until January 1, 2018.

In addition, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC have issued a proposal on minimum liquidity standards that is generally consistent with the Basel Committee’s framework as described above, but, with certain modifications to the high-quality liquid asset definition and expected cash outflow assumptions, and accelerated transition provisions. In addition, under the proposed accelerated transition timeline, the liquidity coverage ratio would be introduced on January 1, 2015; however, there would be an accelerated U.S. phase-in period whereby firms would have an 80% minimum in 2015 which would be raised 10% per year until it reaches 100% in 2017.

The firm will continue to evaluate the impact to our risk management framework going forward. While the principles behind the new frameworks proposed by the Basel Committee and the Agencies are broadly consistent with our current liquidity management framework, it is possible that the implementation of these standards could impact our liquidity and funding requirements and practices.



## Credit Ratings

We rely on the short-term and long-term debt capital markets to fund a significant portion of our day-to-day operations and the cost and availability of debt financing is influenced by our credit ratings. Credit ratings are also important when we are competing in certain markets, such as OTC derivatives, and when we seek to engage in longer-term transactions. See “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below and “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks associated with a reduction in our credit ratings.
During the fourth quarter of 2013, as part of a reassessment of its government support assumptions related to the eight largest U.S. bank holding companies, Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s) lowered Group Inc.’s ratings on long-term debt (from A3 to Baa1) and subordinated debt (from Baa1 to Baa2). The table below presents the unsecured credit ratings and outlook of Group Inc.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td></td><td>Short-Term Debt</td><td>Long-Term Debt</td><td>Subordinated Debt</td><td>Trust Preferred \( ^{1} \)</td><td>Preferred Stock</td><td>Ratings Outlook</td></tr><tr><td>DBRS, Inc.</td><td>R-1 (middle)</td><td>A (high)</td><td>A</td><td>A</td><td>BBB \( ^{3} \)</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Fitch, Inc.</td><td>F1</td><td>A \( ^{2} \)</td><td>A-</td><td>BBB-</td><td>BB+ \( ^{3} \)</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Moody&#x27;s</td><td>P-2</td><td>Baa1 \( ^{2} \)</td><td>Baa2</td><td>Baa3</td><td>Ba2 \( ^{3} \)</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Standard &amp; Poor&#x27;s Ratings Services (S&amp;P)</td><td>A-2</td><td>A-2</td><td>BBB+</td><td>BB+</td><td>BB+ \( ^{3} \)</td><td>Negative</td></tr><tr><td>Rating and Investment Information, Inc.</td><td>a-1</td><td>A+</td><td>A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>Negative</td></tr></table>

1. Trust preferred securities issued by Goldman Sachs Capital I.

2. Includes the senior guaranteed trust securities issued by Murray Street Investment Trust I and Vesey Street Investment Trust I.

3. Includes Group Inc.'s non-cumulative preferred stock and the APEX issued by Goldman Sachs Capital II and Goldman Sachs Capital III.

The table below presents the unsecured credit ratings of GS Bank USA, GS&Co., GSI and GSIB. On February 21, 2014, Moody’s assigned GSIB a rating of A2 for long-term debt and long-term bank deposits and P-1 for short-term debt and short-term bank deposits.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td></td><td>Short-Term Debt</td><td>Long-Term Debt</td><td>Short-Term Bank Deposits</td><td>Long-Term Bank Deposits</td></tr><tr><td>Fitch, Inc.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GS Bank USA</td><td>F1</td><td>A</td><td>F1</td><td>A+</td></tr><tr><td>GS&amp;C</td><td>F1</td><td>A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>GSI</td><td>F1</td><td>A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>G SIB</td><td>F1</td><td>A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Moody&#x27;s</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GS Bank USA</td><td>P-1</td><td>A2</td><td>P-1</td><td>A2</td></tr><tr><td>GSI</td><td>P-1</td><td>A2</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>S&amp;P</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GS Bank USA</td><td>A-1</td><td>A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>GS&amp;C</td><td>A-1</td><td>A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>G SIB</td><td>A-1</td><td>A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>A-1</td><td>A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></table>



We believe our credit ratings are primarily based on the credit rating agencies' assessment of:

• our liquidity, market, credit and operational risk management practices;

• the level and variability of our earnings;

• our capital base;

• our franchise, reputation and management;

• our corporate governance; and

• the external operating environment, including the assumed level of government support.

Certain of the firm’s derivatives have been transacted under bilateral agreements with counterparties who may require us to post collateral or terminate the transactions based on changes in our credit ratings. We assess the impact of these bilateral agreements by determining the collateral or termination payments that would occur assuming a downgrade by all rating agencies. A downgrade by any one rating agency, depending on the agency’s relative ratings of the firm at the time of the downgrade, may have an impact which is comparable to the impact of a downgrade by all rating agencies. We allocate a portion of our GCE to ensure we would be able to make the additional collateral or termination payments that may be required in the event of a two-notch reduction in our long-term credit ratings, as well as collateral that has not been called by counterparties, but is available to them. The table below presents the additional collateral or termination payments related to our net derivative liabilities under bilateral agreements that could have been called at the reporting date by counterparties in the event of a one-notch and two-notch downgrade in our credit ratings.

<table><tr><td></td><td>As of December</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Additional collateral or termination payments for a one-notch downgrade</td><td>$ 911</td><td>$1,534</td></tr><tr><td>Additional collateral or termination payments for a two-notch downgrade</td><td>2,989</td><td>2,500</td></tr></table>

## Cash Flows

As a global financial institution, our cash flows are complex and bear little relation to our net earnings and net assets. Consequently, we believe that traditional cash flow analysis is less meaningful in evaluating our liquidity position than the excess liquidity and asset-liability management policies described above. Cash flow analysis may, however, be helpful in highlighting certain macro trends and strategic initiatives in our businesses.

Year Ended December 2013. Our cash and cash equivalents decreased by $11.54 billion to $61.13 billion at the end of 2013. We generated $4.54 billion in net cash from operating activities. We used net cash of $16.08 billion for investing and financing activities, primarily to fund loans held for investment and repurchases of common stock.

Year Ended December 2012. Our cash and cash equivalents increased by $16.66 billion to $72.67 billion at the end of 2012. We generated $9.14 billion in net cash from operating and investing activities. We generated $7.52 billion in net cash from financing activities from an increase in bank deposits, partially offset by net repayments of unsecured and secured long-term borrowings.

Year Ended December 2011. Our cash and cash equivalents increased by $16.22 billion to $56.01 billion at the end of 2011. We generated $23.13 billion in net cash from operating and investing activities. We used net cash of $6.91 billion for financing activities, primarily for repurchases of our Series G Preferred Stock and common stock, partially offset by an increase in bank deposits.



## Market Risk Management

## Overview

Market risk is the risk of loss in the value of our inventory, as well as certain other financial assets and financial liabilities, due to changes in market conditions. The firm employs a variety of risk measures, each described in the respective sections below, to monitor market risk. We hold inventory primarily for market making for our clients and for our investing and lending activities. Our inventory therefore changes based on client demands and our investment opportunities. Our inventory is accounted for at fair value and therefore fluctuates on a daily basis, with the related gains and losses included in “Market making,” and “Other principal transactions.” Categories of market risk include the following:

• Interest rate risk: results from exposures to changes in the level, slope and curvature of yield curves, the volatilities of interest rates, mortgage prepayment speeds and credit spreads.

• Equity price risk: results from exposures to changes in prices and volatilities of individual equities, baskets of equities and equity indices.

• Currency rate risk: results from exposures to changes in spot prices, forward prices and volatilities of currency rates.

• Commodity price risk: results from exposures to changes in spot prices, forward prices and volatilities of commodities, such as crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas, electricity, and precious and base metals.

## Market Risk Management Process

We manage our market risk by diversifying exposures, controlling position sizes and establishing economic hedges in related securities or derivatives. This includes:

• accurate and timely exposure information incorporating multiple risk metrics;

• a dynamic limit setting framework; and

• constant communication among revenue-producing units, risk managers and senior management.
Market Risk Management, which is independent of the revenue-producing units and reports to the firm’s chief risk officer, has primary responsibility for assessing, monitoring and managing market risk at the firm. We monitor and control risks through strong firmwide oversight and independent control and support functions across the firm’s global businesses.

Managers in revenue-producing units are accountable for managing risk within prescribed limits. These managers have in-depth knowledge of their positions, markets and the instruments available to hedge their exposures.

Managers in revenue-producing units and Market Risk Management discuss market information, positions and estimated risk and loss scenarios on an ongoing basis.

## Risk Measures

Market Risk Management produces risk measures and monitors them against market risk limits set by our firm’s risk committees. These measures reflect an extensive range of scenarios and the results are aggregated at trading desk, business and firmwide levels.

We use a variety of risk measures to estimate the size of potential losses for both moderate and more extreme market moves over both short-term and long-term time horizons. Our primary risk measures are VaR, which is used for shorter-term periods, and stress tests. Our risk reports detail key risks, drivers and changes for each desk and business, and are distributed daily to senior management of both our revenue-producing units and our independent control and support functions.

## Value-at-Risk

VaR is the potential loss in value due to adverse market movements over a defined time horizon with a specified confidence level. For positions included in VaR, see “— Financial Statement Linkages to Market Risk Measures.” We typically employ a one-day time horizon with a 95% confidence level. We use a single VaR model which captures risks including interest rates, equity prices, currency rates and commodity prices. As such, VaR facilitates comparison across portfolios of different risk characteristics. VaR also captures the diversification of aggregated risk at the firmwide level.



We are aware of the inherent limitations to VaR and therefore use a variety of risk measures in our market risk management process. Inherent limitations to VaR include:

• VaR does not estimate potential losses over longer time horizons where moves may be extreme.

• VaR does not take account of the relative liquidity of different risk positions.

• Previous moves in market risk factors may not produce accurate predictions of all future market moves.

When calculating VaR, we use historical simulations with full valuation of approximately 70,000 market factors. VaR is calculated at a position level based on simultaneously shocking the relevant market risk factors for that position. We sample from 5 years of historical data to generate the scenarios for our VaR calculation. The historical data is weighted so that the relative importance of the data reduces over time. This gives greater importance to more recent observations and reflects current asset volatilities, which improves the accuracy of our estimates of potential loss. As a result, even if our positions included in VaR were unchanged, our VaR would increase with increasing market volatility and vice versa.

Given its reliance on historical data, VaR is most effective in estimating risk exposures in markets in which there are no sudden fundamental changes or shifts in market conditions.

Our VaR measure does not include:

• positions that are best measured and monitored using sensitivity measures; and

• the impact of changes in counterparty and our own credit spreads on derivatives, as well as changes in our own credit spreads on unsecured borrowings for which the fair value option was elected.

## Stress Testing

Stress testing is a method of determining the effect on the firm of various hypothetical stress scenarios. We use stress testing to examine risks of specific portfolios as well as the potential impact of significant risk exposures across the firm. We use a variety of stress testing techniques to calculate the potential loss from a wide range of market moves on the firm’s portfolios, including sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis and firmwide stress tests. The results of our various stress tests are analyzed together for risk management purposes.

Sensitivity analysis is used to quantify the impact of a market move in a single risk factor across all positions (e.g., equity prices or credit spreads) using a variety of defined market shocks, ranging from those that could be expected over a one-day time horizon up to those that could take many months to occur. We also use sensitivity analysis to quantify the impact of the default of a single corporate entity, which captures the risk of large or concentrated exposures.

Scenario analysis is used to quantify the impact of a specified event, including how the event impacts multiple risk factors simultaneously. For example, for sovereign stress testing we calculate potential direct exposure associated with our sovereign inventory as well as the corresponding debt, equity and currency exposures associated with our non-sovereign inventory that may be impacted by the sovereign distress. When conducting scenario analysis, we typically consider a number of possible outcomes for each scenario, ranging from moderate to severely adverse market impacts. In addition, these stress tests are constructed using both historical events and forward-looking hypothetical scenarios.

Firmwide stress testing combines market, credit, operational and liquidity risks into a single combined scenario. Firmwide stress tests are primarily used to assess capital adequacy as part of our capital planning and stress testing process; however, we also ensure that firmwide stress testing is integrated into our risk governance framework. This includes selecting appropriate scenarios to use for our capital planning and stress testing process. See “Equity Capital — Capital Planning and Stress Testing Process” above for further information.



Unlike VaR measures, which have an implied probability because they are calculated at a specified confidence level, there is generally no implied probability that our stress test scenarios will occur. Instead, stress tests are used to model both moderate and more extreme moves in underlying market factors. When estimating potential loss, we generally assume that our positions cannot be reduced or hedged (although experience demonstrates that we are generally able to do so).

Stress test scenarios are conducted on a regular basis as part of the firm’s routine risk management process and on an ad hoc basis in response to market events or concerns. Stress testing is an important part of the firm’s risk management process because it allows us to quantify our exposure to tail risks, highlight potential loss concentrations, undertake risk/reward analysis, and assess and mitigate our risk positions.

## Limits

We use risk limits at various levels in the firm (including firmwide, product and business) to govern risk appetite by controlling the size of our exposures to market risk. Limits are set based on VaR and on a range of stress tests relevant to the firm’s exposures. Limits are reviewed frequently and amended on a permanent or temporary basis to reflect changing market conditions, business conditions or tolerance for risk.

The Firmwide Risk Committee sets market risk limits at firmwide and product levels and our Securities Division Risk Committee sets sub-limits for market-making and investing activities at a business level. The purpose of the firmwide limits is to assist senior management in controlling the firm's overall risk profile. Sub-limits set the desired maximum amount of exposure that may be managed by any particular business on a day-to-day basis without additional levels of senior management approval, effectively leaving day-to-day trading decisions to individual desk managers and traders. Accordingly, sub-limits are a management tool designed to ensure appropriate escalation rather than to establish maximum risk tolerance. Sub-limits also distribute risk among various businesses in a manner that is consistent with their level of activity and client demand, taking into account the relative performance of each area.
Our market risk limits are monitored daily by Market Risk Management, which is responsible for identifying and escalating, on a timely basis, instances where limits have been exceeded. The business-level limits that are set by the Securities Division Risk Committee are subject to the same scrutiny and limit escalation policy as the firmwide limits.

When a risk limit has been exceeded (e.g., due to changes in market conditions, such as increased volatilities or changes in correlations), it is reported to the appropriate risk committee and a discussion takes place with the relevant desk managers, after which either the risk position is reduced or the risk limit is temporarily or permanently increased.

## Model Review and Validation

Our VaR and stress testing models are subject to review and validation by our independent model validation group at least annually. This review includes:

• a critical evaluation of the model, its theoretical soundness and adequacy for intended use;

• verification of the testing strategy utilized by the model developers to ensure that the model functions as intended; and

• verification of the suitability of the calculation techniques incorporated in the model.

Our VaR and stress testing models are regularly reviewed and enhanced in order to incorporate changes in the composition of positions included in the firm’s market risk measures, as well as variations in market conditions. Prior to implementing significant changes to our assumptions and/or models, we perform model validation and test runs. Significant changes to our VaR and stress testing models are reviewed with the firm’s chief risk officer and chief financial officer, and approved by the Firmwide Risk Committee.

We evaluate the accuracy of our VaR model through daily backtesting (i.e., comparing daily trading net revenues to the VaR measure calculated as of the prior business day) at the firmwide level and for each of our businesses and major regulated subsidiaries.



## Systems

We have made a significant investment in technology to monitor market risk including:

• an independent calculation of VaR and stress measures;

• risk measures calculated at individual position levels;

• attribution of risk measures to individual risk factors of each position;

• the ability to report many different views of the risk measures (e.g., by desk, business, product type or legal entity); and

• the ability to produce ad hoc analyses in a timely manner.

## Metrics

We analyze VaR at the firmwide level and a variety of more detailed levels, including by risk category, business, and region. The tables below present, by risk category, average daily VaR and period-end VaR, as well as the high and low VaR for the period. Diversification effect in the tables below represents the difference between total VaR and the sum of the VaRs for the four risk categories. This effect arises because the four market risk categories are not perfectly correlated.

## Average Daily VaR

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Categories</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$ 63</td><td>$ 78</td><td>$ 94</td></tr><tr><td>Equity prices</td><td>32</td><td>26</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Currency rates</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity prices</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Diversification effect</td><td>(51)</td><td>(54)</td><td>(66)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 80</td><td>$ 86</td><td>$ 113</td></tr></table>

Our average daily VaR decreased to $80 million in 2013 from $86 million in 2012, primarily reflecting a decrease in the interest rates category principally due to lower levels of volatility and decreased exposures. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in the equity prices category principally due to increased exposures.

Our average daily VaR decreased to $86 million in 2012 from $113 million in 2011, reflecting a decrease in the interest rates category due to lower levels of volatility, decreases in the commodity prices and currency rates categories due to reduced exposures and lower levels of volatility, and a decrease in the equity prices category due to reduced exposures. These decreases were partially offset by a decrease in the diversification benefit across risk categories.

Year-End VaR and High and Low VaR

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td><td colspan="2">Year Ended December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Categories</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$ 59</td><td>$ 64</td><td>$ 77</td><td>$54</td></tr><tr><td>Equity prices</td><td>35</td><td>22</td><td>90 \( ^{1} \)</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Currency rates</td><td>16</td><td>9</td><td>37</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity prices</td><td>20</td><td>18</td><td>25</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Diversification effect</td><td>(45)</td><td>(42)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 85</td><td>$ 71</td><td>$127</td><td>$64</td></tr></table>

1. Reflects the impact of temporarily increased exposures as a result of equity underwriting transactions.

Our daily VaR increased to $85 million as of December 2013 from $71 million as of December 2012, primarily reflecting increases in the equity prices and currency rates categories, principally due to increased exposures. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in the interest rates category primarily due to decreased exposures.

During 2013 and 2012, the firmwide VaR risk limit was not exceeded and in each year it was reduced on one occasion due to lower levels of volatility.



The chart below reflects the VaR over the last four quarters.



Daily trading net revenues are compared with VaR calculated as of the end of the prior business day. Trading losses incurred on a single day did not exceed our 95% one-day VaR during 2013 or 2012 (i.e., a VaR exception).

During periods in which the firm has significantly more positive net revenue days than net revenue loss days, we expect to have fewer VaR exceptions because, under normal conditions, our business model generally produces positive net revenues. In periods in which our franchise revenues are adversely affected, we generally have more loss days, resulting in more VaR exceptions. In addition, VaR backtesting is performed against total daily market-making revenues, including bid/offer net revenues, which are more likely than not to be positive by their nature.

The chart below presents the frequency distribution of our daily trading net revenues for substantially all positions included in VaR for 2013.






## Sensitivity Measures

Certain portfolios and individual positions are not included in VaR because VaR is not the most appropriate risk measure. Other sensitivity measures we use to analyze market risk are described below.

10% Sensitivity Measures. The table below presents market risk for inventory positions that are not included in VaR. The market risk of these positions is determined by estimating the potential reduction in net revenues of a 10% decline in the underlying asset value. Equity positions below relate to private and restricted public equity securities, including interests in funds that invest in corporate equities and real estate and interests in hedge funds, which are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value.” Debt positions include interests in funds that invest in corporate mezzanine and senior debt instruments, loans backed by commercial and residential real estate, corporate bank loans and other corporate debt, including acquired portfolios of distressed loans. These debt positions are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value.” See Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about cash instruments. These measures do not reflect diversification benefits across asset categories or across other market risk measures.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">Asset Categories</td><td colspan="2">10% Sensitivity</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Amount as of December</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Equity  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>2,256</td><td>2,471</td></tr><tr><td>Debt</td><td>1,522</td><td>1,676</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>3,778</td><td>4,147</td></tr></table>

1. December 2012 includes $208 million related to our investment in the ordinary shares of ICBC, which was sold in the first half of 2013.

Credit Spread Sensitivity on Derivatives and Borrowings. VaR excludes the impact of changes in counterparty and our own credit spreads on derivatives as well as changes in our own credit spreads on unsecured borrowings for which the fair value option was elected. The estimated sensitivity to a one basis point increase in credit spreads (counterparty and our own) on derivatives was a gain of $4 million and $3 million (including hedges) as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. In addition, the estimated sensitivity to a one basis point increase in our own credit spreads on unsecured borrowings for which the fair value option was elected was a gain of $8 million and $7 million (including hedges) as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. However, the actual net impact of a change in our own credit spreads is also affected by the liquidity, duration and convexity (as the sensitivity is not linear to changes in yields) of those unsecured borrowings for which the fair value option was elected, as well as the relative performance of any hedges undertaken.

Interest Rate Sensitivity. As of December 2013 and December 2012, the firm had $14.90 billion and $6.50 billion, respectively, of loans held for investment which were accounted for at amortized cost and included in “Receivables from customers and counterparties,” substantially all of which had floating interest rates. As of December 2013 and December 2012, the estimated sensitivity to a 100 basis point increase in interest rates on such loans was $136 million and $62 million, respectively, of additional interest income over a 12-month period, which does not take into account the potential impact of an increase in costs to fund such loans. See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about loans held for investment.



## Financial Statement Linkages to Market Risk Measures

The firm employs a variety of risk measures, each described in the respective sections above, to monitor market risk across the consolidated statements of financial condition and consolidated statements of earnings. The related gains and losses on these positions are included in “Market making,” “Other principal transactions,” “Interest income” and “Interest expense.” The table below presents certain categories in our consolidated statement of financial condition and the market risk measures used to assess those assets and liabilities. Certain categories on the consolidated statement of financial condition are incorporated in more than one risk measure.

<table><tr><td>Categories on the Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition Included in Market Risk Measure</td><td>Market Risk Measure</td></tr><tr><td>Securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes, at fair value</td><td>• VaR</td></tr><tr><td>Collateralized agreements• Securities purchased under agreements to resell, at fair value• Securities borrowed, at fair value</td><td>• VaR</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties• Certain secured loans, at fair value• Loans held for investment, at amortized cost</td><td>• VaR• Interest Rate Sensitivity</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>• VaR• 10% Sensitivity Measures• Credit Spread Sensitivity — Derivatives</td></tr><tr><td>Collateralized financings• Securities sold under agreements to repurchase, at fair value• Securities loaned, at fair value• Other secured financings, at fair value</td><td>• VaR</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value</td><td>• VaR• Credit Spread Sensitivity — Derivatives</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings and unsecured long-term borrowings, at fair value</td><td>• VaR• Credit Spread Sensitivity — Borrowings</td></tr></table>

## Other Market Risk Considerations

In addition, as of December 2013 and December 2012, we had commitments and held loans for which we have obtained credit loss protection from Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. See Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about such lending commitments.

Additionally, we make investments accounted for under the equity method and we also make direct investments in real estate, both of which are included in “Other assets” in the consolidated statements of financial condition. Direct investments in real estate are accounted for at cost less accumulated depreciation. See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements for information on “Other assets.”



## Credit Risk Management

## Overview

Credit risk represents the potential for loss due to the default or deterioration in credit quality of a counterparty (e.g., an OTC derivatives counterparty or a borrower) or an issuer of securities or other instruments we hold. Our exposure to credit risk comes mostly from client transactions in OTC derivatives and loans and lending commitments. Credit risk also comes from cash placed with banks, securities financing transactions (i.e., resale and repurchase agreements and securities borrowing and lending activities) and receivables from brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, customers and counterparties.

Credit Risk Management, which is independent of the revenue-producing units and reports to the firm’s chief risk officer, has primary responsibility for assessing, monitoring and managing credit risk at the firm. The Credit Policy Committee and the Firmwide Risk Committee establish and review credit policies and parameters. In addition, we hold other positions that give rise to credit risk (e.g., bonds held in our inventory and secondary bank loans). These credit risks are captured as a component of market risk measures, which are monitored and managed by Market Risk Management, consistent with other inventory positions. The firm also enters into derivatives to manage market risk exposures. Such derivatives also give rise to credit risk which is monitored and managed by Credit Risk Management.

Policies authorized by the Firmwide Risk Committee and the Credit Policy Committee prescribe the level of formal approval required for the firm to assume credit exposure to a counterparty across all product areas, taking into account any applicable netting provisions, collateral or other credit risk mitigants.

## Credit Risk Management Process

Effective management of credit risk requires accurate and timely information, a high level of communication and knowledge of customers, countries, industries and products. Our process for managing credit risk includes:

• approving transactions and setting and communicating credit exposure limits;

• monitoring compliance with established credit exposure limits;

• assessing the likelihood that a counterparty will default on its payment obligations;

• measuring the firm’s current and potential credit exposure and losses resulting from counterparty default;

• reporting of credit exposures to senior management, the Board and regulators;

• use of credit risk mitigants, including collateral and hedging; and

• communication and collaboration with other independent control and support functions such as operations, legal and compliance.

As part of the risk assessment process, Credit Risk Management performs credit reviews which include initial and ongoing analyses of our counterparties. A credit review is an independent judgment about the capacity and willingness of a counterparty to meet its financial obligations. For substantially all of our credit exposures, the core of our process is an annual counterparty review. A counterparty review is a written analysis of a counterparty’s business profile and financial strength resulting in an internal credit rating which represents the probability of default on financial obligations to the firm. The determination of internal credit ratings incorporates assumptions with respect to the counterparty’s future business performance, the nature and outlook for the counterparty’s industry, and the economic environment. Senior personnel within Credit Risk Management, with expertise in specific industries, inspect and approve credit reviews and internal credit ratings.

Our global credit risk management systems capture credit exposure to individual counterparties and on an aggregate basis to counterparties and their subsidiaries (economic groups). These systems also provide management with comprehensive information on our aggregate credit risk by product, internal credit rating, industry, country and region.



## Risk Measures and Limits

We measure our credit risk based on the potential loss in an event of non-payment by a counterparty. For derivatives and securities financing transactions, the primary measure is potential exposure, which is our estimate of the future exposure that could arise over the life of a transaction based on market movements within a specified confidence level. Potential exposure takes into account netting and collateral arrangements. For loans and lending commitments, the primary measure is a function of the notional amount of the position. We also monitor credit risk in terms of current exposure, which is the amount presently owed to the firm after taking into account applicable netting and collateral.

We use credit limits at various levels (counterparty, economic group, industry, country) to control the size of our credit exposures. Limits for counterparties and economic groups are reviewed regularly and revised to reflect changing appetites for a given counterparty or group of counterparties. Limits for industries and countries are based on the firm’s risk tolerance and are designed to allow for regular monitoring, review, escalation and management of credit risk concentrations.

## Stress Tests/Scenario Analysis

We use regular stress tests to calculate the credit exposures, including potential concentrations that would result from applying shocks to counterparty credit ratings or credit risk factors (e.g., currency rates, interest rates, equity prices). These shocks include a wide range of moderate and more extreme market movements. Some of our stress tests include shocks to multiple risk factors, consistent with the occurrence of a severe market or economic event. In the case of sovereign default, we estimate the direct impact of the default on our sovereign credit exposures, changes to our credit exposures arising from potential market moves in response to the default, and the impact of credit market deterioration on corporate borrowers and counterparties that may result from the sovereign default. Unlike potential exposure, which is calculated within a specified confidence level, with a stress test there is generally no assumed probability of these events occurring.

We run stress tests on a regular basis as part of our routine risk management processes and conduct tailored stress tests on an ad hoc basis in response to market developments. Stress tests are regularly conducted jointly with the firm’s market and liquidity risk functions.

## Risk Mitigants

To reduce our credit exposures on derivatives and securities financing transactions, we may enter into netting agreements with counterparties that permit us to offset receivables and payables with such counterparties. We may also reduce credit risk with counterparties by entering into agreements that enable us to obtain collateral from them on an upfront or contingent basis and/or to terminate transactions if the counterparty’s credit rating falls below a specified level. We monitor the fair value of the collateral on a daily basis to ensure that our credit exposures are appropriately collateralized. We seek to minimize exposures where there is a significant positive correlation between the creditworthiness of our counterparties and the market value of collateral we receive.

For loans and lending commitments, depending on the credit quality of the borrower and other characteristics of the transaction, we employ a variety of potential risk mitigants. Risk mitigants include: collateral provisions, guarantees, covenants, structural seniority of the bank loan claims and, for certain lending commitments, provisions in the legal documentation that allow the firm to adjust loan amounts, pricing, structure and other terms as market conditions change. The type and structure of risk mitigants employed can significantly influence the degree of credit risk involved in a loan.

When we do not have sufficient visibility into a counterparty’s financial strength or when we believe a counterparty requires support from its parent company, we may obtain third-party guarantees of the counterparty’s obligations. We may also mitigate our credit risk using credit derivatives or participation agreements.

## Credit Exposures

As of December 2013, our credit exposures decreased as compared with December 2012, primarily reflecting decreases in OTC derivatives, cash and securities financing exposures, partially offset by an increase in loans and lending commitments. The percentage of our credit exposure arising from non-investment-grade counterparties (based on our internally determined public rating agency equivalents) increased from December 2012, primarily reflecting an increase in loans and lending commitments. During 2013, counterparty defaults primarily occurred within OTC derivatives and loans and lending commitments. The number of counterparty defaults during 2013 remained low and was less than 0.5% of all counterparties. Counterparty defaults were higher in 2013 (there were approximately 10 additional defaults compared with 2012), primarily related to OTC derivatives. Estimated losses associated with these defaults were higher compared with the prior year and were not material to the firm.



The firm’s credit exposures are described further below.

Cash and Cash Equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents include both interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing deposits. To mitigate the risk of credit loss, we place substantially all of our deposits with highly-rated banks and central banks.

OTC Derivatives. The firm’s credit exposure on OTC derivatives arises primarily from our market-making activities. The firm, as a market maker, enters into derivative transactions to provide liquidity to clients and to facilitate the transfer and hedging of their risks. The firm also enters into derivatives to manage market risk exposures. We manage our credit exposure on OTC derivatives using the credit risk process, measures, limits and risk mitigants described above.

Derivatives are reported on a net-by-counterparty basis (i.e., the net payable or receivable for derivative assets and liabilities for a given counterparty) when a legal right of setoff exists under an enforceable netting agreement. Derivatives are accounted for at fair value, net of cash collateral received or posted under enforceable credit support agreements. We generally enter into OTC derivatives transactions under bilateral collateral arrangements with daily exchange of collateral.

As credit risk is an essential component of fair value, the firm includes a credit valuation adjustment (CVA) in the fair value of derivatives to reflect counterparty credit risk, as described in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements. CVA is a function of the present value of expected exposure, the probability of counterparty default and the assumed recovery upon default.

The tables below present the distribution of our exposure to OTC derivatives by tenor, based on expected duration for mortgage-related credit derivatives and generally on remaining contractual maturity for other derivatives, both before and after the effect of collateral and netting agreements. Receivable and payable balances for the same counterparty across tenor categories are netted under enforceable netting agreements, and cash collateral received is netted under enforceable credit support agreements. Receivable and payable balances with the same counterparty in the same tenor category are netted within such tenor category. Net credit exposure in the tables below represents OTC derivative assets, all of which are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value,” less cash collateral and the fair value of securities collateral, primarily U.S. government and federal agency obligations and non-U.S. government and agency obligations, received under credit support agreements, which management considers when determining credit risk, but such collateral is not eligible for netting under U.S. GAAP. The categories shown reflect our internally determined public rating agency equivalents.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td rowspan="2">0 - 12 Months</td><td rowspan="2">1 - 5 Years</td><td rowspan="2">5 Years or Greater</td><td rowspan="2">Total</td><td rowspan="2">Netting</td><td rowspan="2">OTC Derivative Assets</td><td rowspan="2">Net Credit Exposure</td></tr><tr><td>Credit Rating Equivalent</td></tr><tr><td>AAA/Aaa</td><td>$ 473</td><td>$ 1,470</td><td>$ 2,450</td><td>$ 4,393</td><td>$ (2,087)</td><td>$ 2,306</td><td>$ 2,159</td></tr><tr><td>AA/Aa2</td><td>3,463</td><td>7,642</td><td>29,926</td><td>41,031</td><td>(27,918)</td><td>13,113</td><td>8,596</td></tr><tr><td>A/A2</td><td>12,693</td><td>25,666</td><td>29,701</td><td>68,060</td><td>(48,803)</td><td>19,257</td><td>11,188</td></tr><tr><td>BBB/Baa2</td><td>4,377</td><td>10,112</td><td>24,013</td><td>38,502</td><td>(29,213)</td><td>9,289</td><td>5,952</td></tr><tr><td>BB/Ba2 or lower</td><td>2,972</td><td>6,188</td><td>4,271</td><td>13,431</td><td>(5,357)</td><td>8,074</td><td>6,381</td></tr><tr><td>Unrated</td><td>1,289</td><td>45</td><td>238</td><td>1,572</td><td>(9)</td><td>1,563</td><td>1,144</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$25,267</td><td>$51,123</td><td>$ 90,599</td><td>$166,989</td><td>(113,387)</td><td>$53,602</td><td>$35,420</td></tr></table>

As of December 2012

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td rowspan="2">0 - 12 Months</td><td rowspan="2">1 - 5 Years</td><td rowspan="2">5 Years or Greater</td><td rowspan="2">Total</td><td rowspan="2">Netting</td><td rowspan="2">OTC Derivative Assets</td><td rowspan="2">Net Credit Exposure</td></tr><tr><td>Credit Rating Equivalent</td></tr><tr><td>AAA/Aaa</td><td>$ 494</td><td>$ 1,934</td><td>$ 2,778</td><td>$ 5,206</td><td>$ (1,476)</td><td>$ 3,730</td><td>$ 3,443</td></tr><tr><td>AA/Aa2</td><td>4,631</td><td>7,483</td><td>20,357</td><td>32,471</td><td>(16,026)</td><td>16,445</td><td>10,467</td></tr><tr><td>A/A2</td><td>13,422</td><td>26,550</td><td>42,797</td><td>82,769</td><td>(57,868)</td><td>24,901</td><td>16,326</td></tr><tr><td>BBB/Baa2</td><td>7,032</td><td>12,173</td><td>27,676</td><td>46,881</td><td>(32,962)</td><td>13,919</td><td>4,577</td></tr><tr><td>BB/Ba2 or lower</td><td>2,489</td><td>5,762</td><td>7,676</td><td>15,927</td><td>(9,116)</td><td>6,811</td><td>4,544</td></tr><tr><td>Unrated</td><td>326</td><td>927</td><td>358</td><td>1,611</td><td>(13)</td><td>1,598</td><td>1,259</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$28,394</td><td>$54,829</td><td>$101,642</td><td>$184,865</td><td>($117,461)</td><td>$67,404</td><td>$40,616</td></tr></table>



Lending and Financing Activities. We manage the firm’s lending and financing activities using the credit risk process, measures, limits and risk mitigants described above. Other lending positions, including secondary trading positions, are risk-managed as a component of market risk.

• Lending Activities. The firm’s lending activities include lending to investment-grade and non-investment-grade corporate borrowers. Loans and lending commitments associated with these activities are principally used for operating liquidity and general corporate purposes or in connection with contingent acquisitions. The firm’s lending activities also include extending loans to borrowers that are secured by commercial and other real estate. See the tables below for further information about our credit exposures associated with these lending activities.

• Securities Financing Transactions. The firm enters into securities financing transactions in order to, among other things, facilitate client activities, invest excess cash, acquire securities to cover short positions and finance certain firm activities. The firm bears credit risk related to resale agreements and securities borrowed only to the extent that cash advanced or the value of securities pledged or delivered to the counterparty exceeds the value of the collateral received. The firm also has credit exposure on repurchase agreements and securities loaned to the extent that the value of securities pledged or delivered to the counterparty for these transactions exceeds the amount of cash or collateral received. Securities collateral obtained for securities financing transactions primarily includes U.S. government and federal agency obligations and non-U.S. government and agency obligations. We manage our credit risk on securities financing transactions using the credit risk process, measures, limits and risk mitigants described above. We had approximately $29 billion and $37 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, of credit exposure related to securities financing transactions reflecting both netting agreements and collateral that management considers when determining credit risk.
• Other Credit Exposures. The firm is exposed to credit risk from its receivables from brokers, dealers and clearing organizations and customers and counterparties. Receivables from brokers, dealers and clearing organizations are primarily comprised of initial cash margin placed with clearing organizations and receivables related to sales of securities which have traded, but not yet settled. These receivables generally have minimal credit risk due to the low probability of clearing organization default and the short-term nature of receivables related to securities settlements. Receivables from customers and counterparties are generally comprised of collateralized receivables related to customer securities transactions and generally have minimal credit risk due to both the value of the collateral received and the short-term nature of these receivables. Our net credit exposure related to these activities was approximately $18 billion as of both December 2013 and December 2012, and was primarily comprised of initial margin (both cash and securities) placed with clearing organizations.

In addition, the firm extends other loans and lending commitments to its private wealth clients that are generally longer-term in nature and are primarily secured by residential real estate or other assets. The gross exposure related to such loans and lending commitments was approximately $11 billion and $7 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. The fair value of the collateral received against such loans and lending commitments exceeded the gross exposure as of both December 2013 and December 2012.

## Credit Exposure by Industry, Region and Credit Quality

The tables below present the firm’s credit exposures related to cash, OTC derivatives, and loans and lending commitments (excluding Securities Financing Transactions and Other Credit Exposures above) broken down by industry, region and credit quality.



## Credit Exposure by Industry

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="2">Cash</td><td colspan="2">OTC Derivatives</td><td colspan="2">Loans and Lending Commitments \( ^{1} \)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">As of December</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Asset Managers &amp; Funds</td><td>$ 91</td><td>$ —</td><td>$10,812</td><td>$10,552</td><td>$ 2,075</td><td>$ 1,673</td></tr><tr><td>Banks, Brokers &amp; Other Financial Institutions</td><td>9,742</td><td>10,507</td><td>11,448</td><td>21,310</td><td>11,824</td><td>6,192</td></tr><tr><td>Consumer Products, Non-Durables &amp; Retail</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>3,448</td><td>1,516</td><td>16,477</td><td>13,304</td></tr><tr><td>Government &amp; Central Banks</td><td>51,294</td><td>62,162</td><td>13,446</td><td>14,729</td><td>1,897</td><td>1,782</td></tr><tr><td>Healthcare &amp; Education</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2,157</td><td>3,764</td><td>12,283</td><td>7,717</td></tr><tr><td>Insurance</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2,771</td><td>4,214</td><td>3,085</td><td>3,199</td></tr><tr><td>Natural Resources &amp; Utilities</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>4,781</td><td>4,383</td><td>17,970</td><td>16,360</td></tr><tr><td>Real Estate</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>388</td><td>381</td><td>8,550</td><td>3,796</td></tr><tr><td>Technology, Media, Telecommunications &amp; Services</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2,124</td><td>2,016</td><td>16,740</td><td>17,674</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>673</td><td>1,207</td><td>6,729</td><td>6,557</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,554</td><td>3,332</td><td>7,695</td><td>4,650</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$61,133</td><td>$72,669</td><td>$53,602</td><td>$67,404</td><td>$105,325</td><td>$82,904</td></tr></table>

## Credit Exposure by Region

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="2">Cash</td><td colspan="2">OTC Derivatives</td><td colspan="2">Loans and Lending Commitments \( ^{1} \)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">As of December</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Americas</td><td>$54,470</td><td>$65,193</td><td>$21,423</td><td>$32,968</td><td>$ 77,710</td><td>$59,792</td></tr><tr><td>Europe, Middle East and Africa</td><td>2,143</td><td>1,683</td><td>25,983</td><td>26,739</td><td>25,222</td><td>21,104</td></tr><tr><td>Asia</td><td>4,520</td><td>5,793</td><td>6,196</td><td>7,697</td><td>2,393</td><td>2,008</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$61,133</td><td>$72,669</td><td>$53,602</td><td>$67,404</td><td>$105,325</td><td>$82,904</td></tr></table>

## Credit Exposure by Credit Quality

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="2">Cash</td><td colspan="2">OTC Derivatives</td><td colspan="2">Loans and Lending Commitments \( ^{1} \)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">As of December</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit Rating Equivalent</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AAA/Aaa</td><td>$50,519</td><td>$59,825</td><td>$ 2,306</td><td>$ 3,730</td><td>$ 3,079</td><td>$ 2,179</td></tr><tr><td>AA/Aa2</td><td>2,748</td><td>6,356</td><td>13,113</td><td>16,445</td><td>7,001</td><td>7,220</td></tr><tr><td>A/A2</td><td>6,821</td><td>5,068</td><td>19,257</td><td>24,901</td><td>23,250</td><td>21,901</td></tr><tr><td>BBB/Baa2</td><td>527</td><td>326</td><td>9,289</td><td>13,919</td><td>30,496</td><td>26,313</td></tr><tr><td>BB/Ba2 or lower</td><td>518</td><td>1,094</td><td>8,074</td><td>6,811</td><td>41,114</td><td>25,291</td></tr><tr><td>Unrated</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,563</td><td>1,598</td><td>385</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$61,133</td><td>$72,669</td><td>$53,602</td><td>$67,404</td><td>$105,325</td><td>$82,904</td></tr></table>

1. Includes approximately $23 billion and $12 billion of loans as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, and approximately $82 billion and $71 billion of lending commitments as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. Excludes certain loans and related lending commitments that are risk-managed as part of market risk using VaR and sensitivity measures.



## Selected Country Exposures

There have been continuing concerns about European sovereign debt risk and its impact on the European banking system and a number of European member states have experienced significant credit deterioration. The most pronounced market concerns relate to Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The tables below present our credit exposure (both gross and net of hedges) to all sovereigns, financial institutions and corporate counterparties or borrowers in these countries. Credit exposure represents the potential for loss due to the default or deterioration in credit quality of a counterparty or borrower. In addition, the tables include the market exposure of our long and short inventory for which the issuer or underlier is located in these countries.
Market exposure represents the potential for loss in value of our inventory due to changes in market prices. There is no overlap between the credit and market exposures in the tables below.

The country of risk is determined by the location of the counterparty, issuer or underlier’s assets, where they generate revenue, the country in which they are headquartered, and/or the government whose policies affect their ability to repay their obligations.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="8">Credit Exposure</td><td colspan="5">Market Exposure</td></tr><tr><td>Loans</td><td>OTC Derivatives</td><td>Other</td><td>Gross Funded</td><td>Hedges</td><td>Total Net Funded Credit Exposure</td><td>Unfunded Credit Exposure</td><td>Total Credit Exposure</td><td>Debt</td><td>Equities and Other</td><td>Credit Derivatives</td><td>Total Market Exposure</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>$ -</td><td>$ 233</td><td>$ -</td><td>$ 233</td><td>$ (72)</td><td>$ 161</td><td>$ -</td><td>$ 161</td><td>$ 12</td><td>$ -</td><td>$ (2)</td><td>$ 10</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>-</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>16</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total Greece</td><td>-</td><td>239</td><td>-</td><td>239</td><td>(72)</td><td>167</td><td>-</td><td>167</td><td>22</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>26</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>-</td><td>7</td><td>125</td><td>132</td><td>-</td><td>132</td><td>-</td><td>132</td><td>(48)</td><td>-</td><td>(162)</td><td>(210)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>373</td><td>356</td><td>127</td><td>856</td><td>(5)</td><td>851</td><td>41</td><td>892</td><td>291</td><td>91</td><td>108</td><td>490</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total Ireland</td><td>373</td><td>363</td><td>252</td><td>988</td><td>(5)</td><td>983</td><td>41</td><td>1,024</td><td>243</td><td>91</td><td>(54)</td><td>280</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>-</td><td>1,704</td><td>2</td><td>1,706</td><td>(1,691)</td><td>15</td><td>-</td><td>15</td><td>371</td><td>-</td><td>62</td><td>433</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>10</td><td>527</td><td>195</td><td>732</td><td>(31)</td><td>701</td><td>660</td><td>1,361</td><td>361</td><td>(13)</td><td>(794)</td><td>(446)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total Italy</td><td>10</td><td>2,231</td><td>197</td><td>2,438</td><td>(1,722)</td><td>716</td><td>660</td><td>1,376</td><td>732</td><td>(13)</td><td>(732)</td><td>(13)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>103</td><td>103</td><td>-</td><td>103</td><td>-</td><td>103</td><td>(27)</td><td>-</td><td>(73)</td><td>(100)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>-</td><td>16</td><td>20</td><td>36</td><td>-</td><td>36</td><td>-</td><td>36</td><td>126</td><td>-</td><td>(112)</td><td>14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total Portugal</td><td>-</td><td>16</td><td>123</td><td>139</td><td>-</td><td>139</td><td>-</td><td>139</td><td>99</td><td>-</td><td>(185)</td><td>(86)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>-</td><td>52</td><td>-</td><td>52</td><td>-</td><td>52</td><td>-</td><td>52</td><td>930</td><td>-</td><td>223</td><td>1,153</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>1,025</td><td>230</td><td>65</td><td>1,320</td><td>(93)</td><td>1,227</td><td>855</td><td>2,082</td><td>1,490</td><td>158</td><td>(1,144)</td><td>504</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total Spain</td><td>1,025</td><td>282</td><td>65</td><td>1,372</td><td>(93)</td><td>1,279</td><td>855</td><td>2,134</td><td>2,420</td><td>158</td><td>(921)</td><td>1,657</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$1,408^{1}</td><td>$3,131^{2}</td><td>$637</td><td>$5,176</td><td>$ (1,892)^{3}</td><td>$3,284</td><td>$1,556</td><td>$4,840</td><td>$3,516</td><td>$239</td><td>$ (1,891)^{3}</td><td>$1,864</td><td></td></tr></table>

1. Principally consists of loans collateralized by cash, securities and real estate.

2. Includes the benefit of $4.4 billion of cash and U.S. Treasury securities collateral and excludes non-U.S. government and agency obligations and corporate securities collateral of $254 million.

3. Includes written and purchased credit derivative notionals reduced by the fair values of such credit derivatives.



As of December 2012

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="8">Credit Exposure</td><td colspan="4">Market Exposure</td></tr><tr><td>Loans</td><td>Derivatives</td><td>OTC</td><td>Gross</td><td>Hedges</td><td>Total Net Funded Credit Exposure</td><td>Unfunded Credit Exposure</td><td>Total Credit Exposure</td><td>Debt</td><td>Equities and Other</td><td>Credit Derivatives</td><td>Total Market Exposure</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 30</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 30</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>—</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>65</td><td>15</td><td>(5)</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Total Greece</td><td>—</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>95</td><td>15</td><td>(5)</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>103</td><td>104</td><td>—</td><td>104</td><td>—</td><td>104</td><td>8</td><td>—</td><td>(150)</td><td>(142)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>—</td><td>126</td><td>36</td><td>162</td><td>—</td><td>162</td><td>—</td><td>162</td><td>801</td><td>74</td><td>155</td><td>1,030</td></tr><tr><td>Total Ireland</td><td>—</td><td>127</td><td>139</td><td>266</td><td>—</td><td>266</td><td>—</td><td>266</td><td>809</td><td>74</td><td>5</td><td>888</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>—</td><td>1,756</td><td>1</td><td>1,757</td><td>(1,714)</td><td>43</td><td>—</td><td>43</td><td>(415)</td><td>—</td><td>(603)</td><td>(1,018)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>43</td><td>560</td><td>129</td><td>732</td><td>(33)</td><td>699</td><td>587</td><td>1,286</td><td>434</td><td>65</td><td>(996)</td><td>(497)</td></tr><tr><td>Total Italy</td><td>43</td><td>2,316</td><td>130</td><td>2,489</td><td>(1,747)</td><td>742</td><td>587</td><td>1,329</td><td>19</td><td>65</td><td>(1,599)</td><td>(1,515)</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>—</td><td>141</td><td>61</td><td>202</td><td>—</td><td>202</td><td>—</td><td>202</td><td>155</td><td>—</td><td>(226)</td><td>(71)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>—</td><td>44</td><td>2</td><td>46</td><td>—</td><td>46</td><td>—</td><td>46</td><td>168</td><td>(6)</td><td>(133)</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Total Portugal</td><td>—</td><td>185</td><td>63</td><td>248</td><td>—</td><td>248</td><td>—</td><td>248</td><td>323</td><td>(6)</td><td>(359)</td><td>(42)</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sovereign</td><td>—</td><td>75</td><td>—</td><td>75</td><td>—</td><td>75</td><td>—</td><td>75</td><td>986</td><td>—</td><td>(268)</td><td>718</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Sovereign</td><td>1,048</td><td>259</td><td>23</td><td>1,330</td><td>(95)</td><td>1,235</td><td>733</td><td>1,968</td><td>1,268</td><td>83</td><td>(186)</td><td>1,165</td></tr><tr><td>Total Spain</td><td>1,048</td><td>334</td><td>23</td><td>1,405</td><td>(95)</td><td>1,310</td><td>733</td><td>2,043</td><td>2,254</td><td>83</td><td>(454)</td><td>1,883</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$1,091^{1}</td><td>$2,967^{2}</td><td>$356</td><td>$4,414</td><td>$1,842^{3}</td><td>$2,572</td><td>$1,320</td><td>$3,892</td><td>$3,500</td><td>$231</td><td>$2,412^{3}</td><td>$ 1,319</td></tr></table>

1. Principally consists of loans for which the fair value of collateral exceeds the carrying value of such loans.

2. Includes the benefit of $6.6 billion of cash and U.S. Treasury securities collateral and excludes non-U.S. government and agency obligations and corporate securities collateral of $357 million.

3. Includes written and purchased credit derivative notionals reduced by the fair values of such credit derivatives.

We economically hedge our exposure to written credit derivatives by entering into offsetting purchased credit derivatives with identical underlyings. Where possible, we endeavor to match the tenor and credit default terms of such hedges to that of our written credit derivatives. Substantially all purchased credit derivatives included above are bought from investment-grade counterparties domiciled outside of these countries and are collateralized with cash, U.S. Treasury securities or German government agency obligations. The gross purchased and written credit derivative notionals across the above countries for single-name and index credit default swaps (included in 'Hedges' and 'Credit Derivatives' in the tables above) were $154.6 billion and $148.2 billion, respectively, as of December 2013, and $179.4 billion and $168.6 billion, respectively, as of December 2012. Including netting under legally enforceable netting agreements, within each and across all of the countries above, the purchased and written credit derivative notionals for single-name and index credit default swaps were $22.3 billion and $15.8 billion, respectively, as of December 2013, and $26.0 billion and $15.3 billion, respectively, as of December 2012. These notionals are not representative of our exposure because they exclude available netting under legally enforceable netting agreements on other derivatives outside of these countries and collateral received or posted under credit support agreements.

In credit exposure above, ‘Other’ principally consists of deposits, secured lending transactions and other secured receivables, net of applicable collateral. As of December 2013 and December 2012, $11.9 billion and $4.8 billion, respectively, of secured lending transactions and other secured receivables were fully collateralized.

For information about the nature of or payout under trigger events related to written and purchased credit protection contracts see Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements.



To supplement our regular stress tests, we conduct tailored stress tests on an ad hoc basis in response to specific market events that we deem significant. For example, in response to the Euro area debt crisis, we conducted stress tests intended to estimate the direct and indirect impact that might result from a variety of possible events involving certain European member states, including sovereign defaults and the exit of one or more countries from the Euro area. In the stress tests, described in "Market Risk Management — Stress Testing" and "Credit Risk Management — Stress Tests/Scenario Analysis," we estimated the direct impact of the event on our credit and market exposures resulting from shocks to risk factors including, but not limited to, currency rates, interest rates, and equity prices. The parameters of these shocks varied based on the scenario reflected in each stress test. We also estimated the indirect impact on our exposures arising from potential market moves in response to the event, such as the impact of credit market deterioration on corporate borrowers and counterparties along with the shocks to the risk factors described above. We reviewed estimated losses produced by the stress tests in order to understand their magnitude, highlight potential loss concentrations, and assess and mitigate our exposures where necessary.
Euro area exit scenarios included analysis of the impacts on exposure that might result from the redenomination of assets in the exiting country or countries. We also tested our operational and risk management readiness and capability to respond to a redenomination event. Constructing stress tests for these scenarios requires many assumptions about how exposures might be directly impacted and how resulting secondary market moves would indirectly impact such exposures. Given the multiple parameters involved in such scenarios, losses from such events are inherently difficult to quantify and may materially differ from our estimates.

See “Liquidity Risk Management — Modeled Liquidity Outflow,” “Market Risk Management — Stress Testing” and “Credit Risk Management — Stress Tests/Scenario Analysis” for further discussion.



## Operational Risk Management

## Overview

Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events. Our exposure to operational risk arises from routine processing errors as well as extraordinary incidents, such as major systems failures. Potential types of loss events related to internal and external operational risk include:

• clients, products and business practices;

• execution, delivery and process management;

• business disruption and system failures;

• employment practices and workplace safety;

• damage to physical assets;

• internal fraud; and

• external fraud.

We maintain a comprehensive control framework designed to provide a well-controlled environment to minimize operational risks. The Firmwide Operational Risk Committee, along with the support of regional or entity-specific working groups or committees, provides oversight of the ongoing development and implementation of our operational risk policies and framework. Operational Risk Management is a risk management function independent of our revenue-producing units, reports to the firm’s chief risk officer, and is responsible for developing and implementing policies, methodologies and a formalized framework for operational risk management with the goal of minimizing our exposure to operational risk.

## Operational Risk Management Process

Managing operational risk requires timely and accurate information as well as a strong control culture. We seek to manage our operational risk through:

• the training, supervision and development of our people;

• the active participation of senior management in identifying and mitigating key operational risks across the firm;

• independent control and support functions that monitor operational risk on a daily basis, and implementation of extensive policies and procedures, and controls designed to prevent the occurrence of operational risk events;

• proactive communication between our revenue-producing units and our independent control and support functions; and

• a network of systems throughout the firm to facilitate the collection of data used to analyze and assess our operational risk exposure.

We combine top-down and bottom-up approaches to manage and measure operational risk. From a top-down perspective, the firm’s senior management assesses firmwide and business level operational risk profiles. From a bottom-up perspective, revenue-producing units and independent control and support functions are responsible for risk management on a day-to-day basis, including identifying, mitigating, and escalating operational risks to senior management.

Our operational risk framework is in part designed to comply with the operational risk measurement rules under Basel II and has evolved based on the changing needs of our businesses and regulatory guidance. Our framework comprises the following practices:

• risk identification and reporting;

• risk measurement; and

• risk monitoring.

Internal Audit performs an independent review of our operational risk framework, including our key controls, processes and applications, on an annual basis to assess the effectiveness of our framework.



## Risk Identification and Reporting

The core of our operational risk management framework is risk identification and reporting. We have a comprehensive data collection process, including firmware policies and procedures, for operational risk events.

We have established policies that require managers in our revenue-producing units and our independent control and support functions to escalate operational risk events. When operational risk events are identified, our policies require that the events be documented and analyzed to determine whether changes are required in our systems and/or processes to further mitigate the risk of future events.

In addition, our firmware systems capture internal operational risk event data, key metrics such as transaction volumes, and statistical information such as performance trends. We use an internally-developed operational risk management application to aggregate and organize this information. Managers from both revenue-producing units and independent control and support functions analyze the information to evaluate operational risk exposures and identify businesses, activities or products with heightened levels of operational risk. We also provide periodic operational risk reports to senior management, risk committees and the Board.

## Risk Measurement

We measure our operational risk exposure over a twelve-month time horizon using both statistical modeling and scenario analyses, which involve qualitative assessments of the potential frequency and extent of potential operational risk losses, for each of our businesses. Operational risk measurement incorporates qualitative and quantitative assessments of factors including:

• internal and external operational risk event data;

• assessments of our internal controls;

• evaluations of the complexity of our business activities;

• the degree of and potential for automation in our processes;

• new product information;

• the legal and regulatory environment;

• changes in the markets for our products and services, including the diversity and sophistication of our customers and counterparties; and

• the liquidity of the capital markets and the reliability of the infrastructure that supports the capital markets. The results from these scenarios analyses are used to monitor changes in operational risk and to determine business lines that may have heightened exposure to operational risk. These analyses ultimately are used in the determination of the appropriate level of operational risk capital to hold.

## Risk Monitoring

We evaluate changes in the operational risk profile of our businesses, including changes in business mix or jurisdictions in which we operate, by monitoring the factors noted above at a firmware level. We have both detective and preventive internal controls, which are designed to reduce the frequency and severity of operational risk losses and the probability of operational risk events. We monitor the results of assessments and independent internal audits of these internal controls.

## Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses

We face a variety of risks that are substantial and inherent in our businesses, including market, liquidity, credit, operational, legal, regulatory and reputational risks. For a discussion of how management seeks to manage some of these risks, see “Overview and Structure of Risk Management.” A summary of the more important factors that could affect our businesses follows. For a further discussion of these and other important factors that could affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and liquidity, see “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K.

• Our businesses have been and may continue to be adversely affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic conditions generally.

• Our businesses have been and may be adversely affected by declining asset values. This is particularly true for those businesses in which we have net “long” positions, receive fees based on the value of assets managed, or receive or post collateral.

• Our businesses have been and may be adversely affected by disruptions in the credit markets, including reduced access to credit and higher costs of obtaining credit.

• Our market-making activities have been and may be affected by changes in the levels of market volatility.

• Our investment banking, client execution and investment management businesses have been adversely affected and may continue to be adversely affected by market uncertainty or lack of confidence among investors and CEOs due to general declines in economic activity and other unfavorable economic, geopolitical or market conditions.



• Our investment management business may be affected by the poor investment performance of our investment products.

• We may incur losses as a result of ineffective risk management processes and strategies.

• Our liquidity, profitability and businesses may be adversely affected by an inability to access the debt capital markets or to sell assets or by a reduction in our credit ratings or by an increase in our credit spreads.

• Conflicts of interest are increasing and a failure to appropriately identify and address conflicts of interest could adversely affect our businesses.

• Group Inc. is a holding company and is dependent for liquidity on payments from its subsidiaries, many of which are subject to restrictions.

• Our businesses, profitability and liquidity may be adversely affected by deterioration in the credit quality of, or defaults by, third parties who owe us money, securities or other assets or whose securities or obligations we hold.

• Concentration of risk increases the potential for significant losses in our market-making, underwriting, investing and lending activities.

• The financial services industry is both highly competitive and interrelated.

• We face enhanced risks as new business initiatives lead us to transact with a broader array of clients and counterparties and expose us to new asset classes and new markets.

• Derivative transactions and delayed settlements may expose us to unexpected risk and potential losses.
• Our businesses may be adversely affected if we are unable to hire and retain qualified employees.

• Our businesses and those of our clients are subject to extensive and pervasive regulation around the world.

• We may be adversely affected by increased governmental and regulatory scrutiny or negative publicity.

• A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, could impair our liquidity, disrupt our businesses, result in the disclosure of confidential information, damage our reputation and cause losses.

• Substantial legal liability or significant regulatory action against us could have material adverse financial effects or cause us significant reputational harm, which in turn could seriously harm our business prospects.

• The growth of electronic trading and the introduction of new trading technology may adversely affect our business and may increase competition.

• Our commodities activities, particularly our physical commodities activities, subject us to extensive regulation, potential catastrophic events and environmental, reputational and other risks that may expose us to significant liabilities and costs.

• In conducting our businesses around the world, we are subject to political, economic, legal, operational and other risks that are inherent in operating in many countries.

• We may incur losses as a result of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including the emergence of a pandemic, terrorist attacks, extreme weather events or other natural disasters.



Management of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries (the firm), is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. The firm’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of the firm’s principal executive and principal financial officers to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of the firm’s financial statements for external reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

As of December 31, 2013, management conducted an assessment of the firm’s internal control over financial reporting based on the framework established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on this assessment, management has determined that the firm’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013 was effective.
Our internal control over financial reporting includes policies and procedures that pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect transactions and dispositions of assets; provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and the directors of the firm; and provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the firm’s assets that could have a material effect on our financial statements.

The firm’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report appearing on page 109, which expresses an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the firm’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013.



## To the Board of Directors and the Shareholders of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.:

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated statements of financial condition and the related consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the Company) at December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2013, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting appearing on page 108. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements and on the Company's internal control over financial reporting 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 audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting 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 audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
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 (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (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 receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) 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.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
February 27, 2014



## Consolidated Statements of Earnings

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions, except per share amounts</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Revenues</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Investment banking</td><td>$ 6,004</td><td>$ 4,941</td><td>$ 4,361</td></tr><tr><td>Investment management</td><td>5,194</td><td>4,968</td><td>4,691</td></tr><tr><td>Commissions and fees</td><td>3,255</td><td>3,161</td><td>3,773</td></tr><tr><td>Market making</td><td>9,368</td><td>11,348</td><td>9,287</td></tr><tr><td>Other principal transactions</td><td>6,993</td><td>5,865</td><td>1,507</td></tr><tr><td>Total non-interest revenues</td><td>30,814</td><td>30,283</td><td>23,619</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income</td><td>10,060</td><td>11,381</td><td>13,174</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense</td><td>6,668</td><td>7,501</td><td>7,982</td></tr><tr><td>Net interest income</td><td>3,392</td><td>3,880</td><td>5,192</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues, including net interest income</td><td>34,206</td><td>34,163</td><td>28,811</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Compensation and benefits</td><td>12,613</td><td>12,944</td><td>12,223</td></tr><tr><td>Brokerage, clearing, exchange and distribution fees</td><td>2,341</td><td>2,208</td><td>2,463</td></tr><tr><td>Market development</td><td>541</td><td>509</td><td>640</td></tr><tr><td>Communications and technology</td><td>776</td><td>782</td><td>828</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>1,322</td><td>1,738</td><td>1,865</td></tr><tr><td>Occupancy</td><td>839</td><td>875</td><td>1,030</td></tr><tr><td>Professional fees</td><td>930</td><td>867</td><td>992</td></tr><tr><td>Insurance reserves</td><td>176</td><td>598</td><td>529</td></tr><tr><td>Other expenses</td><td>2,931</td><td>2,435</td><td>2,072</td></tr><tr><td>Total non-compensation expenses</td><td>9,856</td><td>10,012</td><td>10,419</td></tr><tr><td>Total operating expenses</td><td>22,469</td><td>22,956</td><td>22,642</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>11,737</td><td>11,207</td><td>6,169</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for taxes</td><td>3,697</td><td>3,732</td><td>1,727</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>8,040</td><td>7,475</td><td>4,442</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock dividends</td><td>314</td><td>183</td><td>1,932</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings applicable to common shareholders</td><td>$ 7,726</td><td>$ 7,292</td><td>$ 2,510</td></tr><tr><td>Earnings per common share</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basic</td><td>$ 16.34</td><td>$ 14.63</td><td>$ 4.71</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted</td><td>15.46</td><td>14.13</td><td>4.51</td></tr><tr><td>Average common shares outstanding</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basic</td><td>471.3</td><td>496.2</td><td>524.6</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted</td><td>499.6</td><td>516.1</td><td>556.9</td></tr></table>



## Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>$8,040</td><td>$7,475</td><td>$4,442</td></tr><tr><td>Other comprehensive income/(loss) adjustments, net of tax:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Currency translation</td><td>(50)</td><td>(89)</td><td>(55)</td></tr><tr><td>Pension and postretirement liabilities</td><td>38</td><td>168</td><td>(145)</td></tr><tr><td>Available-for-sale securities</td><td>(327)</td><td>244</td><td>(30)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flow hedges</td><td>8</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other comprehensive income/(loss)</td><td>(331)</td><td>323</td><td>(230)</td></tr><tr><td>Comprehensive income</td><td>$7,709</td><td>$7,798</td><td>$4,212</td></tr></table>



## Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions, except share and per share amounts</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents</td><td>$ 61,133</td><td>$ 72,669</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes (includes $31,937 and $30,484 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>49,671</td><td>49,671</td></tr><tr><td>Collateralized agreements:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell and federal funds sold (includes $161,297 and $141,331 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>161,732</td><td>141,334</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed (includes $60,384 and $38,395 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>164,566</td><td>136,893</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from brokers, dealers and clearing organizations</td><td>23,840</td><td>18,480</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties (includes $7,416 and $7,866 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>88,935</td><td>72,874</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value (includes $62,348 and $67,177 pledged as collateral as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>339,121</td><td>407,011</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets (includes $18 and $13,426 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>22,509</td><td>39,623</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$911,507</td><td>$938,555</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities and shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits (includes $7,255 and $5,100 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>$ 70,807</td><td>$ 70,124</td></tr><tr><td>Collateralized financings:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase, at fair value</td><td>164,782</td><td>171,807</td></tr><tr><td>Securities loaned (includes $973 and $1,558 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>18,745</td><td>13,765</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (includes $23,591 and $30,337 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>24,814</td><td>32,010</td></tr><tr><td>Payables to brokers, dealers and clearing organizations</td><td>5,349</td><td>5,283</td></tr><tr><td>Payables to customers and counterparties</td><td>199,416</td><td>189,202</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value</td><td>127,426</td><td>126,644</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings, including the current portion of unsecured long-term borrowings (includes $19,067 and $17,595 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>44,692</td><td>44,304</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings (includes $11,691 and $12,593 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>160,965</td><td>167,305</td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses (includes $388 and $12,043 at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively)</td><td>16,044</td><td>42,395</td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities</td><td>833,040</td><td>862,839</td></tr><tr><td>Commitments, contingencies and guarantees</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share; aggregate liquidation preference of $7,200 and $6,200 as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively</td><td>7,200</td><td>6,200</td></tr><tr><td>Common stock, par value $0.01 per share; 4,000,000,000 shares authorized, 837,219,068 and 816,807,400 shares issued as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, and 446,359,012 and 465,148,387 shares outstanding as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Restricted stock units and employee stock options</td><td>3,839</td><td>3,298</td></tr><tr><td>Nonvoting common stock, par value $0.01 per share; 200,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and outstanding</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Additional paid-in capital</td><td>48,998</td><td>48,030</td></tr><tr><td>Retained earnings</td><td>71,961</td><td>65,223</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated other comprehensive loss</td><td>(524)</td><td>(193)</td></tr><tr><td>Stock held in treasury, at cost, par value $0.01 per share; 390,860,058 and 351,659,015 shares as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively</td><td>(53,015)</td><td>(46,850)</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>78,467</td><td>75,716</td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities and shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$911,507</td><td>$938,555</td></tr></table>



## Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Equity

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>$ 6,200</td><td>$ 3,100</td><td>$ 6,957</td></tr><tr><td>Issued</td><td>1,000</td><td>3,100</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Repurchased</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(3,857)</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>7,200</td><td>6,200</td><td>3,100</td></tr><tr><td>Common stock</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Issued</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Restricted stock units and employee stock options</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>3,298</td><td>5,681</td><td>7,706</td></tr><tr><td>Issuance and amortization of restricted stock units and employee stock options</td><td>2,017</td><td>1,368</td><td>2,863</td></tr><tr><td>Delivery of common stock underlying restricted stock units</td><td>(1,378)</td><td>(3,659)</td><td>(4,791)</td></tr><tr><td>Forfeiture of restricted stock units and employee stock options</td><td>(79)</td><td>(90)</td><td>(93)</td></tr><tr><td>Exercise of employee stock options</td><td>(19)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(4)</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>3,839</td><td>3,298</td><td>5,681</td></tr><tr><td>Additional paid-in capital</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>48,030</td><td>45,553</td><td>42,103</td></tr><tr><td>Issuance of common stock</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>Delivery of common stock underlying share-based awards</td><td>1,483</td><td>3,939</td><td>5,160</td></tr><tr><td>Cancellation of restricted stock units in satisfaction of withholding tax requirements</td><td>(599)</td><td>(1,437)</td><td>(1,911)</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock issuance costs</td><td>(9)</td><td>(13)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Excess net tax benefit/(provision) related to share-based awards</td><td>94</td><td>(11)</td><td>138</td></tr><tr><td>Cash settlement of share-based compensation</td><td>(1)</td><td>(1)</td><td>(40)</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>48,998</td><td>48,030</td><td>45,553</td></tr><tr><td>Retained earnings</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>65,223</td><td>58,834</td><td>57,163</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>8,040</td><td>7,475</td><td>4,442</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends and dividend equivalents declared on common stock and restricted stock units</td><td>(988)</td><td>(903)</td><td>(769)</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends declared on preferred stock</td><td>(314)</td><td>(183)</td><td>(2,002)</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>71,961</td><td>65,223</td><td>58,834</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated other comprehensive loss</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>(193)</td><td>(516)</td><td>(286)</td></tr><tr><td>Other comprehensive income/(loss)</td><td>(331)</td><td>323</td><td>(230)</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>(524)</td><td>(193)</td><td>(516)</td></tr><tr><td>Stock held in treasury, at cost</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>(46,850)</td><td>(42,281)</td><td>(36,295)</td></tr><tr><td>Repurchased</td><td>(6,175)</td><td>(4,637)</td><td>(6,036)</td></tr><tr><td>Reissued</td><td>40</td><td>77</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>(30)</td><td>(9)</td><td>(15)</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>(53,015)</td><td>(46,850)</td><td>(42,281)</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$ 78,467</td><td>$ 75,716</td><td>$ 70,379</td></tr></table>



## Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flows from operating activities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>$ 8,040</td><td>$ 7,475</td><td>$ 4,442</td></tr><tr><td>Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash provided by/(used for) operating activities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>1,322</td><td>1,738</td><td>1,869</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred income taxes</td><td>29</td><td>(356)</td><td>726</td></tr><tr><td>Share-based compensation</td><td>2,015</td><td>1,319</td><td>2,849</td></tr><tr><td>Gain on sale of hedge fund administration business</td><td>—</td><td>(494)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Gain on sale of European insurance business</td><td>(211)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Changes in operating assets and liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes</td><td>(143)</td><td>10,817</td><td>(10,532)</td></tr><tr><td>Net receivables from brokers, dealers and clearing organizations</td><td>(5,313)</td><td>(2,838)</td><td>(3,780)</td></tr><tr><td>Net payables to customers and counterparties</td><td>1,631</td><td>(17,661)</td><td>13,883</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed, net of securities loaned</td><td>(22,698)</td><td>23,031</td><td>8,940</td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase, net of securities purchased under agreements to resell and federal funds sold</td><td>(28,971)</td><td>53,527</td><td>122</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>51,079</td><td>(48,783)</td><td>5,085</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value</td><td>933</td><td>(18,867)</td><td>4,243</td></tr><tr><td>Other, net</td><td>(3,170)</td><td>3,971</td><td>(5,346)</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by operating activities</td><td>4,543</td><td>12,879</td><td>22,501</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flows from investing activities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Purchase of property, leasehold improvements and equipment</td><td>(706)</td><td>(961)</td><td>(1,184)</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from sales of property, leasehold improvements and equipment</td><td>62</td><td>49</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Business acquisitions, net of cash acquired</td><td>(2,274)</td><td>(593)</td><td>(431)</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from sales of investments</td><td>2,503</td><td>1,195</td><td>2,645</td></tr><tr><td>Purchase of available-for-sale securities</td><td>(738)</td><td>(5,220)</td><td>(2,752)</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities</td><td>817</td><td>4,537</td><td>3,129</td></tr><tr><td>Loans held for investment, net</td><td>(8,392)</td><td>(2,741)</td><td>(856)</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by/(used for) investing activities</td><td>(8,728)</td><td>(3,734)</td><td>629</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flows from financing activities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings, net</td><td>1,336</td><td>(1,952)</td><td>(3,780)</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (short-term), net</td><td>(7,272)</td><td>1,540</td><td>(1,195)</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from issuance of other secured financings (long-term)</td><td>6,604</td><td>4,687</td><td>9,809</td></tr><tr><td>Repayment of other secured financings (long-term), including the current portion</td><td>(3,630)</td><td>(11,576)</td><td>(8,878)</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from issuance of unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>30,851</td><td>27,734</td><td>29,169</td></tr><tr><td>Repayment of unsecured long-term borrowings, including the current portion</td><td>(30,473)</td><td>(36,435)</td><td>(29,187)</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative contracts with a financing element, net</td><td>874</td><td>1,696</td><td>1,602</td></tr><tr><td>Deposits, net</td><td>683</td><td>24,015</td><td>7,540</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock repurchased</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(3,857)</td></tr><tr><td>Common stock repurchased</td><td>(6,175)</td><td>(4,640)</td><td>(6,048)</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends and dividend equivalents paid on common stock, preferred stock and restricted stock units</td><td>(1,302)</td><td>(1,086)</td><td>(2,771)</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from issuance of preferred stock, net of issuance costs</td><td>991</td><td>3,087</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from issuance of common stock, including stock option exercises</td><td>65</td><td>317</td><td>368</td></tr><tr><td>Excess tax benefit related to share-based compensation</td><td>98</td><td>130</td><td>358</td></tr><tr><td>Cash settlement of share-based compensation</td><td>(1)</td><td>(1)</td><td>(40)</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by/(used for) financing activities</td><td>(7,351)</td><td>7,516</td><td>(6,910)</td></tr><tr><td>Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents</td><td>(11,536)</td><td>16,661</td><td>16,220</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year</td><td>72,669</td><td>56,008</td><td>39,788</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents, end of year</td><td>$ 61,133</td><td>$ 72,669</td><td>$ 56,008</td></tr></table>

## SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES:

Cash payments for interest, net of capitalized interest, were $5.69 billion, $9.25 billion and $8.05 billion for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Cash payments for income taxes, net of refunds, were $4.07 billion, $1.88 billion and $1.78 billion for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

## Non-cash activities:

During 2012, the firm assumed $77 million of debt in connection with business acquisitions. During 2011, the firm assumed $2.09 billion of debt and issued $103 million of common stock in connection with the acquisition of Goldman Sachs Australia Pty Ltd (GS Australia), formerly Goldman Sachs & Partners Australia Group Holdings Pty Ltd.



# Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

## Note 1.

## Description of Business

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the firm), is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Founded in 1869, the firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices in all major financial centers around the world.

The firm reports its activities in the following four business segments:

## Investment Banking

The firm provides a broad range of investment banking services to a diverse group of corporations, financial institutions, investment funds and governments. Services include strategic advisory assignments with respect to mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, corporate defense activities, risk management, restructurings and spin-offs, and debt and equity underwriting of public offerings and private placements, including domestic and cross-border transactions, as well as derivative transactions directly related to these activities.

## Institutional Client Services

The firm facilitates client transactions and makes markets in fixed income, equity, currency and commodity products, primarily with institutional clients such as corporations, financial institutions, investment funds and governments. The firm also makes markets in and clears client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide and provides financing, securities lending and other prime brokerage services to institutional clients.

## Investing & Lending

The firm invests in and originates loans to provide financing to clients. These investments and loans are typically longer-term in nature. The firm makes investments, some of which are consolidated, directly and indirectly through funds that the firm manages, in debt securities and loans, public and private equity securities, and real estate entities.

## Investment Management

The firm provides investment management services and offers investment products (primarily through separately managed accounts and commingled vehicles, such as mutual funds and private investment funds) across all major asset classes to a diverse set of institutional and individual clients. The firm also offers wealth advisory services, including portfolio management and financial counseling, and brokerage and other transaction services to high-net-worth individuals and families.

## Note 2.

## Basis of Presentation

These consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (U.S. GAAP) and include the accounts of Group Inc. and all other entities in which the firm has a controlling financial interest. Intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

All references to 2013, 2012 and 2011 refer to the firm’s years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2013, December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Any reference to a future year refers to a year ending on December 31 of that year. Certain reclassifications have been made to previously reported amounts to conform to the current presentation.



## Note 3.

## Significant Accounting Policies

The firm’s significant accounting policies include when and how to measure the fair value of assets and liabilities, accounting for goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, and when to consolidate an entity. See Notes 5 through 8 for policies on fair value measurements, Note 13 for policies on goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, and below and Note 11 for policies on consolidation accounting. All other significant accounting policies are either discussed below or included in the following footnotes:

Financial Instruments Owned, at Fair Value and Financial Instruments Sold, But Not Yet Purchased, at Fair Value
Note 4
Fair Value Measurements
Note 5
Cash Instruments
Note 6
Derivatives and Hedging Activities
Note 7
Fair Value Option
Note 8
Collateralized Agreements and Financings
Note 9
Securitization Activities
Note 10
Variable Interest Entities
Note 11
Other Assets
Note 12
Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets
Note 13
Deposits
Note 14
Short-Term Borrowings
Note 15
Long-Term Borrowings
Note 16
Other Liabilities and Accrued Expenses
Note 17
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees
Note 18
Shareholders' Equity
Note 19
Regulation and Capital Adequacy
Note 20
Earnings Per Common Share
Note 21
Transactions with Affiliated Funds
Note 22
Interest Income and Interest Expense
Note 23
Income Taxes
Note 24
Business Segments
Note 25
Credit Concentrations
Note 26
Legal Proceedings
Note 27
Employee Benefit Plans
Note 28
Employee Incentive Plans
Note 29
Parent Company
Note 30

## Consolidation

The firm consolidates entities in which the firm has a controlling financial interest. The firm determines whether it has a controlling financial interest in an entity by first evaluating whether the entity is a voting interest entity or a variable interest entity (VIE).

Voting Interest Entities. Voting interest entities are entities in which (i) the total equity investment at risk is sufficient to enable the entity to finance its activities independently and (ii) the equity holders have the power to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly impact its economic performance, the obligation to absorb the losses of the entity and the right to receive the residual returns of the entity. The usual condition for a controlling financial interest in a voting interest entity is ownership of a majority voting interest. If the firm has a majority voting interest in a voting interest entity, the entity is consolidated.

Variable Interest Entities. A VIE is an entity that lacks one or more of the characteristics of a voting interest entity. The firm has a controlling financial interest in a VIE when the firm has one or more variable interests that provide it with (i) the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIE’s economic performance and (ii) the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. See Note 11 for further information about VIEs.

Equity-Method Investments. When the firm does not have a controlling financial interest in an entity but can exert significant influence over the entity’s operating and financial policies, the investment is accounted for either (i) under the equity method of accounting or (ii) at fair value by electing the fair value option available under U.S. GAAP. Significant influence generally exists when the firm owns 20% to 50% of the entity’s common stock or in-substance common stock.

In general, the firm accounts for investments acquired after the fair value option became available, at fair value. In certain cases, the firm applies the equity method of accounting to new investments that are strategic in nature or closely related to the firm’s principal business activities, when the firm has a significant degree of involvement in the cash flows or operations of the investee or when cost-benefit considerations are less significant. See Note 12 for further information about equity-method investments.



Investment Funds. The firm has formed numerous investment funds with third-party investors. These funds are typically organized as limited partnerships or limited liability companies for which the firm acts as general partner or manager. Generally, the firm does not hold a majority of the economic interests in these funds. These funds are usually voting interest entities and generally are not consolidated because third-party investors typically have rights to terminate the funds or to remove the firm as general partner or manager. Investments in these funds are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value.” See Notes 6, 18 and 22 for further information about investments in funds.

## Use of Estimates

Preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions, the most important of which relate to fair value measurements, accounting for goodwill and identifiable intangible assets and the provisions for losses that may arise from litigation, regulatory proceedings and tax audits. These estimates and assumptions are based on the best available information but actual results could be materially different.

## Revenue Recognition

Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities at Fair Value. Financial instruments owned, at fair value and Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value are recorded at fair value either under the fair value option or in accordance with other U.S. GAAP. In addition, the firm has elected to account for certain of its other financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value by electing the fair value option. The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount 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. Financial assets are marked to bid prices and financial liabilities are marked to offer prices. Fair value measurements do not include transaction costs. Fair value gains or losses are generally included in “Market making” for positions in Institutional Client Services and “Other principal transactions” for positions in Investing & Lending. See Notes 5 through 8 for further information about fair value measurements.
Investment Banking. Fees from financial advisory assignments and underwriting revenues are recognized in earnings when the services related to the underlying transaction are completed under the terms of the assignment. Expenses associated with such transactions are deferred until the related revenue is recognized or the assignment is otherwise concluded. Expenses associated with financial advisory assignments are recorded as non-compensation expenses, net of client reimbursements. Underwriting revenues are presented net of related expenses.

Investment Management. The firm earns management fees and incentive fees for investment management services. Management fees for mutual funds are calculated as a percentage of daily net asset value and are received monthly. Management fees for hedge funds and separately managed accounts are calculated as a percentage of month-end net asset value and are generally received quarterly. Management fees for private equity funds are calculated as a percentage of monthly invested capital or commitments and are received quarterly, semi-annually or annually, depending on the fund. All management fees are recognized over the period that the related service is provided. Incentive fees are calculated as a percentage of a fund’s or separately managed account’s return, or excess return above a specified benchmark or other performance target. Incentive fees are generally based on investment performance over a 12-month period or over the life of a fund. Fees that are based on performance over a 12-month period are subject to adjustment prior to the end of the measurement period. For fees that are based on investment performance over the life of the fund, future investment underperformance may require fees previously distributed to the firm to be returned to the fund. Incentive fees are recognized only when all material contingencies have been resolved. Management and incentive fee revenues are included in “Investment management” revenues.

The firm makes payments to brokers and advisors related to the placement of the firm’s investment funds. These payments are computed based on either a percentage of the management fee or the investment fund’s net asset value. Where the firm is principal to the arrangement, such costs are recorded on a gross basis and included in “Brokerage, clearing, exchange and distribution fees,” and where the firm is agent to the arrangement, such costs are recorded on a net basis in “Investment management” revenues.



Commissions and Fees. The firm earns “Commissions and fees” from executing and clearing client transactions on stock, options and futures markets. Commissions and fees are recognized on the day the trade is executed.

## Transfers of Assets

Transfers of assets are accounted for as sales when the firm has relinquished control over the assets transferred. For transfers of assets accounted for as sales, any related gains or losses are recognized in net revenues. Assets or liabilities that arise from the firm’s continuing involvement with transferred assets are measured at fair value. For transfers of assets that are not accounted for as sales, the assets remain in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and the transfer is accounted for as a collateralized financing, with the related interest expense recognized over the life of the transaction. See Note 9 for further information about transfers of assets accounted for as collateralized financings and Note 10 for further information about transfers of assets accounted for as sales.

## Cash and Cash Equivalents

The firm defines cash equivalents as highly liquid overnight deposits held in the ordinary course of business. As of December 2013 and December 2012, “Cash and cash equivalents” included $4.14 billion and $6.75 billion, respectively, of cash and due from banks, and $56.99 billion and $65.92 billion, respectively, of interest-bearing deposits with banks.

## Receivables from Customers and Counterparties

Receivables from customers and counterparties generally relate to collateralized transactions. Such receivables are primarily comprised of customer margin loans, certain transfers of assets accounted for as secured loans rather than purchases at fair value, collateral posted in connection with certain derivative transactions, and loans held for investment. Certain of the firm’s receivables from customers and counterparties are accounted for at fair value under the fair value option, with changes in fair value generally included in “Market making” revenues. Receivables from customers and counterparties not accounted for at fair value, including loans held for investment, are accounted for at amortized cost net of estimated uncollectible amounts. Interest on receivables from customers and counterparties is recognized over the life of the transaction and included in “Interest income.” See Note 8 for further information about receivables from customers and counterparties.

## Receivables from and Payables to Brokers, Dealers and Clearing Organizations

Receivables from and payables to brokers, dealers and clearing organizations are accounted for at cost plus accrued interest, which generally approximates fair value. While these receivables and payables are carried at amounts that approximate fair value, they are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP and therefore are not included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these receivables and payables been included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy, substantially all would have been classified in level 2 as of December 2013.

## Payables to Customers and Counterparties

Payables to customers and counterparties primarily consist of customer credit balances related to the firm’s prime brokerage activities. Payables to customers and counterparties are accounted for at cost plus accrued interest, which generally approximates fair value. While these payables are carried at amounts that approximate fair value, they are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP and therefore are not included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these payables been included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy, substantially all would have been classified in level 2 as of December 2013.



## Offsetting Assets and Liabilities

To reduce credit exposures on derivatives and securities financing transactions, the firm may enter into master netting agreements or similar arrangements (collectively, netting agreements) with counterparties that permit it to offset receivables and payables with such counterparties. A netting agreement is a contract with a counterparty that permits net settlement of multiple transactions with that counterparty, including upon the exercise of termination rights by a non-defaulting party. Upon exercise of such termination rights, all transactions governed by the netting agreement are terminated and a net settlement amount is calculated. In addition, the firm receives and posts cash and securities collateral with respect to its derivatives and securities financing transactions, subject to the terms of the related credit support agreements or similar arrangements (collectively, credit support agreements). An enforceable credit support agreement grants the non-defaulting party exercising termination rights the right to liquidate the collateral and apply the proceeds to any amounts owed. In order to assess enforceability of the firm's right of setoff under netting and credit support agreements, the firm evaluates various factors including applicable bankruptcy laws, local statutes and regulatory provisions in the jurisdiction of the parties to the agreement.

Derivatives are reported on a net-by-counterparty basis (i.e., the net payable or receivable for derivative assets and liabilities for a given counterparty) in the consolidated statements of financial condition when a legal right of setoff exists under an enforceable netting agreement. Resale and repurchase agreements and securities borrowed and loaned transactions with the same term and currency are presented on a net-by-counterparty basis in the consolidated statements of financial condition when such transactions meet certain settlement criteria and are subject to netting agreements.

In the consolidated statements of financial condition, derivatives are reported net of cash collateral received and posted under enforceable credit support agreements, when transacted under an enforceable netting agreement. In the consolidated statements of financial condition, resale and repurchase agreements, and securities borrowed and loaned are not reported net of the related cash and securities received or posted as collateral. See Note 9 for further information about collateral received and pledged, including rights to deliver or repledge collateral. See Notes 7 and 9 for further information about offsetting.

## Insurance Activities

The firm sold a majority stake in each of its Americas reinsurance business (April 2013) and its European insurance business (December 2013). As a result, the firm no longer consolidates these businesses. The remaining investments of approximately 20% in the Americas reinsurance business and approximately 36% in the European insurance business are accounted for at fair value under the fair value option and are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” as of December 2013. Results from these remaining investments are included in the Investing & Lending segment.

Prior to the sales, certain of the firm’s insurance contracts were accounted for at fair value under the fair value option, with changes in fair value included in “Market making” revenues. See Note 8 for further information about the fair values of these insurance contracts. Revenues from variable annuity and life insurance and reinsurance contracts not accounted for at fair value generally consisted of fees assessed on contract holder account balances for mortality charges, policy administration fees and surrender charges. These revenues were recognized in earnings over the period that services were provided and were included in “Market making” revenues. Changes in reserves, including interest credited to policyholder account balances, were recognized in “Insurance reserves.” Premiums earned for underwriting property catastrophe reinsurance were recognized in earnings over the coverage period, net of premiums ceded for the cost of reinsurance, and were included in “Market making” revenues. Expenses for liabilities related to property catastrophe reinsurance claims, including estimates of losses that have been incurred but not reported, were included in “Insurance reserves.”



## Foreign Currency Translation

Assets and liabilities denominated in non-U.S. currencies are translated at rates of exchange prevailing on the date of the consolidated statements of financial condition and revenues and expenses are translated at average rates of exchange for the period. Foreign currency remeasurement gains or losses on transactions in nonfunctional currencies are recognized in earnings. Gains or losses on translation of the financial statements of a non-U.S. operation, when the functional currency is other than the U.S. dollar, are included, net of hedges and taxes, in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income.

## Recent Accounting Developments

Derecognition of in Substance Real Estate (ASC 360). In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-10, "Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360) — Derecognition of in Substance Real Estate — a Scope Clarification." ASU No. 2011-10 clarifies that in order to deconsolidate a subsidiary (that is in substance real estate due to a default on the subsidiary's nonrecourse debt), the parent must no longer control the subsidiary and also must satisfy the sale criteria in ASC 360-20, "Property, Plant, and Equipment — Real Estate Sales." The ASU was effective for fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2012. The firm applied the provisions of the ASU to such events occurring on or after January 1, 2013. Adoption of ASU No. 2011-10 did not materially affect the firm's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities (ASC 210). In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, "Balance Sheet (Topic 210) — Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities." ASU No. 2011-11, as amended by ASU 2013-01, "Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Clarifying the Scope of Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities," requires disclosure of the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on the firm's financial position as well as enhanced disclosure of the rights of setoff associated with the firm's recognized derivative instruments, resale and repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and lending transactions. ASU No. 2011-11 was effective for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013. Since these amended principles require only additional disclosures concerning offsetting and related arrangements, adoption did not affect the firm's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. See Notes 7 and 9 for further information about the firm's offsetting and related arrangements.
Investment Companies (ASC 946). In June 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-08, "Financial Services — Investment Companies (Topic 946) — Amendments to the Scope, Measurement, and Disclosure Requirements." ASU No. 2013-08 clarifies the approach to be used for determining whether an entity is an investment company and provides new measurement and disclosure requirements. ASU No. 2013-08 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods in fiscal years that begin after December 15, 2013. Earlier application is prohibited. Adoption of ASU No. 2013-08 did not affect the firm's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Inclusion of the Fed Funds Effective Swap Rate (or Overnight Index Swap Rate) as a Benchmark Interest Rate for Hedge Accounting Purposes (ASC 815). In July 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-10, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815) — Inclusion of the Fed Funds Effective Swap Rate (or Overnight Index Swap Rate) as a Benchmark Interest Rate for Hedge Accounting Purposes.” ASU No. 2013-10 permits the use of the Fed Funds Effective Swap Rate (OIS) as a U.S. benchmark interest rate for hedge accounting purposes. The ASU also removes the restriction on using different benchmark rates for similar hedges. ASU No. 2013-10 was effective for qualifying new or redesignated hedging relationships entered into on or after July 17, 2013 and adoption did not materially affect the firm’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.



## Note 4.

## Financial Instruments Owned, at Fair Value and Financial Instruments Sold, But Not Yet Purchased, at Fair Value

Financial instruments owned, at fair value and financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value are accounted for at fair value either under the fair value option or in accordance with other U.S. GAAP. See Note 8 for further information about the fair value option. The table below presents the firm’s financial instruments owned, at fair value, including those pledged as collateral, and financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">As of December 2013</td><td colspan="2">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Financial Instruments Owned</td><td>Financial Instruments Sold, But Not Yet Purchased</td><td>Financial Instruments Owned</td><td>Financial Instruments Sold, But Not Yet Purchased</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper, certificates of deposit, time deposits and other money market instruments</td><td>$ 8,608</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 6,057</td><td>$ —</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>71,072</td><td>20,920</td><td>93,241</td><td>15,905</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>40,944</td><td>26,999</td><td>62,250</td><td>32,361</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate</td><td>6,596</td><td>1</td><td>9,805</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate</td><td>9,025</td><td>2</td><td>8,216</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>17,400</td><td>925 \( ^{2} \)</td><td>22,407</td><td>1,779 \( ^{2} \)</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>17,412</td><td>5,253</td><td>20,981</td><td>5,761</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>1,476</td><td>51</td><td>2,477</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations</td><td>3,129</td><td>4</td><td>2,251</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures</td><td>101,024</td><td>22,583</td><td>96,454</td><td>20,406</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities \( ^{1} \)</td><td>4,556</td><td>966</td><td>11,696</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives</td><td>57,879</td><td>49,722</td><td>71,176</td><td>50,427</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$339,121</td><td>$127,426</td><td>$407,011</td><td>$126,644</td></tr></table>

1. As of December 2012, includes $4.29 billion of commodities that have been transferred to third parties, which were accounted for as collateralized financings rather than sales. No such transactions related to commodities included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” were outstanding as of December 2013.

2. Primarily relates to the fair value of unfunded lending commitments for which the fair value option was elected.



## Gains and Losses from Market Making and Other Principal Transactions

The table below presents “Market making” revenues by major product type, as well as “Other principal transactions” revenues. These gains/(losses) are primarily related to the firm’s financial instruments owned, at fair value and financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value, including both derivative and non-derivative financial instruments. These gains/(losses) exclude related interest income and interest expense. See Note 23 for further information about interest income and interest expense.
The gains/(losses) in the table are not representative of the manner in which the firm manages its business activities because many of the firm’s market-making and client facilitation strategies utilize financial instruments across various product types. Accordingly, gains or losses in one product type frequently offset gains or losses in other product types. For example, most of the firm’s longer-term derivatives are sensitive to changes in interest rates and may be economically hedged with interest rate swaps. Similarly, a significant portion of the firm’s cash instruments and derivatives has exposure to foreign currencies and may be economically hedged with foreign currency contracts.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">Product Type</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$ 930</td><td>$ 4,445</td><td>$ 1,580</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>1,845</td><td>4,263</td><td>3,454</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>2,446</td><td>(1,001)</td><td>958</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>2,655</td><td>2,482</td><td>2,014</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>902</td><td>492</td><td>1,573</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>590 \( ^{2} \)</td><td>667 \( ^{3} \)</td><td>(292)</td></tr><tr><td>Market making</td><td>9,368</td><td>11,348</td><td>9,287</td></tr><tr><td>Other principal transactions \( ^{1} \)</td><td>6,993</td><td>5,865</td><td>1,507</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$16,361</td><td>$17,213</td><td>$10,794</td></tr></table>

1. Other principal transactions are included in the firm’s Investing & Lending segment. See Note 25 for net revenues, including net interest income, by product type for Investing & Lending, as well as the amount of net interest income included in Investing & Lending. The “Other” category in Note 25 relates to the firm’s consolidated investment entities, and primarily includes commodities-related net revenues.

2. Includes a gain of $211 million on the sale of a majority stake in the firm’s European insurance business.

3. Includes a gain of $494 million on the sale of the firm’s hedge fund administration business.



## Note 5.

## Fair Value Measurements

The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount 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. Financial assets are marked to bid prices and financial liabilities are marked to offer prices. Fair value measurements do not include transaction costs. The firm measures certain financial assets and financial liabilities as a portfolio (i.e., based on its net exposure to market and/or credit risks).

The best evidence of fair value is a quoted price in an active market. If quoted prices in active markets are not available, fair value is determined by reference to prices for similar instruments, quoted prices or recent transactions in less active markets, or internally developed models that primarily use market-based or independently sourced parameters as inputs including, but not limited to, interest rates, volatilities, equity or debt prices, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices, credit spreads and funding spreads (i.e., the spread, or difference, between the interest rate at which a borrower could finance a given financial instrument relative to a benchmark interest rate).

U.S. GAAP has a three-level fair value hierarchy for disclosure of fair value measurements. The fair value hierarchy prioritizes inputs to the valuation techniques used to measure fair value, giving the highest priority to level 1 inputs and the lowest priority to level 3 inputs. A financial instrument’s level in the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to its fair value measurement.

The fair value hierarchy is as follows:

Level 1. Inputs are unadjusted quoted prices in active markets to which the firm had access at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities.

Level 2. Inputs to valuation techniques are observable, either directly or indirectly.

Level 3. One or more inputs to valuation techniques are significant and unobservable.

The fair values for substantially all of the firm’s financial assets and financial liabilities are based on observable prices and inputs and are classified in levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Certain level 2 and level 3 financial assets and financial liabilities may require appropriate valuation adjustments that a market participant would require to arrive at fair value for factors such as counterparty and the firm’s credit quality, funding risk, transfer restrictions, liquidity and bid/offer spreads. Valuation adjustments are generally based on market evidence.



See Notes 6 and 7 for further information about fair value measurements of cash instruments and derivatives, respectively, included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and “Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value,” and Note 8 for further information about fair value measurements of other financial assets and financial liabilities accounted for at fair value under the fair value option.
The table below presents financial assets and financial liabilities accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or in accordance with other U.S. GAAP. In the table below, cash collateral and counterparty netting represents the impact on derivatives of netting across levels of the fair value hierarchy. Netting among positions classified in the same level is included in that level.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 1 financial assets</td><td>$156,030</td><td>$ 190,737</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 2 financial assets</td><td>499,480</td><td>502,293</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 3 financial assets</td><td>40,013</td><td>47,095</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral and counterparty netting</td><td>(95,350)</td><td>(101,612)</td></tr><tr><td>Total financial assets at fair value</td><td>$600,173</td><td>$ 638,513</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets 1</td><td>$911,507</td><td>$ 938,555</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 3 financial assets as a percentage of Total assets</td><td>4.4%</td><td>5.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 3 financial assets as a percentage of Total financial assets at fair value</td><td>6.7%</td><td>7.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 1 financial liabilities</td><td>$ 68,412</td><td>$ 65,994</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 2 financial liabilities</td><td>300,583</td><td>318,764</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 3 financial liabilities</td><td>12,046</td><td>25,679</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral and counterparty netting</td><td>(25,868)</td><td>(32,760)</td></tr><tr><td>Total financial liabilities at fair value</td><td>$355,173</td><td>$ 377,677</td></tr><tr><td>Total level 3 financial liabilities as a percentage of Total financial liabilities at fair value</td><td>3.4%</td><td>6.8%</td></tr></table>

1. Includes approximately $890 billion and $915 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, that is carried at fair value or at amounts that generally approximate fair value.

Level 3 financial assets as of December 2013 decreased compared with December 2012, primarily reflecting a decrease in derivative assets, bank loans and bridge loans, and loans and securities backed by commercial real estate. The decrease in derivative assets primarily reflected a decline in credit derivative assets, principally due to settlements and unrealized losses. The decrease in bank loans and bridge loans, and loans and securities backed by commercial real estate primarily reflected settlements and sales, partially offset by purchases and transfers into level 3.
Level 3 financial liabilities as of December 2013 decreased compared with December 2012, primarily reflecting a decrease in other liabilities and accrued expenses, principally due to the sale of a majority stake in the firm’s European insurance business in December 2013.

See Notes 6, 7 and 8 for further information about level 3 cash instruments, derivatives and other financial assets and financial liabilities accounted for at fair value under the fair value option, respectively, including information about significant unrealized gains and losses, and transfers in and out of level 3.



## Note 6.

## Cash Instruments

Cash instruments include U.S. government and federal agency obligations, non-U.S. government and agency obligations, bank loans and bridge loans, corporate debt securities, equities and convertible debentures, and other non-derivative financial instruments owned and financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased. See below for the types of cash instruments included in each level of the fair value hierarchy and the valuation techniques and significant inputs used to determine their fair values. See Note 5 for an overview of the firm’s fair value measurement policies.

## Level 1 Cash Instruments

Level 1 cash instruments include U.S. government obligations and most non-U.S. government obligations, actively traded listed equities, certain government agency obligations and money market instruments. These instruments are valued using quoted prices for identical unrestricted instruments in active markets.

The firm defines active markets for equity instruments based on the average daily trading volume both in absolute terms and relative to the market capitalization for the instrument. The firm defines active markets for debt instruments based on both the average daily trading volume and the number of days with trading activity.

## Level 2 Cash Instruments

Level 2 cash instruments include commercial paper, certificates of deposit, time deposits, most government agency obligations, certain non-U.S. government obligations, most corporate debt securities, commodities, certain mortgage-backed loans and securities, certain bank loans and bridge loans, restricted or less liquid listed equities, most state and municipal obligations and certain lending commitments.
Valuations of level 2 cash instruments can be verified to quoted prices, recent trading activity for identical or similar instruments, broker or dealer quotations or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. Consideration is given to the nature of the quotations (e.g., indicative or firm) and the relationship of recent market activity to the prices provided from alternative pricing sources.

Valuation adjustments are typically made to level 2 cash instruments (i) if the cash instrument is subject to transfer restrictions and/or (ii) for other premiums and liquidity discounts that a market participant would require to arrive at fair value. Valuation adjustments are generally based on market evidence.

## Level 3 Cash Instruments

Level 3 cash instruments have one or more significant valuation inputs that are not observable. Absent evidence to the contrary, level 3 cash instruments are initially valued at transaction price, which is considered to be the best initial estimate of fair value. Subsequently, the firm uses other methodologies to determine fair value, which vary based on the type of instrument. Valuation inputs and assumptions are changed when corroborated by substantive observable evidence, including values realized on sales of financial assets.



## Valuation Techniques and Significant Inputs

The table below presents the valuation techniques and the nature of significant inputs. These valuation techniques and significant inputs are generally used to determine the fair values of each type of level 3 cash instrument.

<table><tr><td>Level 3 Cash Instruments</td><td>Valuation Techniques and Significant Inputs</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate
· Collateralized by a single commercial real estate property or a portfolio of properties
· May include tranches of varying levels of subordination</td><td>Valuation techniques vary by instrument, but are generally based on discounted cash flow techniques. Significant inputs are generally determined based on relative value analyses and include:
· Transaction prices in both the underlying collateral and instruments with the same or similar underlying collateral and the basis, or price difference, to such prices
· Market yields implied by transactions of similar or related assets and/or current levels and changes in market indices such as the CMBX (an index that tracks the performance of commercial mortgage bonds)
· A measure of expected future cash flows in a default scenario (recovery rates) implied by the value of the underlying collateral, which is mainly driven by current performance of the underlying collateral, capitalization rates and multiples. Recovery rates are expressed as a percentage of notional or face value of the instrument and reflect the benefit of credit enhancements on certain instruments
· Timing of expected future cash flows (duration) which, in certain cases, may incorporate the impact of other unobservable inputs (e.g., prepayment speeds)</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate
· Collateralized by portfolios of residential real estate
· May include tranches of varying levels of subordination</td><td>Valuation techniques vary by instrument, but are generally based on discounted cash flow techniques. Significant inputs are generally determined based on relative value analyses, which incorporate comparisons to instruments with similar collateral and risk profiles, including relevant indices such as the ABX (an index that tracks the performance of subprime residential mortgage bonds). Significant inputs include:
· Transaction prices in both the underlying collateral and instruments with the same or similar underlying collateral
· Market yields implied by transactions of similar or related assets
· Cumulative loss expectations, driven by default rates, home price projections, residential property liquidation timelines and related costs
· Duration, driven by underlying loan prepayment speeds and residential property liquidation timelines</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>Valuation techniques vary by instrument, but are generally based on discounted cash flow techniques. Significant inputs are generally determined based on relative value analyses, which incorporate comparisons both to prices of credit default swaps that reference the same or similar underlying instrument or entity and to other debt instruments for the same issuer for which observable prices or broker quotations are available. Significant inputs include:
· Market yields implied by transactions of similar or related assets and/or current levels and trends of market indices such as CDX and LCDX (indices that track the performance of corporate credit and loans, respectively)
· Current performance and recovery assumptions and, where the firm uses credit default swaps to value the related cash instrument, the cost of borrowing the underlying reference obligation
· Duration</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations
Corporate debt securities
State and municipal obligations
Other debt obligations</td><td>Valuation techniques vary by instrument, but are generally based on discounted cash flow techniques. Significant inputs are generally determined based on relative value analyses, which incorporate comparisons both to prices of credit default swaps that reference the same or similar underlying instrument or entity and to other debt instruments for the same issuer for which observable prices or broker quotations are available. Significant inputs include:
· Market yields implied by transactions of similar or related assets and/or current levels and trends of market indices such as CDX, LCDX and MCDX (an index that tracks the performance of municipal obligations)
· Current performance and recovery assumptions and, where the firm uses credit default swaps to value the related cash instrument, the cost of borrowing the underlying reference obligation
· Duration</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures (including private equity investments and investments in real estate entities)</td><td>Recent third-party completed or pending transactions (e.g., merger proposals, tender offers, debt restructurings) are considered to be the best evidence for any change in fair value. When these are not available, the following valuation methodologies are used, as appropriate:
· Industry multiples (primarily EBITDA multiples) and public comparables
· Transactions in similar instruments
· Discounted cash flow techniques
· Third-party appraisals
· Net asset value per share (NAV)
The firm also considers changes in the outlook for the relevant industry and financial performance of the issuer as compared to projected performance. Significant inputs include:
· Market and transaction multiples
· Discount rates, long-term growth rates, earnings compound annual growth rates and capitalization rates
· For equity instruments with debt-like features: market yields implied by transactions of similar or related assets, current performance and recovery assumptions, and duration</td></tr></table>



## Significant Unobservable Inputs

The tables below present the ranges of significant unobservable inputs used to value the firm’s level 3 cash instruments. These ranges represent the significant unobservable inputs that were used in the valuation of each type of cash instrument. Weighted averages in the tables below are calculated by weighting each input by the relative fair value of the respective financial instruments. The ranges and weighted averages of these inputs are not representative of the appropriate inputs to use when calculating the fair value of any one cash instrument. For example, the highest multiple presented in the tables below for private equity investments is appropriate for valuing a specific private equity investment but may not be appropriate for valuing any other private equity investment. Accordingly, the ranges of inputs presented below do not represent uncertainty in, or possible ranges of, fair value measurements of the firm’s level 3 cash instruments.

<table><tr><td>Level 3 Cash Instruments</td><td>Level 3 Assets as of December 2013 (in millions)</td><td>Valuation Techniques and Significant Unobservable Inputs</td><td>Range of Significant Unobservable Inputs (Weighted Average) as of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate• Collateralized by a single commercial real estate property or a portfolio of properties• May include tranches of varying levels of subordination</td><td>$2,692</td><td>Discounted cash flows:• Yield• Recovery rate• Duration (years)• Basis</td><td>2.7% to 29.1% (10.1%)26.2% to 88.1% (74.4%)0.6 to 5.7 (2.0)(9) points to 20 points (5 points)</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate• Collateralized by portfolios of residential real estate• May include tranches of varying levels of subordination</td><td>$1,961</td><td>Discounted cash flows:• Yield• Cumulative loss rate• Duration (years)</td><td>2.6% to 25.8% (10.1%)9.8% to 56.6% (24.9%)1.4 to 16.7 (3.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>$9,324</td><td>Discounted cash flows:• Yield• Recovery rate• Duration (years)</td><td>1.0% to 39.6% (9.3%)40.0% to 85.0% (54.9%)0.5 to 5.3 (2.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligationsCorporate debt securitiesState and municipal obligationsOther debt obligations</td><td>$3,977</td><td>Discounted cash flows:• Yield• Recovery rate• Duration (years)</td><td>1.5% to 40.2% (8.9%)0.0% to 70.0% (61.9%)0.6 to 16.1 (4.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures (including private equity investments and investments in real estate entities)</td><td>$14,685¹</td><td>Comparable multiples:• MultiplesDiscounted cash flows:• Discount rate/yield• Long-term growth rate/compound annual growth rate• Capitalization rate</td><td>0.6x to 18.8x (6.9x)6.0% to 29.1% (14.6%)1.0% to 19.0% (8.1%)4.6% to 11.3% (7.1%)</td></tr></table>

1. The fair value of any one instrument may be determined using multiple valuation techniques. For example, market comparables and discounted cash flows may be used together to determine fair value. Therefore, the level 3 balance encompasses both of these techniques.



<table><tr><td>Level 3 Cash Instruments</td><td>Level 3 Assets as of December 2012 (in millions)</td><td>Valuation Techniques and Significant Unobservable Inputs</td><td>Range of Significant Unobservable Inputs (Weighted Average) as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate• Collateralized by a single commercial real estate property or a portfolio of properties• May include tranches of varying levels of subordination</td><td>$3,389</td><td>Discounted cash flows:• Yield• Recovery rate• Duration (years)• Basis</td><td>4.0% to 43.3% (9.8%)37.0% to 96.2% (81.7%)0.1 to 7.0 (2.6)(13) points to 18 points (2 points)</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate• Collateralized by portfolios of residential real estate• May include tranches of varying levels of subordination</td><td>$1,619</td><td>Discounted cash flows:• Yield• Cumulative loss rate• Duration (years)</td><td>3.1% to 17.0% (9.7%)0.0% to 61.6% (31.6%)1.3 to 5.9 (3.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>$11,235</td><td>Discounted cash flows:• Yield• Recovery rate• Duration (years)</td><td>0.3% to 34.5% (8.3%)16.5% to 85.0% (56.0%)0.2 to 4.4 (1.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligationsCorporate debt securitiesState and municipal obligationsOther debt obligations</td><td>$4,651</td><td>Discounted cash flows:• Yield• Recovery rate• Duration (years)</td><td>0.6% to 33.7% (8.6%)0.0% to 70.0% (53.4%)0.5 to 15.5 (4.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures (including private equity investments and investments in real estate entities)</td><td>$14,855 1</td><td>Comparable multiples:• MultiplesDiscounted cash flows:• Discount rate/yield• Long-term growth rate/compound annual growth rate• Capitalization rate</td><td>0.7x to 21.0x (7.2x)10.0% to 25.0% (14.3%)0.7% to 25.0% (9.3%)3.9% to 11.4% (7.3%)</td></tr></table>

1. The fair value of any one instrument may be determined using multiple valuation techniques. For example, market comparables and discounted cash flows may be used together to determine fair value. Therefore, the level 3 balance encompasses both of these techniques.

Increases in yield, discount rate, capitalization rate, duration or cumulative loss rate used in the valuation of the firm’s level 3 cash instruments would result in a lower fair value measurement, while increases in recovery rate, basis, multiples, long-term growth rate or compound annual growth rate would result in a higher fair value measurement. Due to the distinctive nature of each of the firm’s level 3 cash instruments, the interrelationship of inputs is not necessarily uniform within each product type.



## Fair Value of Cash Instruments by Level

The tables below present, by level within the fair value hierarchy, cash instrument assets and liabilities, at fair value. Cash instrument assets and liabilities are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and “Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value,” respectively.

Cash Instrument Assets at Fair Value as of December 2013

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper, certificates of deposit, time deposits and other money market instruments</td><td>$ 216</td><td>$ 8,392</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 8,608</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>29,582</td><td>41,490</td><td>—</td><td>71,072</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>29,451</td><td>11,453</td><td>40</td><td>40,944</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities 1:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate</td><td>—</td><td>3,904</td><td>2,692</td><td>6,596</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate</td><td>—</td><td>7,064</td><td>1,961</td><td>9,025</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>—</td><td>8,076</td><td>9,324</td><td>17,400</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities 2</td><td>240</td><td>14,299</td><td>2,873</td><td>17,412</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>—</td><td>1,219</td><td>257</td><td>1,476</td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations 2</td><td>—</td><td>2,322</td><td>807</td><td>3,129</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures</td><td>76,945</td><td>9,394</td><td>14,685 3</td><td>101,024</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>—</td><td>4,556</td><td>—</td><td>4,556</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$136,434</td><td>$112,169</td><td>$32,639</td><td>$281,242</td></tr></table>

Cash Instrument Liabilities at Fair Value as of December 2013

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>$ 20,871</td><td>$ 49</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 20,920</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>25,325</td><td>1,674</td><td>—</td><td>26,999</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate</td><td>—</td><td>2</td><td>—</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>—</td><td>641</td><td>284</td><td>925</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>10</td><td>5,241</td><td>2</td><td>5,253</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>—</td><td>50</td><td>1</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations</td><td>—</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures</td><td>22,107</td><td>468</td><td>8</td><td>22,583</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>—</td><td>966</td><td>—</td><td>966</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 68,313</td><td>$ 9,094</td><td>$ 297</td><td>$ 77,704</td></tr></table>

1. Includes $295 million and $411 million of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) backed by real estate in level 2 and level 3, respectively.

2. Includes $451 million and $1.62 billion of CDOs and collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) backed by corporate obligations in level 2 and level 3, respectively.

3. Includes $12.82 billion of private equity investments, $1.37 billion of investments in real estate entities and $491 million of convertible debentures.



<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="4">Cash Instrument Assets at Fair Value as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper, certificates of deposit, time deposits and other money market instruments</td><td>$ 2,155</td><td>$ 3,902</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 6,057</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>42,856</td><td>50,385</td><td>—</td><td>93,241</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>46,715</td><td>15,509</td><td>26</td><td>62,250</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities 1:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate</td><td>—</td><td>6,416</td><td>3,389</td><td>9,805</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate</td><td>—</td><td>6,597</td><td>1,619</td><td>8,216</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>—</td><td>11,172</td><td>11,235</td><td>22,407</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities 2</td><td>111</td><td>18,049</td><td>2,821</td><td>20,981</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>—</td><td>1,858</td><td>619</td><td>2,477</td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations 2</td><td>—</td><td>1,066</td><td>1,185</td><td>2,251</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures</td><td>72,875</td><td>8,724</td><td>14,855 3</td><td>96,454</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>—</td><td>11,696</td><td>—</td><td>11,696</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$164,712</td><td>$135,374</td><td>$35,749</td><td>$335,835</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="4">Cash Instrument Liabilities at Fair Value as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>$ 15,475</td><td>$ 430</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 15,905</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>31,011</td><td>1,350</td><td>—</td><td>32,361</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate</td><td>—</td><td>4</td><td>—</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>—</td><td>1,143</td><td>636</td><td>1,779</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>28</td><td>5,731</td><td>2</td><td>5,761</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>—</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures</td><td>19,416</td><td>986</td><td>4</td><td>20,406</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 65,930</td><td>$ 9,645</td><td>$ 642</td><td>$ 76,217</td></tr></table>

1. Includes $489 million and $446 million of CDOs backed by real estate in level 2 and level 3, respectively.

2. Includes $284 million and $1.76 billion of CDOs and CLOs backed by corporate obligations in level 2 and level 3, respectively.

3. Includes $12.67 billion of private equity investments, $1.58 billion of investments in real estate entities and $600 million of convertible debentures.

## Transfers Between Levels of the Fair Value Hierarchy

Transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy are reported at the beginning of the reporting period in which they occur. During 2013, transfers into level 2 from level 1 of cash instruments were $1 million, reflecting transfers of public equity securities due to decreased market activity in these instruments. Transfers into level 1 from level 2 of cash instruments were $79 million, reflecting transfers of public equity securities, primarily due to increased market activity in these instruments.
During 2012, transfers into level 2 from level 1 of cash instruments were $1.85 billion, including transfers of non-U.S. government obligations of $1.05 billion, reflecting the level of market activity in these instruments, and transfers of equity securities of $806 million, primarily reflecting the impact of transfer restrictions. Transfers into level 1 from level 2 of cash instruments were $302 million, including transfers of non-U.S. government obligations of $180 million, reflecting the level of market activity in these instruments, and transfers of equity securities of $102 million, where the firm was able to obtain quoted prices for certain actively traded instruments.



## Level 3 Rollforward

If a cash instrument asset or liability was transferred to level 3 during a reporting period, its entire gain or loss for the period is included in level 3.

Level 3 cash instruments are frequently economically hedged with level 1 and level 2 cash instruments and/or level 1, level 2 or level 3 derivatives. Accordingly, gains or losses that are reported in level 3 can be partially offset by gains or losses attributable to level 1 or level 2 cash instruments and/or level 1, level 2 or level 3 derivatives. As a result, gains or losses included in the level 3 rollforward below do not necessarily represent the overall impact on the firm’s results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

The tables below present changes in fair value for all cash instrument assets and liabilities categorized as level 3 as of the end of the year. Purchases in the tables below include both originations and secondary market purchases.

Level 3 Cash Instrument Assets at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2013

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td rowspan="2">Balance, beginning of year</td><td rowspan="2">Net realized gains/ (losses)</td><td colspan="2">Net unrealized gains/(losses)</td><td rowspan="2">Purchases</td><td rowspan="2">Sales</td><td rowspan="2">Settlements</td><td rowspan="2">Transfers into level 3</td><td rowspan="2">Transfers out of level 3</td><td rowspan="2">Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>Net unrealized gains/(losses)</td><td>Purchases</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>$ 26</td><td>$ 7</td><td>$ 5</td><td>$ 12</td><td>$ (20)</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 10</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 40</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate</td><td>3,389</td><td>206</td><td>224</td><td>733</td><td>(894)</td><td>(1,055)</td><td>262</td><td>(173)</td><td>2,692</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate</td><td>1,619</td><td>143</td><td>150</td><td>660</td><td>(467)</td><td>(269)</td><td>209</td><td>(84)</td><td>1,961</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>11,235</td><td>529</td><td>444</td><td>3,725</td><td>(2,390)</td><td>(4,778)</td><td>942</td><td>(383)</td><td>9,324</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>2,821</td><td>407</td><td>398</td><td>1,140</td><td>(1,584)</td><td>(576)</td><td>404</td><td>(137)</td><td>2,873</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>619</td><td>6</td><td>(2)</td><td>134</td><td>(492)</td><td>(2)</td><td>6</td><td>(12)</td><td>257</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations</td><td>1,185</td><td>47</td><td>38</td><td>648</td><td>(445)</td><td>(161)</td><td>14</td><td>(519)</td><td>807</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures</td><td>14,855</td><td>189</td><td>1,709</td><td>1,866</td><td>(862)</td><td>(1,610)</td><td>882</td><td>(2,344)</td><td>14,685</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$35,749</td><td>$1,5341</td><td>$2,9661</td><td>$8,918</td><td>(7,154)</td><td>(8,451)</td><td>$2,729</td><td>(3,652)</td><td>$32,639</td><td></td></tr></table>

Level 3 Cash Instrument Liabilities at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2013

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td rowspan="2">Balance, beginning of year</td><td rowspan="2">Net realized (gains)/ losses</td><td colspan="2">Net unrealized (gains)/ losses</td><td rowspan="2">Purchases</td><td rowspan="2">Sales</td><td rowspan="2">Settlements</td><td rowspan="2">Transfers into level 3</td><td rowspan="2">Transfers out of level 3</td><td rowspan="2">Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>Net realized (gains)/ losses</td><td>Net unrealized (gains)/ losses</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 642</td><td>$ (1)</td><td>$ (64)</td><td>$ (432)</td><td>$ 269</td><td>$ 8</td><td>$ 35</td><td>$ (160)</td><td>$ 297</td><td></td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate amounts include gains of approximately $1.09 billion, $2.69 billion and $723 million reported in “Market making,” “Other principal transactions” and “Interest income,” respectively.

The net unrealized gain on level 3 cash instruments of $3.03 billion (reflecting $2.97 billion on cash instrument assets and $64 million on cash instrument liabilities) for 2013 primarily consisted of gains on private equity investments, principally driven by strong corporate performance, bank loans and bridge loans, primarily due to tighter credit spreads and favorable company-specific events, and corporate debt securities, primarily due to tighter credit spreads.
Transfers into level 3 during 2013 primarily reflected transfers of certain bank loans and bridge loans and private equity investments from level 2, principally due to a lack of market transactions in these instruments.

Transfers out of level 3 during 2013 primarily reflected transfers of certain private equity investments to level 2, principally due to increased transparency of market prices as a result of market transactions in these instruments.



Level 3 Cash Instrument Assets at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2012

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>Net realized gains/ (losses)</td><td>Net unrealized gains/(losses) relating to instruments still held at year-end</td><td>Purchases</td><td>Sales</td><td>Settlements</td><td>Transfers into level 3</td><td>Transfers out of level 3</td><td>Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>$ 148</td><td>$ 2</td><td>$ (52)</td><td>$ 16</td><td>$ (40)</td><td>$ (45)</td><td>$ 1</td><td>$ (4)</td><td>$ 26</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate</td><td>3,346</td><td>238</td><td>232</td><td>1,613</td><td>(910)</td><td>(1,389)</td><td>337</td><td>(78)</td><td>3,389</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and securities backed by residential real estate</td><td>1,709</td><td>146</td><td>276</td><td>703</td><td>(844)</td><td>(380)</td><td>65</td><td>(56)</td><td>1,619</td></tr><tr><td>Bank loans and bridge loans</td><td>11,285</td><td>592</td><td>322</td><td>4,595</td><td>(2,794)</td><td>(2,738)</td><td>1,178</td><td>(1,205)</td><td>11,235</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>2,480</td><td>331</td><td>266</td><td>1,143</td><td>(961)</td><td>(438)</td><td>197</td><td>(197)</td><td>2,821</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>599</td><td>26</td><td>2</td><td>96</td><td>(90)</td><td>(22)</td><td>8</td><td>—</td><td>619</td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations</td><td>1,451</td><td>64</td><td>(25)</td><td>759</td><td>(355)</td><td>(125)</td><td>39</td><td>(623) \( ^{1} \)</td><td>1,185</td></tr><tr><td>Equities and convertible debentures</td><td>13,667</td><td>292</td><td>992</td><td>3,071</td><td>(702)</td><td>(1,278)</td><td>965</td><td>(2,152)</td><td>14,855</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$34,685</td><td>$1,691 \( ^{2} \)</td><td>$2,013 \) ^{2}</td><td>$11,996 \)</td><td>$ (6,696) \)</td><td>$ (6,415) \)</td><td>$2,790 \)</td><td>$ (4,315) \)</td><td>$35,749 \)</td></tr></table>

Level 3 Cash Instrument Liabilities at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2012

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>Net realized (gains)/ losses</td><td>Net unrealized (gains)/losses relating to instruments still held at year-end</td><td>Purchases</td><td>Sales</td><td>Settlements</td><td>Transfers into level 3</td><td>Transfers out of level 3</td><td>Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 905</td><td>$ (19)</td><td>$ (54)</td><td>$ (530)</td><td>$ 366</td><td>$ 45</td><td>$ 63</td><td>$ (134)</td><td>$ 642</td></tr></table>

1. Primarily reflects transfers related to the firm’s reinsurance business of level 3 “Other debt obligations” within cash instruments at fair value to level 3 “Other assets,” within other financial assets at fair value, as this business was classified as held for sale as of December 2012. See Note 8 for further information.

2. The aggregate amounts include gains of approximately $617 million, $2.13 billion and $962 million reported in “Market making,” “Other principal transactions” and “Interest income,” respectively.

The net unrealized gain on level 3 cash instruments of $2.07 billion (reflecting $2.01 billion of gains on cash instrument assets and $54 million of gains on cash instrument liabilities) for 2012 primarily consisted of gains on private equity investments, mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities, bank loans and bridge loans, and corporate debt securities. Unrealized gains for 2012 primarily reflected the impact of an increase in global equity prices and tighter credit spreads.

Transfers into level 3 during 2012 primarily reflected transfers from level 2 of certain bank loans and bridge loans, and private equity investments, principally due to a lack of market transactions in these instruments.

Transfers out of level 3 during 2012 primarily reflected transfers to level 2 of certain private equity investments and bank loans and bridge loans. Transfers of private equity investments to level 2 were principally due to improved transparency of market prices as a result of market transactions in these instruments. Transfers of bank loans and bridge loans to level 2 were principally due to market transactions in these instruments and unobservable inputs no longer being significant to the valuation of certain loans.



## Investments in Funds That Calculate Net Asset Value Per Share

Cash instruments at fair value include investments in funds that are valued based on the net asset value per share (NAV) of the investment fund. The firm uses NAV as its measure of fair value for fund investments when (i) the fund investment does not have a readily determinable fair value and (ii) the NAV of the investment fund is calculated in a manner consistent with the measurement principles of investment company accounting, including measurement of the underlying investments at fair value.

The firm’s investments in funds that calculate NAV primarily consist of investments in firm-sponsored private equity, credit, real estate and hedge funds where the firm co-invests with third-party investors.

Private equity funds primarily invest in a broad range of industries worldwide in a variety of situations, including leveraged buyouts, recapitalizations, growth investments and distressed investments. Credit funds generally invest in loans and other fixed income instruments and are focused on providing private high-yield capital for mid- to large-sized leveraged and management buyout transactions, recapitalizations, financings, refinancings, acquisitions and restructurings for private equity firms, private family companies and corporate issuers. Real estate funds invest globally, primarily in real estate companies, loan portfolios, debt recapitalizations and property. The private equity, credit and real estate funds are primarily closed-end funds in which the firm’s investments are not eligible for redemption. Distributions will be received from these funds as the underlying assets are liquidated.

The firm also invests in hedge funds, primarily multidisciplinary hedge funds that employ a fundamental bottom-up investment approach across various asset classes and strategies including long/short equity, credit, convertibles, risk arbitrage, special situations and capital structure arbitrage. These investments in hedge funds are generally redeemable on a quarterly basis with 91 days' notice, subject to a maximum redemption level of 25% of the firm's initial investments at any quarter-end; however, these investments also include interests where the underlying assets are illiquid in nature, and proceeds from redemptions will not be distributed until the underlying assets are liquidated.
Many of the funds described above are “covered funds” as defined by the Volcker Rule of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) which has a conformance period that ends in July 2015 subject to possible extensions through 2017.

The firm continues to manage its existing funds, taking into account the transition periods under the Volcker Rule. The firm is currently redeeming certain of its interests in hedge funds to comply with the Volcker Rule. Since March 2012, the firm has redeemed approximately $2.21 billion of these interests in hedge funds, including approximately $1.15 billion during 2013 and $1.06 billion during 2012.

For certain of the firm’s covered funds, in order to be compliant with the Volcker Rule by the prescribed compliance date, to the extent that the underlying investments of the particular funds are not sold, the firm may be required to sell its investments in such funds. If that occurs, the firm could receive a value for its investments that is less than the then carrying value, as there could be a limited secondary market for these investments and the firm may be unable to sell them in orderly transactions.

The tables below present the fair value of the firm’s investments in, and unfunded commitments to, funds that calculate NAV.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Fair Value of Investments</td><td>Unfunded Commitments</td></tr><tr><td>Private equity funds</td><td>$ 7,446</td><td>$2,575</td></tr><tr><td>Credit funds</td><td>3,624</td><td>2,515</td></tr><tr><td>Hedge funds</td><td>1,394</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate funds</td><td>1,908</td><td>471</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$14,372</td><td>$5,561</td></tr></table>

As of December 2012

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Fair Value of Investments</td><td>Unfunded Commitments</td></tr><tr><td>Private equity funds</td><td>$ 7,680</td><td>$2,778</td></tr><tr><td>Credit funds</td><td>3,927</td><td>2,843</td></tr><tr><td>Hedge funds</td><td>2,167</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate funds</td><td>2,006</td><td>870</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$15,780</td><td>$6,491</td></tr></table>



## Note 7.

## Derivatives and Hedging Activities

## Derivative Activities

Derivatives are instruments that derive their value from underlying asset prices, indices, reference rates and other inputs, or a combination of these factors. Derivatives may be traded on an exchange (exchange-traded) or they may be privately negotiated contracts, which are usually referred to as over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. Certain of the firm’s OTC derivatives are cleared and settled through central clearing counterparties (OTC-cleared), while others are bilateral contracts between two counterparties (bilateral OTC).

Market-Making. As a market maker, the firm enters into derivative transactions to provide liquidity to clients and to facilitate the transfer and hedging of their risks. In this capacity, the firm typically acts as principal and is consequently required to commit capital to provide execution. As a market maker, it is essential to maintain an inventory of financial instruments sufficient to meet expected client and market demands.

Risk Management. The firm also enters into derivatives to actively manage risk exposures that arise from its market-making and investing and lending activities in derivative and cash instruments. The firm’s holdings and exposures are hedged, in many cases, on either a portfolio or risk-specific basis, as opposed to an instrument-by-instrument basis. The offsetting impact of this economic hedging is reflected in the same business segment as the related revenues. In addition, the firm may enter into derivatives designated as hedges under U.S. GAAP. These derivatives are used to manage interest rate exposure in certain fixed-rate unsecured long-term and short-term borrowings, and deposits, to manage foreign currency exposure on the net investment in certain non-U.S. operations, and to manage the exposure to the variability in cash flows associated with the forecasted sales of certain energy commodities by one of the firm’s consolidated investments.
The firm enters into various types of derivatives, including:

• Futures and Forwards. Contracts that commit counterparties to purchase or sell financial instruments, commodities or currencies in the future.

• Swaps. Contracts that require counterparties to exchange cash flows such as currency or interest payment streams. The amounts exchanged are based on the specific terms of the contract with reference to specified rates, financial instruments, commodities, currencies or indices.

• Options. Contracts in which the option purchaser has the right, but not the obligation, to purchase from or sell to the option writer financial instruments, commodities or currencies within a defined time period for a specified price.

Derivatives are reported on a net-by-counterparty basis (i.e., the net payable or receivable for derivative assets and liabilities for a given counterparty) when a legal right of setoff exists under an enforceable netting agreement (counterparty netting). Derivatives are accounted for at fair value, net of cash collateral received or posted under enforceable credit support agreements (collateral netting). Derivative assets and liabilities are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and “Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value,” respectively. Substantially all gains and losses on derivatives not designated as hedges under ASC 815 are included in “Market making” and “Other principal transactions.”

The table below presents the fair value of derivatives on a net-by-counterparty basis.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative Assets</td><td>Derivative Liabilities</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded</td><td>$ 4,277</td><td>$ 6,366</td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>53,602</td><td>43,356</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$57,879</td><td>$49,722</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative Assets</td><td>Derivative Liabilities</td></tr><tr><td>In millions</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded</td><td>$ 3,772</td><td>$ 2,937</td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>67,404</td><td>47,490</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$71,176</td><td>$50,427</td></tr></table>



The table below presents the fair value and the notional amount of derivative contracts by major product type on a gross basis. Gross fair values exclude the effects of both counterparty netting and collateral, and therefore are not representative of the firm's exposure. The table below also presents the amounts of counterparty netting and cash collateral that have been offset in the consolidated statements of financial condition, as well as cash and securities collateral posted and received under enforceable credit support agreements that do not meet the criteria for netting under U.S. GAAP. Where the firm has received or posted collateral under credit support agreements, but has not yet determined such agreements are enforceable, the related collateral has not been netted in the table below. Notional amounts, which represent the sum of gross long and short derivative contracts, provide an indication of the volume of the firm's derivative activity and do not represent anticipated losses.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">As of December 2013</td><td colspan="3">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative Assets</td><td>Derivative Liabilities</td><td>Notional Amount</td><td>Derivative Assets</td><td>Derivative Liabilities</td><td>Notional Amount</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives not accounted for as hedges</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$ 641,186</td><td>$ 587,110</td><td>$44,110,483</td><td>$ 584,584</td><td>$ 545,605</td><td>$34,891,763</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded</td><td>157</td><td>271</td><td>2,366,448</td><td>47</td><td>26</td><td>2,502,867</td></tr><tr><td>OTC-cleared \( ^{1} \)</td><td>266,230</td><td>252,596</td><td>24,888,301</td><td>8,847</td><td>11,011</td><td>14,678,349</td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>374,799</td><td>334,243</td><td>16,855,734</td><td>575,690</td><td>534,568</td><td>17,710,547</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>60,751</td><td>56,340</td><td>2,946,376</td><td>85,816</td><td>74,927</td><td>3,615,757</td></tr><tr><td>OTC-cleared</td><td>3,943</td><td>4,482</td><td>348,848</td><td>3,359</td><td>2,638</td><td>304,100</td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>56,808</td><td>51,858</td><td>2,597,528</td><td>82,457</td><td>72,289</td><td>3,311,657</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>70,757</td><td>63,659</td><td>4,311,971</td><td>72,128</td><td>60,808</td><td>3,833,114</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded</td><td>98</td><td>122</td><td>23,908</td><td>31</td><td>82</td><td>12,341</td></tr><tr><td>OTC-cleared</td><td>88</td><td>97</td><td>11,319</td><td>14</td><td>14</td><td>5,487</td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>70,571</td><td>63,440</td><td>4,276,744</td><td>72,083</td><td>60,712</td><td>3,815,286</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>18,007</td><td>18,228</td><td>701,101</td><td>23,320</td><td>24,350</td><td>774,115</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded</td><td>4,323</td><td>3,661</td><td>346,057</td><td>5,360</td><td>5,040</td><td>344,823</td></tr><tr><td>OTC-cleared</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>135</td><td>26</td><td>23</td><td>327</td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>13,673</td><td>14,555</td><td>354,909</td><td>17,934</td><td>19,287</td><td>428,965</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>56,719</td><td>55,472</td><td>1,406,499</td><td>49,483</td><td>43,681</td><td>1,202,181</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded</td><td>10,544</td><td>13,157</td><td>534,840</td><td>9,409</td><td>8,864</td><td>441,494</td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>46,175</td><td>42,315</td><td>871,659</td><td>40,074</td><td>34,817</td><td>760,687</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>847,420</td><td>780,809</td><td>53,476,430</td><td>815,331</td><td>749,371</td><td>44,316,930</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives accounted for as hedges</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>11,403</td><td>429</td><td>132,879</td><td>23,772</td><td>66</td><td>128,302</td></tr><tr><td>OTC-cleared \( ^{1} \)</td><td>1,327</td><td>27</td><td>10,637</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>10,076</td><td>402</td><td>122,242</td><td>23,772</td><td>66</td><td>128,302</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>74</td><td>56</td><td>9,296</td><td>21</td><td>86</td><td>8,452</td></tr><tr><td>OTC-cleared</td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td>869</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>73</td><td>46</td><td>8,427</td><td>21</td><td>86</td><td>8,449</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>36</td><td>—</td><td>335</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>23</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>36</td><td>—</td><td>312</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>11,513</td><td>485</td><td>142,510</td><td>23,793</td><td>152</td><td>136,754</td></tr><tr><td>Gross fair value/notional amount of derivatives</td><td>$ 358,933 \( ^{2} \)</td><td>$ 781,294 \( ^{2} \)</td><td>$ 553,618,940 \)</td><td>$ 839,124 \) ^{2}</td><td>$ 749,523 \) ^{2}</td><td>$ 44,453,684 \)</td></tr><tr><td>Amounts that have been offset in the consolidated statements of financial condition</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>(707,411)</td><td>(707,411)</td><td></td><td>(668,460)</td><td>(668,460)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded</td><td>(10,845)</td><td>(10,845)</td><td></td><td>(11,075)</td><td>(11,075)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC-cleared \( ^{1} \)</td><td>(254,756)</td><td>(254,756)</td><td></td><td>(11,507)</td><td>(11,507)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>(441,810)</td><td>(441,810)</td><td></td><td>(645,878)</td><td>(645,878)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral</td><td>(93,643)</td><td>(24,161)</td><td></td><td>(99,488)</td><td>(30,636)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC-cleared \( ^{1} \)</td><td>(16,353)</td><td>(2,515)</td><td></td><td>(468)</td><td>(2,160)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bilateral OTC</td><td>(77,290)</td><td>(21,646)</td><td></td><td>(99,020)</td><td>(28,476)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fair value included in financial instruments owned/financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased</td><td>$ 57,879 \)</td><td>$ 49,722 \)</td><td></td><td>$ 71,176 \)</td><td>$ 50,427 \)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amounts that have not been offset in the consolidated statements of financial condition</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral received/posted</td><td>(636)</td><td>(2,806)</td><td></td><td>(812)</td><td>(2,994)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Securities collateral received/posted</td><td>(13,225)</td><td>(10,521)</td><td></td><td>(17,225)</td><td>(14,262)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 44,018 \)</td><td>$ 36,395 \)</td><td></td><td>$ 53,139 \)</td><td>$ 33,171 \)</td><td></td></tr></table>

1. Pursuant to the rule changes at a clearing organization, effective December 31, 2013, transactions with this clearing organization are no longer considered settled each day. This change resulted in an increase of gross interest rate derivative assets and liabilities of $251.76 billion and $235.07 billion, respectively, as of December 2013, and a corresponding increase in counterparty netting and cash collateral with no impact to the consolidated statements of financial condition. The impact of reflecting transactions with this clearing organization as settled as of December 2012 resulted in a reduction of gross interest rate derivative assets and liabilities of $315.40 billion and $298.69 billion, respectively.

2. Includes derivative assets and derivative liabilities of $23.18 billion and $23.46 billion, respectively, as of December 2013, and derivative assets and derivative liabilities of $24.62 billion and $25.73 billion, respectively, as of December 2012, which are not subject to an enforceable netting agreement or are subject to a netting agreement that the firm has not yet determined to be enforceable.



## Valuation Techniques for Derivatives

The firm’s level 2 and level 3 derivatives are valued using derivative pricing models (e.g., discounted cash flow models, correlation models, and models that incorporate option pricing methodologies, such as Monte Carlo simulations). Price transparency of derivatives can generally be characterized by product type.

Interest Rate. In general, the prices and other inputs used to value interest rate derivatives are transparent, even for long-dated contracts. Interest rate swaps and options denominated in the currencies of leading industrialized nations are characterized by high trading volumes and tight bid/offer spreads. Interest rate derivatives that reference indices, such as an inflation index, or the shape of the yield curve (e.g., 10-year swap rate vs. 2-year swap rate) are more complex, but the prices and other inputs are generally observable.

Credit. Price transparency for credit default swaps, including both single names and baskets of credits, varies by market and underlying reference entity or obligation. Credit default swaps that reference indices, large corporates and major sovereigns generally exhibit the most price transparency. For credit default swaps with other underliers, price transparency varies based on credit rating, the cost of borrowing the underlying reference obligations, and the availability of the underlying reference obligations for delivery upon the default of the issuer. Credit default swaps that reference loans, asset-backed securities and emerging market debt instruments tend to have less price transparency than those that reference corporate bonds. In addition, more complex credit derivatives, such as those sensitive to the correlation between two or more underlying reference obligations, generally have less price transparency.

Currency. Prices for currency derivatives based on the exchange rates of leading industrialized nations, including those with longer tenors, are generally transparent. The primary difference between the price transparency of developed and emerging market currency derivatives is that emerging markets tend to be observable for contracts with shorter tenors.
Commodity. Commodity derivatives include transactions referenced to energy (e.g., oil and natural gas), metals (e.g., precious and base) and soft commodities (e.g., agricultural). Price transparency varies based on the underlying commodity, delivery location, tenor and product quality (e.g., diesel fuel compared to unleaded gasoline). In general, price transparency for commodity derivatives is greater for contracts with shorter tenors and contracts that are more closely aligned with major and/or benchmark commodity indices.

Equity. Price transparency for equity derivatives varies by market and underlier. Options on indices and the common stock of corporates included in major equity indices exhibit the most price transparency. Equity derivatives generally have observable market prices, except for contracts with long tenors or reference prices that differ significantly from current market prices. More complex equity derivatives, such as those sensitive to the correlation between two or more individual stocks, generally have less price transparency.

Liquidity is essential to observability of all product types. If transaction volumes decline, previously transparent prices and other inputs may become unobservable. Conversely, even highly structured products may at times have trading volumes large enough to provide observability of prices and other inputs. See Note 5 for an overview of the firm’s fair value measurement policies.

## Level 1 Derivatives

Level 1 derivatives include short-term contracts for future delivery of securities when the underlying security is a level 1 instrument, and exchange-traded derivatives if they are actively traded and are valued at their quoted market price.

## Level 2 Derivatives

Level 2 derivatives include OTC derivatives for which all significant valuation inputs are corroborated by market evidence and exchange-traded derivatives that are not actively traded and/or that are valued using models that calibrate to market-clearing levels of OTC derivatives. In evaluating the significance of a valuation input, the firm considers, among other factors, a portfolio’s net risk exposure to that input.



The selection of a particular model to value a derivative depends on the contractual terms of and specific risks inherent in the instrument, as well as the availability of pricing information in the market. For derivatives that trade in liquid markets, model selection does not involve significant management judgment because outputs of models can be calibrated to market-clearing levels.

Valuation models require a variety of inputs, such as contractual terms, market prices, yield curves, discount rates (including those derived from interest rates on collateral received and posted as specified in credit support agreements for collateralized derivatives), credit curves, measures of volatility, prepayment rates, loss severity rates and correlations of such inputs. Significant inputs to the valuations of level 2 derivatives can be verified to market transactions, broker or dealer quotations or other alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. Consideration is given to the nature of the quotations (e.g., indicative or firm) and the relationship of recent market activity to the prices provided from alternative pricing sources.

## Level 3 Derivatives

Level 3 derivatives are valued using models which utilize observable level 1 and/or level 2 inputs, as well as unobservable level 3 inputs.

• For the majority of the firm’s interest rate and currency derivatives classified within level 3, significant unobservable inputs include correlations of certain currencies and interest rates (e.g., the correlation between Euro inflation and Euro interest rates) and specific interest rate volatilities.

• For level 3 credit derivatives, significant unobservable inputs include illiquid credit spreads and upfront credit points, which are unique to specific reference obligations and reference entities, recovery rates and certain correlations required to value credit and mortgage derivatives (e.g., the likelihood of default of the underlying reference obligation relative to one another).
• For level 3 equity derivatives, significant unobservable inputs generally include equity volatility inputs for options that are very long-dated and/or have strike prices that differ significantly from current market prices. In addition, the valuation of certain structured trades requires the use of level 3 correlation inputs, such as the correlation of the price performance of two or more individual stocks or the correlation of the price performance for a basket of stocks to another asset class such as commodities.

• For level 3 commodity derivatives, significant unobservable inputs include volatilities for options with strike prices that differ significantly from current market prices and prices or spreads for certain products for which the product quality or physical location of the commodity is not aligned with benchmark indices.

Subsequent to the initial valuation of a level 3 derivative, the firm updates the level 1 and level 2 inputs to reflect observable market changes and any resulting gains and losses are recorded in level 3. Level 3 inputs are changed when corroborated by evidence such as similar market transactions, third-party pricing services and/or broker or dealer quotations or other empirical market data. In circumstances where the firm cannot verify the model value by reference to market transactions, it is possible that a different valuation model could produce a materially different estimate of fair value. See below for further information about significant unobservable inputs used in the valuation of level 3 derivatives.

## Valuation Adjustments

Valuation adjustments are integral to determining the fair value of derivative portfolios and are used to adjust the mid-market valuations produced by derivative pricing models to the appropriate exit price valuation. These adjustments incorporate bid/offer spreads, the cost of liquidity, credit valuation adjustments and funding valuation adjustments, which account for the credit and funding risk inherent in the uncollateralized portion of derivative portfolios. The firm also makes funding valuation adjustments to collateralized derivatives where the terms of the agreement do not permit the firm to deliver or repleedge collateral received. Market-based inputs are generally used when calibrating valuation adjustments to market-clearing levels.

In addition, for derivatives that include significant unobservable inputs, the firm makes model or exit price adjustments to account for the valuation uncertainty present in the transaction.



## Significant Unobservable Inputs

The tables below present the ranges of significant unobservable inputs used to value the firm’s level 3 derivatives as well as the averages and medians of these inputs. The ranges represent the significant unobservable inputs that were used in the valuation of each type of derivative. Averages represent the arithmetic average of the inputs and are not weighted by the relative fair value or notional of the respective financial instruments. An average greater than the median indicates that the majority of inputs are below the average. The ranges, averages and medians of these inputs are not representative of the appropriate inputs to use when calculating the fair value of any one derivative. For example, the highest correlation presented in the tables below for interest rate derivatives is appropriate for valuing a specific interest rate derivative but may not be appropriate for valuing any other interest rate derivative. Accordingly, the ranges of inputs presented below do not represent uncertainty in, or possible ranges of, fair value measurements of the firm’s level 3 derivatives.

<table><tr><td>Level 3 Derivative Product Type</td><td>Net Level 3 Assets/(Liabilities) as of December 2013 (in millions)</td><td>Valuation Techniques and Significant Unobservable Inputs</td><td>Range of Significant Unobservable Inputs (Average / Median) as of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$ (86)</td><td>Option pricing models: Correlation 2 Volatility</td><td>22% to 84% (58% / 60%) 36 basis points per annum (bpa) to 165 bpa (107 bpa / 112 bpa)</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>$4,176  \( ^{1} \)</td><td>Option pricing models, correlation models and discounted cash flows models: Correlation 2 Credit spreads Upfront credit points Recovery rates</td><td>5% to 93% (61% / 61%) 1 basis points (bps) to 1,395 bps (153 bps / 116 bps)  \( ^{3} $  0 points to 100 points (46 points / 43 points) 20% to 85% (50% / 40%)</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>$ (200)</td><td>Option pricing models: Correlation 2</td><td>65% to 79% (72% / 72%)</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>$60  \( ^{1} \)</td><td>Option pricing models and discounted cash flows models: Volatility Spread per million British Thermal units (MMBTU) of natural gas Spread per Metric Tonne (MT) of coal</td><td>15% to 52% (23% / 21%)  \( $(1.74) to 5.62 ($(0.11) / $(0.04))  $ (17.00) to 0.50 ($(6.54) / (5.00))</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>$ (959)</td><td>Option pricing models: Correlation 2 Volatility</td><td>23% to 99% (58% / 59%) 6% to 63% (20% / 20%)</td></tr></table>

1. The fair value of any one instrument may be determined using multiple valuation techniques. For example, option pricing models and discounted cash flows models are typically used together to determine fair value. Therefore, the level 3 balance encompasses both of these techniques.

2. The range of unobservable inputs for correlation across derivative product types (i.e., cross-asset correlation) was (42)% to 78% (Average: 25% / Median: 30%) as of December 2013.

3. The difference between the average and the median for the credit spreads input indicates that the majority of the inputs fall in the lower end of the range.



## Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

<table><tr><td>Level 3 Derivative Product Type</td><td>Net Level 3 Assets/(Liabilities) as of December 2012 (in millions)</td><td>Valuation Techniques and Significant Unobservable Inputs</td><td>Range of Significant Unobservable Inputs (Average / Median) as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Interest rates</td><td rowspan="3">$ (355)</td><td>Option pricing models:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Correlation 2</td><td>22% to 97% (67% / 68%)</td></tr><tr><td>Volatility</td><td>37 bpa to 59 bpa (48 bpa / 47 bpa)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Credit</td><td rowspan="4">$6,228  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>Option pricing models, correlation models and discounted cash flows models:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Correlation 2</td><td>5% to 95% (50% / 50%)</td></tr><tr><td>Credit spreads</td><td>9 bps to 2,341 bps (225 bps / 140 bps)  \( {}^{3} \)</td></tr><tr><td>Recovery rates</td><td>15% to 85% (54% / 53%)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Currencies</td><td rowspan="2">$35</td><td>Option pricing models:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Correlation 2</td><td>65% to 87% (76% / 79%)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Commodities</td><td rowspan="5">$(304)  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>Option pricing models and discounted cash flows models:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Volatility</td><td>13% to 53% (30% / 29%)</td></tr><tr><td>Spread per MMBTU of natural gas</td><td>$0.61) to $6.07 ($0.02 / $0.00)</td></tr><tr><td>Price per megawatt hour of power</td><td>$17.30 to $57.39 ($33.17 / $32.80)</td></tr><tr><td>Price per barrel of oil</td><td>$86.64 to $98.43 ($92.76 / $93.62)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Equities</td><td rowspan="3">$1,248</td><td>Option pricing models:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Correlation 2</td><td>48% to 98% (68% / 67%)</td></tr><tr><td>Volatility</td><td>15% to 73% (31% / 30%)</td></tr></table>

1. The fair value of any one instrument may be determined using multiple valuation techniques. For example, option pricing models and discounted cash flows models are typically used together to determine fair value. Therefore, the level 3 balance encompasses both of these techniques.

2. The range of unobservable inputs for correlation across derivative product types (i.e., cross-asset correlation) was (51)% to 66% (Average: 30% / Median: 35%) as of December 2012.

3. The difference between the average and the median for the credit spreads input indicates that the majority of the inputs fall in the lower end of the range.



## Range of Significant Unobservable Inputs

The following provides further information about the ranges of significant unobservable inputs used to value the firm’s level 3 derivative instruments.

• Correlation: Ranges for correlation cover a variety of underliers both within one market (e.g., equity index and equity single stock names) and across markets (e.g., correlation of a commodity price and a foreign exchange rate), as well as across regions. Generally, cross-asset correlation inputs are used to value more complex instruments and are lower than correlation inputs on assets within the same derivative product type.

• Volatility: Ranges for volatility cover numerous underliers across a variety of markets, maturities and strike prices. For example, volatility of equity indices is generally lower than volatility of single stocks.

• Credit spreads, upfront credit points and recovery rates: The ranges for credit spreads, upfront credit points and recovery rates cover a variety of underliers (index and single names), regions, sectors, maturities and credit qualities (high-yield and investment-grade). The broad range of this population gives rise to the width of the ranges of significant unobservable inputs.

• Commodity prices and spreads: The ranges for commodity prices and spreads cover variability in products, maturities and locations, as well as peak and off-peak prices.

## Sensitivity of Fair Value Measurement to Changes in Significant Unobservable Inputs

The following provides a description of the directional sensitivity of the firm’s level 3 fair value measurements to changes in significant unobservable inputs, in isolation. Due to the distinctive nature of each of the firm’s level 3 derivatives, the interrelationship of inputs is not necessarily uniform within each product type.

• Correlation: In general, for contracts where the holder benefits from the convergence of the underlying asset or index prices (e.g., interest rates, credit spreads, foreign exchange rates, inflation rates and equity prices), an increase in correlation results in a higher fair value measurement.

• Volatility: In general, for purchased options an increase in volatility results in a higher fair value measurement.

• Credit spreads, upfront credit points and recovery rates: In general, the fair value of purchased credit protection increases as credit spreads or upfront credit points increase or recovery rates decrease. Credit spreads, upfront credit points and recovery rates are strongly related to distinctive risk factors of the underlying reference obligations, which include reference entity-specific factors such as leverage, volatility and industry, market-based risk factors, such as borrowing costs or liquidity of the underlying reference obligation, and macroeconomic conditions.

• Commodity prices and spreads: In general, for contracts where the holder is receiving a commodity, an increase in the spread (price difference from a benchmark index due to differences in quality or delivery location) or price results in a higher fair value measurement.



## Fair Value of Derivatives by Level

The tables below present the fair value of derivatives on a gross basis by level and major product type as well as the impact of netting. The gross fair values exclude the effects of both counterparty netting and collateral netting, and therefore are not representative of the firm’s exposure. Counterparty netting is reflected in each level to the extent that receivable and payable balances are netted within the same level. Where the netting of receivable and payable balances is across levels, the counterparty netting is reflected in “Cross-level netting.” Cash collateral netting is reflected in “Cash collateral.”

Derivative Assets at Fair Value as of December 2013

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Cross-Level</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Netting</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$91</td><td>$ 652,104</td><td>$ 394</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 652,589</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>—</td><td>52,834</td><td>7,917</td><td>—</td><td>60,751</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>—</td><td>70,481</td><td>350</td><td>—</td><td>70,831</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>—</td><td>17,517</td><td>526</td><td>—</td><td>18,043</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>3</td><td>55,826</td><td>890</td><td>—</td><td>56,719</td></tr><tr><td>Gross fair value of derivative assets</td><td>94</td><td>848,762</td><td>10,077</td><td>—</td><td>858,933</td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>—</td><td>(702,703)</td><td>(3,001)</td><td>(1,707)</td><td>(707,411)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>$94</td><td>$ 146,059</td><td>$ 7,076</td><td>$(1,707)</td><td>$ 151,522</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(93,643)</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value included in financial instruments owned</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 57,879</td></tr></table>

Derivative Liabilities at Fair Value as of December 2013

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Cross-Level</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Netting</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$93</td><td>$ 586,966</td><td>$ 480</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 587,539</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>—</td><td>52,599</td><td>3,741</td><td>—</td><td>56,340</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>—</td><td>63,165</td><td>550</td><td>—</td><td>63,715</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>—</td><td>17,762</td><td>466</td><td>—</td><td>18,228</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>6</td><td>53,617</td><td>1,849</td><td>—</td><td>55,472</td></tr><tr><td>Gross fair value of derivative liabilities</td><td>99</td><td>774,109</td><td>7,086</td><td>—</td><td>781,294</td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>—</td><td>(702,703)</td><td>(3,001)</td><td>(1,707)</td><td>(707,411)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>$99</td><td>$ 71,406</td><td>$ 4,085</td><td>$(1,707)</td><td>$ 73,883</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(24,161)</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value included in financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 49,722</td></tr></table>



## Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="5">Derivative Assets at Fair Value as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Cross-Level Netting</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$13</td><td>$ 608,151</td><td>$ 192</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 608,356</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>—</td><td>74,907</td><td>10,909</td><td>—</td><td>85,816</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>—</td><td>71,157</td><td>992</td><td>—</td><td>72,149</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>—</td><td>22,697</td><td>623</td><td>—</td><td>23,320</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>43</td><td>48,698</td><td>742</td><td>—</td><td>49,483</td></tr><tr><td>Gross fair value of derivative assets</td><td>56</td><td>825,610</td><td>13,458</td><td>—</td><td>839,124</td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>—</td><td>(662,798)</td><td>(3,538)</td><td>(2,124)</td><td>(668,460)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>$56</td><td>$ 162,812</td><td>$ 9,920</td><td>$(2,124)</td><td>$ 170,664</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(99,488)</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value included in financial instruments owned</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 71,176</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="5">Derivative Liabilities at Fair Value as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Cross-Level Netting</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$14</td><td>$ 545,110</td><td>$ 547</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 545,671</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>—</td><td>70,246</td><td>4,681</td><td>—</td><td>74,927</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>—</td><td>59,937</td><td>957</td><td>—</td><td>60,894</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>—</td><td>23,423</td><td>927</td><td>—</td><td>24,350</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>50</td><td>41,641</td><td>1,990</td><td>—</td><td>43,681</td></tr><tr><td>Gross fair value of derivative liabilities</td><td>64</td><td>740,357</td><td>9,102</td><td>—</td><td>749,523</td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>—</td><td>(662,798)</td><td>(3,538)</td><td>(2,124)</td><td>(668,460)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>$64</td><td>$ 77,559</td><td>$ 5,564</td><td>$(2,124)</td><td>$ 81,063</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(30,636)</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value included in financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 50,427</td></tr></table>



## Level 3 Rollforward

If a derivative was transferred to level 3 during a reporting period, its entire gain or loss for the period is included in level 3. Transfers between levels are reported at the beginning of the reporting period in which they occur. In the tables below, negative amounts for transfers into level 3 and positive amounts for transfers out of level 3 represent net transfers of derivative liabilities.

Gains and losses on level 3 derivatives should be considered in the context of the following:

• A derivative with level 1 and/or level 2 inputs is classified in level 3 in its entirety if it has at least one significant level 3 input.
• If there is one significant level 3 input, the entire gain or loss from adjusting only observable inputs (i.e., level 1 and level 2 inputs) is classified as level 3.

• Gains or losses that have been reported in level 3 resulting from changes in level 1 or level 2 inputs are frequently offset by gains or losses attributable to level 1 or level 2 derivatives and/or level 1, level 2 and level 3 cash instruments. As a result, gains/(losses) included in the level 3 rollforward below do not necessarily represent the overall impact on the firm’s results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

The tables below present changes in fair value for all derivatives categorized as level 3 as of the end of the year.

Level 3 Derivative Assets and Liabilities at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2013

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="10">Net unrealized gains/(losses) relating to instruments still held at year-end</td><td rowspan="2">Transfers into level 3</td><td rowspan="2">Transfers out of level 3</td><td rowspan="2">Asset/(liability) balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>Asset/(liability) balance, beginning of year</td><td>Net realized gains/(losses)</td><td>Net unrealized gains/(losses)</td><td>Purchases</td><td>Sales</td><td>Settlements</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>$ (355)</td><td>$ (78)</td><td>$ 168</td><td>$ 1</td><td>$ (8)</td><td>$ 196</td><td>$ (9)</td><td>$ (1)</td><td>$ (86)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates — net</td><td>6,228</td><td>(1)</td><td>(977)</td><td>201</td><td>(315)</td><td>(1,508)</td><td>695</td><td>(147)</td><td>4,176</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Currencies — net</td><td>35</td><td>(93)</td><td>(419)</td><td>22</td><td>(6)</td><td>169</td><td>139</td><td>(47)</td><td>(200)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commodities — net</td><td>(304)</td><td>(6)</td><td>58</td><td>21</td><td>(48)</td><td>281</td><td>50</td><td>8</td><td>60</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equities — net</td><td>(1,248)</td><td>(67)</td><td>(202)</td><td>77</td><td>(472)</td><td>1,020</td><td>(15)</td><td>(52)</td><td>(959)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total derivatives — net</td><td>$ 4,356</td><td>$(245)^{1}\)</td><td>$(1,372)^{1}\)</td><td>$322</td><td>$(849)</td><td>$ 158</td><td>$860</td><td>$ (239)</td><td>$2,991</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate amounts include losses of approximately $1.29 billion and $324 million reported in “Market making” and “Other principal transactions,” respectively.

The net unrealized loss on level 3 derivatives of $1.37 billion for 2013 principally resulted from changes in level 2 inputs and was primarily attributable to losses on certain credit derivatives, principally due to the impact of tighter credit spreads, and losses on certain currency derivatives, primarily due to changes in foreign exchange rates.

Transfers into level 3 derivatives during 2013 primarily reflected transfers of credit derivative assets from level 2, principally due to reduced transparency of upfront credit points and correlation inputs used to value these derivatives.
Transfers out of level 3 derivatives during 2013 primarily reflected transfers of certain credit derivatives to level 2, principally due to unobservable credit spread and correlation inputs no longer being significant to the valuation of these derivatives and unobservable inputs not being significant to the net risk of certain portfolios.



Level 3 Derivative Assets and Liabilities at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2012

<table><tr><td></td><td>Asset/ (liability) balance, beginning of year</td><td>Net realized gains/ (losses)</td><td>Net unrealized gains/(losses) relating to instruments still held at year-end</td><td>Purchases</td><td>Sales</td><td>Settlements</td><td>Transfers into level 3</td><td>Transfers out of level 3</td><td>Asset/ (liability) balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>$ (371)</td><td>$ (60)</td><td>$ 19</td><td>$ 7</td><td>$ (28)</td><td>$ 71</td><td>$ 68</td><td>$ (61)</td><td>$ (355)</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates — net</td><td>6,300</td><td>246</td><td>(701)</td><td>138</td><td>(270)</td><td>(1,597)</td><td>2,503</td><td>(391)</td><td>6,228</td></tr><tr><td>Credit — net</td><td>842</td><td>(17)</td><td>(502)</td><td>17</td><td>(5)</td><td>(144)</td><td>65</td><td>(221)</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies — net</td><td>(605)</td><td>(11)</td><td>228</td><td>63</td><td>(410)</td><td>307</td><td>(41)</td><td>165</td><td>(304)</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities — net</td><td>(432)</td><td>(80)</td><td>(276)</td><td>123</td><td>(724)</td><td>267</td><td>(50)</td><td>(76)</td><td>(1,248)</td></tr><tr><td>Equities — net</td><td>$5,734</td><td>$ 781</td><td>$ (1,232) 1</td><td>$348</td><td>$ (1,437)</td><td>$ (1,096)</td><td>$2,545</td><td>$ (584)</td><td>$ 4,356</td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate amounts include losses of approximately $903 million and $251 million reported in “Market making” and “Other principal transactions,” respectively.

The net unrealized loss on level 3 derivatives of $1.23 billion for 2012 principally resulted from changes in level 2 inputs and was primarily attributable to the impact of tighter credit spreads, changes in foreign exchange rates and increases in global equity prices on certain derivatives, partially offset by the impact of a decline in volatility on certain commodity derivatives.

Transfers into level 3 derivatives during 2012 primarily reflected transfers from level 2 of certain credit derivative assets, principally due to unobservable inputs becoming significant to the valuation of these derivatives, and transfers from level 2 of other credit derivative assets, principally due to reduced transparency of correlation inputs used to value these derivatives.

Transfers out of level 3 derivatives during 2012 primarily reflected transfers to level 2 of certain credit derivative assets, principally due to unobservable inputs no longer being significant to the valuation of these derivatives, transfers to level 2 of certain currency derivative assets, principally due to unobservable correlation inputs no longer being significant to the valuation of these derivatives, and transfers to level 2 of certain commodity derivative liabilities, principally due to increased transparency of volatility inputs used to value these derivatives.

## Impact of Credit Spreads on Derivatives

On an ongoing basis, the firm realizes gains or losses relating to changes in credit risk through the unwind of derivative contracts and changes in credit mitigants.

The net gain/(loss), including hedges, attributable to the impact of changes in credit exposure and credit spreads (counterparty and the firm’s) on derivatives was $(66) million for 2013, $(735) million for 2012 and $573 million for 2011.

## Bifurcated Embedded Derivatives

The table below presents the fair value and the notional amount of derivatives that have been bifurcated from their related borrowings. These derivatives, which are recorded at fair value, primarily consist of interest rate, equity and commodity products and are included in “Unsecured short-term borrowings” and “Unsecured long-term borrowings” with the related borrowings. See Note 8 for further information.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value of assets</td><td>$ 285</td><td>$ 320</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value of liabilities</td><td>373</td><td>398</td></tr><tr><td>Net liability</td><td>$ 88</td><td>$ 78</td></tr><tr><td>Notional amount</td><td>$7,580</td><td>$10,567</td></tr></table>



## OTC Derivatives

The tables below present the fair values of OTC derivative assets and liabilities by tenor and by product type. Tenor is based on expected duration for mortgage-related credit derivatives and generally on remaining contractual maturity for other derivatives. Counterparty netting is reflected in the tables below as follows:

• Counterparty netting within the same product type and tenor category is included within such product type and tenor category;
• Counterparty netting across product types within a tenor category is reflected in “Netting across product types;” and

• Counterparty netting across tenor categories is reflected in “Cross maturity netting.”

<table><tr><td colspan="5">in millions</td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td>0 - 12 Months</td><td>1 - 5 Years</td><td>5 Years or Greater</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Product Type</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$ 7,235</td><td>$26,029</td><td>$75,731</td><td>$108,995</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>1,233</td><td>8,410</td><td>5,787</td><td>15,430</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>9,499</td><td>8,478</td><td>7,361</td><td>25,338</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>2,843</td><td>4,040</td><td>143</td><td>7,026</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>7,016</td><td>9,229</td><td>4,972</td><td>21,217</td></tr><tr><td>Netting across product types</td><td>(2,559)</td><td>(5,063)</td><td>(3,395)</td><td>(11,017)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>$25,267</td><td>$51,123</td><td>$90,599</td><td>$166,989</td></tr><tr><td>Cross maturity netting</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(19,744)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(93,643)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 53,602</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Product Type</td><td>0 - 12 Months</td><td>1 - 5 Years</td><td>5 Years or Greater</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$ 5,019</td><td>$16,910</td><td>$21,903</td><td>$ 43,832</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>2,339</td><td>6,778</td><td>1,901</td><td>11,018</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>8,843</td><td>5,042</td><td>4,313</td><td>18,198</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>3,062</td><td>2,424</td><td>2,387</td><td>7,873</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>6,325</td><td>6,964</td><td>4,068</td><td>17,357</td></tr><tr><td>Netting across product types</td><td>(2,559)</td><td>(5,063)</td><td>(3,395)</td><td>(11,017)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>$23,029</td><td>$33,055</td><td>$31,177</td><td>$ 87,261</td></tr><tr><td>Cross maturity netting</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(19,744)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(24,161)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 43,356</td></tr></table>

1. Represents the netting of cash collateral received and posted on a counterparty basis under enforceable credit support agreements.



## Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="4">OTC Derivatives as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>0 - 12 Months</td><td>1 - 5 Years</td><td>5 Years or Greater</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Product Type</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>$10,318</td><td>$28,445</td><td>$ 80,449</td><td>$119,212</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>2,190</td><td>12,244</td><td>7,970</td><td>22,404</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>11,100</td><td>8,379</td><td>11,044</td><td>30,523</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>3,840</td><td>3,862</td><td>304</td><td>8,006</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>3,757</td><td>7,730</td><td>6,957</td><td>18,444</td></tr><tr><td>Netting across product types</td><td>(2,811)</td><td>(5,831)</td><td>(5,082)</td><td>(13,724)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>$28,394</td><td>$54,829</td><td>$101,642</td><td>$184,865</td></tr><tr><td>Cross maturity netting</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(17,973)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(99,488)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 67,404</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Product Type</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rates</td><td>0 - 12 Months</td><td>1 - 5 Years</td><td>5 Years or Greater</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Credit</td><td>$ 6,266</td><td>$17,860</td><td>$ 32,422</td><td>$ 56,548</td></tr><tr><td>Currencies</td><td>809</td><td>7,537</td><td>3,168</td><td>11,514</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>8,586</td><td>4,849</td><td>5,782</td><td>19,217</td></tr><tr><td>Equities</td><td>3,970</td><td>3,119</td><td>2,267</td><td>9,356</td></tr><tr><td>Netting across product types</td><td>(2,811)</td><td>(5,831)</td><td>(5,082)</td><td>(13,724)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>$20,595</td><td>$33,010</td><td>$ 42,494</td><td>$ 96,099</td></tr><tr><td>Cross maturity netting</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(17,973)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash collateral 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(30,636)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 47,490</td></tr></table>

1. Represents the netting of cash collateral received and posted on a counterparty basis under enforceable credit support agreements.



Derivatives with Credit-Related Contingent Features Certain of the firm’s derivatives have been transacted under bilateral agreements with counterparties who may require the firm to post collateral or terminate the transactions based on changes in the firm’s credit ratings. The firm assesses the impact of these bilateral agreements by determining the collateral or termination payments that would occur assuming a downgrade by all rating agencies. A downgrade by any one rating agency, depending on the agency’s relative ratings of the firm at the time of the downgrade, may have an impact which is comparable to the impact of a downgrade by all rating agencies. The table below presents the aggregate fair value of net derivative liabilities under such agreements (excluding application of collateral posted to reduce these liabilities), the related aggregate fair value of the assets posted as collateral, and the additional collateral or termination payments that could have been called at the reporting date by counterparties in the event of a one-notch and two-notch downgrade in the firm’s credit ratings.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Net derivative liabilities under bilateral agreements</td><td>$22,176</td><td>$27,885</td></tr><tr><td>Collateral posted</td><td>18,178</td><td>24,296</td></tr><tr><td>Additional collateral or termination payments for a one-notch downgrade</td><td>911</td><td>1,534</td></tr><tr><td>Additional collateral or termination payments for a two-notch downgrade</td><td>2,989</td><td>2,500</td></tr></table>

## Credit Derivatives

The firm enters into a broad array of credit derivatives in locations around the world to facilitate client transactions and to manage the credit risk associated with market-making and investing and lending activities. Credit derivatives are actively managed based on the firm’s net risk position.

Credit derivatives are individually negotiated contracts and can have various settlement and payment conventions. Credit events include failure to pay, bankruptcy, acceleration of indebtedness, restructuring, repudiation and dissolution of the reference entity.
Credit Default Swaps. Single-name credit default swaps protect the buyer against the loss of principal on one or more bonds, loans or mortgages (reference obligations) in the event the issuer (reference entity) of the reference obligations suffers a credit event. The buyer of protection pays an initial or periodic premium to the seller and receives protection for the period of the contract. If there is no credit event, as defined in the contract, the seller of protection makes no payments to the buyer of protection. However, if a credit event occurs, the seller of protection is required to make a payment to the buyer of protection, which is calculated in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Credit Indices, Baskets and Tranches. Credit derivatives may reference a basket of single-name credit default swaps or a broad-based index. If a credit event occurs in one of the underlying reference obligations, the protection seller pays the protection buyer. The payment is typically a pro-rata portion of the transaction’s total notional amount based on the underlying defaulted reference obligation. In certain transactions, the credit risk of a basket or index is separated into various portions (tranches), each having different levels of subordination. The most junior tranches cover initial defaults and once losses exceed the notional amount of these junior tranches, any excess loss is covered by the next most senior tranche in the capital structure.

Total Return Swaps. A total return swap transfers the risks relating to economic performance of a reference obligation from the protection buyer to the protection seller. Typically, the protection buyer receives from the protection seller a floating rate of interest and protection against any reduction in fair value of the reference obligation, and in return the protection seller receives the cash flows associated with the reference obligation, plus any increase in the fair value of the reference obligation.

Credit Options. In a credit option, the option writer assumes the obligation to purchase or sell a reference obligation at a specified price or credit spread. The option purchaser buys the right, but does not assume the obligation, to sell the reference obligation to, or purchase it from, the option writer. The payments on credit options depend either on a particular credit spread or the price of the reference obligation.



The firm economically hedges its exposure to written credit derivatives primarily by entering into offsetting purchased credit derivatives with identical underlyings. Substantially all of the firm’s purchased credit derivative transactions are with financial institutions and are subject to stringent collateral thresholds. In addition, upon the occurrence of a specified trigger event, the firm may take possession of the reference obligations underlying a particular written credit derivative, and consequently may, upon liquidation of the reference obligations, recover amounts on the underlying reference obligations in the event of default.

As of December 2013, written and purchased credit derivatives had total gross notional amounts of $1.43 trillion and $1.52 trillion, respectively, for total net notional purchased protection of $81.55 billion. As of December 2012, written and purchased credit derivatives had total gross notional amounts of $1.76 trillion and $1.86 trillion, respectively, for total net notional purchased protection of $98.33 billion.
The table below presents certain information about credit derivatives. In the table below:

• fair values exclude the effects of both netting of receivable balances with payable balances under enforceable netting agreements, and netting of cash received or posted under enforceable credit support agreements, and therefore are not representative of the firm’s credit exposure;

• tenor is based on expected duration for mortgage-related credit derivatives and on remaining contractual maturity for other credit derivatives; and

• the credit spread on the underlying, together with the tenor of the contract, are indicators of payment/performance risk. The firm is less likely to pay or otherwise be required to perform where the credit spread and the tenor are lower.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="4">Maximum Payout/Notional Amount of Written Credit Derivatives by Tenor</td><td colspan="3">Maximum Payout/Notional Amount of Purchased Credit Derivatives</td><td colspan="3">Fair Value of Written Credit Derivatives</td></tr><tr><td>0 - 12 Months</td><td>1 - 5 Years</td><td>5 Years or Greater</td><td>Total</td><td>Offsetting Purchased Credit Derivatives 1</td><td>Other Purchased Credit Derivatives 2</td><td>Asset</td><td>Liability</td><td>Net Asset/ (Liability)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>As of December 2013</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit spread on underlying (basis points)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0 - 250</td><td>$286,029</td><td>$ 950,126</td><td>$ 79,241</td><td>$1,315,396</td><td>$1,208,334</td><td>$183,665</td><td>$32,508</td><td>$ 4,396</td><td>$ 28,112</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>251 - 500</td><td>7,148</td><td>42,570</td><td>10,086</td><td>59,804</td><td>44,642</td><td>16,884</td><td>2,837</td><td>1,147</td><td>1,690</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>501 - 1,000</td><td>3,968</td><td>18,637</td><td>1,854</td><td>24,459</td><td>22,748</td><td>2,992</td><td>101</td><td>1,762</td><td>(1,661)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greater than 1,000</td><td>5,600</td><td>27,911</td><td>1,226</td><td>34,737</td><td>30,510</td><td>6,169</td><td>514</td><td>12,436</td><td>(11,922)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$302,745</td><td>$1,039,244</td><td>$ 92,407</td><td>$1,434,396</td><td>$1,306,234</td><td>$209,710</td><td>$35,960</td><td>$19,741</td><td>$ 16,219</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>As of December 2012</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit spread on underlying (basis points)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0 - 250</td><td>$360,289</td><td>$ 989,941</td><td>$103,481</td><td>$1,453,711</td><td>$1,343,561</td><td>$201,459</td><td>$28,817</td><td>$ 8,249</td><td>$ 20,568</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>251 - 500</td><td>13,876</td><td>126,659</td><td>35,086</td><td>175,621</td><td>157,371</td><td>19,063</td><td>4,284</td><td>7,848</td><td>(3,564)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>501 - 1,000</td><td>9,209</td><td>52,012</td><td>5,619</td><td>66,840</td><td>60,456</td><td>8,799</td><td>769</td><td>4,499</td><td>(3,730)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greater than 1,000</td><td>11,453</td><td>49,721</td><td>3,622</td><td>64,796</td><td>57,774</td><td>10,812</td><td>568</td><td>21,970</td><td>(21,402)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$394,827</td><td>$1,218,333</td><td>$147,808</td><td>$1,760,968</td><td>$1,619,162</td><td>$240,133</td><td>$34,438</td><td>$42,566</td><td>$ (8,128)</td><td></td></tr></table>

1. Offsetting purchased credit derivatives represent the notional amount of purchased credit derivatives that economically hedge written credit derivatives with identical underlyings.

2. This purchased protection represents the notional amount of all other purchased credit derivatives not included in “Offsetting Purchased Credit Derivatives.”



## Hedge Accounting

The firm applies hedge accounting for (i) certain interest rate swaps used to manage the interest rate exposure of certain fixed-rate unsecured long-term and short-term borrowings and certain fixed-rate certificates of deposit, (ii) certain foreign currency forward contracts and foreign currency-denominated debt used to manage foreign currency exposures on the firm’s net investment in certain non-U.S. operations and (iii) certain commodities-related swap and forward contracts used to manage the exposure to the variability in cash flows associated with the forecasted sales of certain energy commodities by one of the firm’s consolidated investments.

To qualify for hedge accounting, the derivative hedge must be highly effective at reducing the risk from the exposure being hedged. Additionally, the firm must formally document the hedging relationship at inception and test the hedging relationship at least on a quarterly basis to ensure the derivative hedge continues to be highly effective over the life of the hedging relationship.

## Fair Value Hedges

The firm designates certain interest rate swaps as fair value hedges. These interest rate swaps hedge changes in fair value attributable to the designated benchmark interest rate (e.g., London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) or OIS), effectively converting a substantial portion of fixed-rate obligations into floating-rate obligations.

The firm applies a statistical method that utilizes regression analysis when assessing the effectiveness of its fair value hedging relationships in achieving offsetting changes in the fair values of the hedging instrument and the risk being hedged (i.e., interest rate risk). An interest rate swap is considered highly effective in offsetting changes in fair value attributable to changes in the hedged risk when the regression analysis results in a coefficient of determination of 80% or greater and a slope between 80% and 125%.
For qualifying fair value hedges, gains or losses on derivatives are included in “Interest expense.” The change in fair value of the hedged item attributable to the risk being hedged is reported as an adjustment to its carrying value and is subsequently amortized into interest expense over its remaining life. Gains or losses resulting from hedge ineffectiveness are included in “Interest expense.” When a derivative is no longer designated as a hedge, any remaining difference between the carrying value and par value of the hedged item is amortized to interest expense over the remaining life of the hedged item using the effective interest method. See Note 23 for further information about interest income and interest expense.

The table below presents the gains/(losses) from interest rate derivatives accounted for as hedges, the related hedged borrowings and bank deposits, and the hedge ineffectiveness on these derivatives, which primarily consists of amortization of prepaid credit spreads resulting from the passage of time.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate hedges</td><td>$ (8,683)</td><td>$ (2,383)</td><td>$ 4,679</td></tr><tr><td>Hedged borrowings and bank deposits</td><td>6,999</td><td>665</td><td>(6,300)</td></tr><tr><td>Hedge ineffectiveness</td><td>$ (1,684)</td><td>$ (1,718)</td><td>$ (1,621)</td></tr></table>



## Net Investment Hedges

The firm seeks to reduce the impact of fluctuations in foreign exchange rates on its net investment in certain non-U.S. operations through the use of foreign currency forward contracts and foreign currency-denominated debt. For foreign currency forward contracts designated as hedges, the effectiveness of the hedge is assessed based on the overall changes in the fair value of the forward contracts (i.e., based on changes in forward rates). For foreign currency-denominated debt designated as a hedge, the effectiveness of the hedge is assessed based on changes in spot rates.

For qualifying net investment hedges, the gains or losses on the hedging instruments, to the extent effective, are included in “Currency translation” within the consolidated statements of comprehensive income.

The table below presents the gains/(losses) from net investment hedging.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Currency hedges</td><td>$150</td><td>$(233)</td><td>$ 160</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign currency-denominated debt hedges</td><td>470</td><td>347</td><td>(147)</td></tr></table>

The gain/(loss) related to ineffectiveness was not material for 2013, 2012 or 2011. The loss reclassified to earnings from accumulated other comprehensive income was not material for 2013 or 2012, and was $186 million for 2011.

As of December 2013 and December 2012, the firm had designated $1.97 billion and $2.77 billion, respectively, of foreign currency-denominated debt, included in “Unsecured long-term borrowings” and “Unsecured short-term borrowings,” as hedges of net investments in non-U.S. subsidiaries.

## Cash Flow Hedges

Beginning in the third quarter of 2013, the firm designated certain commodities-related swap and forward contracts as cash flow hedges. These swap and forward contracts hedge the firm’s exposure to the variability in cash flows associated with the forecasted sales of certain energy commodities by one of the firm’s consolidated investments.

The firm applies a statistical method that utilizes regression analysis when assessing hedge effectiveness. A cash flow hedge is considered highly effective in offsetting changes in forecasted cash flows attributable to the hedged risk when the regression analysis results in a coefficient of determination of 80% or greater and a slope between 80% and 125%.

For qualifying cash flow hedges, the gains or losses on derivatives, to the extent effective, are included in “Cash flow hedges” within the consolidated statements of comprehensive income. Gains or losses resulting from hedge ineffectiveness are included in “Other principal transactions” in the consolidated statements of earnings.

The effective portion of the gains, before taxes, recognized on these cash flow hedges was $14 million for 2013. The gain/(loss) related to hedge ineffectiveness was not material for 2013. There were no gains/(losses) excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness or reclassified to earnings from accumulated other comprehensive income during 2013.

The amounts recorded in “Cash flow hedges” will be reclassified to “Other principal transactions” in the same periods as the corresponding gain or loss on the sale of the hedged energy commodities, which is also recorded in “Other principal transactions.” The firm expects to reclassify $5 million of gains, net of taxes, related to cash flow hedges from “Cash flow hedges” to earnings within the next twelve months. The length of time over which the firm is hedging its exposure to the variability in future cash flows for forecasted transactions is approximately two years.



## Note 8.

## Fair Value Option

## Other Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities at Fair Value

In addition to all cash and derivative instruments included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and “Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value,” the firm accounts for certain of its other financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value primarily under the fair value option.

The primary reasons for electing the fair value option are to:

• reflect economic events in earnings on a timely basis;

• mitigate volatility in earnings from using different measurement attributes (e.g., transfers of financial instruments owned accounted for as financings are recorded at fair value whereas the related secured financing would be recorded on an accrual basis absent electing the fair value option); and

• address simplification and cost-benefit considerations (e.g., accounting for hybrid financial instruments at fair value in their entirety versus bifurcation of embedded derivatives and hedge accounting for debt hosts).

Hybrid financial instruments are instruments that contain bifurcable embedded derivatives and do not require settlement by physical delivery of non-financial assets (e.g., physical commodities). If the firm elects to bifurcate the embedded derivative from the associated debt, the derivative is accounted for at fair value and the host contract is accounted for at amortized cost, adjusted for the effective portion of any fair value hedges. If the firm does not elect to bifurcate, the entire hybrid financial instrument is accounted for at fair value under the fair value option. Other financial assets and financial liabilities accounted for at fair value under the fair value option include:

• repurchase agreements and substantially all resale agreements;

• securities borrowed and loaned within Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution;

• substantially all other secured financings, including transfers of assets accounted for as financings rather than sales;

• certain unsecured short-term borrowings, consisting of all promissory notes and commercial paper and certain hybrid financial instruments;

• certain unsecured long-term borrowings, including certain prepaid commodity transactions and certain hybrid financial instruments;

• certain insurance contract assets and liabilities and certain guarantees;

• certain receivables from customers and counterparties, including transfers of assets accounted for as secured loans rather than purchases and certain margin loans;

• certain time deposits issued by the firm’s bank subsidiaries (deposits with no stated maturity are not eligible for a fair value option election), including structured certificates of deposit, which are hybrid financial instruments; and

• certain subordinated liabilities issued by consolidated VIEs.

These financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value are generally valued based on discounted cash flow techniques, which incorporate inputs with reasonable levels of price transparency, and are generally classified as level 2 because the inputs are observable. Valuation adjustments may be made for liquidity and for counterparty and the firm’s credit quality.



See below for information about the significant inputs used to value other financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value, including the ranges of significant unobservable inputs used to value the level 3 instruments within these categories. These ranges represent the significant unobservable inputs that were used in the valuation of each type of other financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value. The ranges and weighted averages of these inputs are not representative of the appropriate inputs to use when calculating the fair value of any one instrument. For example, the highest yield presented below for resale and repurchase agreements is appropriate for valuing a specific agreement in that category but may not be appropriate for valuing any other agreements in that category. Accordingly, the ranges of inputs presented below do not represent uncertainty in, or possible ranges of, fair value measurements of the firm’s level 3 other financial assets and financial liabilities.

Resale and Repurchase Agreements and Securities Borrowed and Loaned. The significant inputs to the valuation of resale and repurchase agreements and securities borrowed and loaned are funding spreads, the amount and timing of expected future cash flows and interest rates. The ranges of significant unobservable inputs used to value level 3 resale and repurchase agreements are as follows:

As of December 2013:

• Yield: 1.3% to 3.9% (weighted average: 1.4%)

• Duration: 0.2 to 2.7 years (weighted average: 2.5 years)

As of December 2012:

• Yield: 1.7% to 5.4% (weighted average: 1.9%)

• Duration: 0.4 to 4.5 years (weighted average: 4.1 years)

Generally, increases in yield or duration, in isolation, would result in a lower fair value measurement. Due to the distinctive nature of each of the firm’s level 3 resale and repurchase agreements, the interrelationship of inputs is not necessarily uniform across such agreements.

See Note 9 for further information about collateralized agreements.
Other Secured Financings. The significant inputs to the valuation of other secured financings at fair value are the amount and timing of expected future cash flows, interest rates, funding spreads, the fair value of the collateral delivered by the firm (which is determined using the amount and timing of expected future cash flows, market prices, market yields and recovery assumptions) and the frequency of additional collateral calls. The ranges of significant unobservable inputs used to value level 3 other secured financings are as follows:

As of December 2013:

• Funding spreads: 40 bps to 250 bps (weighted average: 162 bps)

• Yield: 0.9% to 14.3% (weighted average: 5.0%)

• Duration: 0.8 to 16.1 years (weighted average: 3.7 years)

As of December 2012:

• Yield: 0.3% to 20.0% (weighted average: 4.2%)

• Duration: 0.3 to 10.8 years (weighted average: 2.4 years)

Generally, increases in funding spreads, yield or duration, in isolation, would result in a lower fair value measurement. Due to the distinctive nature of each of the firm’s level 3 other secured financings, the interrelationship of inputs is not necessarily uniform across such financings.

See Note 9 for further information about collateralized financings.



Unsecured Short-term and Long-term Borrowings. The significant inputs to the valuation of unsecured short-term and long-term borrowings at fair value are the amount and timing of expected future cash flows, interest rates, the credit spreads of the firm, as well as commodity prices in the case of prepaid commodity transactions. The inputs used to value the embedded derivative component of hybrid financial instruments are consistent with the inputs used to value the firm’s other derivative instruments. See Note 7 for further information about derivatives. See Notes 15 and 16 for further information about unsecured short-term and long-term borrowings, respectively.

Certain of the firm’s unsecured short-term and long-term instruments are included in level 3, substantially all of which are hybrid financial instruments. As the significant unobservable inputs used to value hybrid financial instruments primarily relate to the embedded derivative component of these borrowings, these inputs are incorporated in the firm’s derivative disclosures related to unobservable inputs in Note 7.
Insurance Contracts. During 2013, the firm sold a majority stake in both its Americas reinsurance business (April 2013) and its European insurance business (December 2013). See Note 3 for further information about these sales. Prior to selling these businesses, the firm had elected the fair value option on certain insurance contracts. These contracts could be settled only in cash and qualified for the fair value option because they were recognized financial instruments. These contracts were valued using market transactions and other market evidence where possible, including market-based inputs to models, calibration to market-clearing transactions or other alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. Significant inputs were interest rates, inflation rates, volatilities, funding spreads, yield and duration, which incorporated policy lapse and projected mortality assumptions. When unobservable inputs to a valuation model were significant to the fair value measurement of an instrument, the instrument was classified in level 3. As of December 2012, assets and liabilities related to the European insurance business were included in “Receivables from customers and counterparties” and “Other liabilities and accrued expenses,” respectively, and assets and liabilities related to the Americas reinsurance business, which was classified as held for sale as of December 2012, were included in “Other assets” and “Other liabilities and accrued expenses,” respectively. The ranges of significant unobservable inputs used to value level 3 insurance contracts as of December 2012 were as follows:

• Funding spreads: 39 bps to 61 bps (weighted average: 49 bps)

• Yield: 4.4% to 15.1% (weighted average: 6.2%)

• Duration: 5.3 to 8.8 years (weighted average: 7.6 years)

Generally, increases in funding spreads, yield or duration, in isolation, would result in a lower fair value measurement.

Due to the distinctive nature of each of the firm’s level 3 insurance contracts, the interrelationship of inputs was not necessarily uniform across such contracts.



Receivables from Customers and Counterparties. Receivables from customers and counterparties at fair value, excluding insurance contracts, are primarily comprised of transfers of assets accounted for as secured loans rather than purchases. The significant inputs to the valuation of such receivables are commodity prices, interest rates, the amount and timing of expected future cash flows and funding spreads. As of December 2012, level 3 secured loans were primarily related to the firm’s European insurance business, in which a majority stake was sold in December 2013. See Note 3 for further information about this sale. The ranges of significant unobservable inputs used to value the level 3 secured loans are as follows:

As of December 2013:

• Funding spreads: 40 bps to 477 bps (weighted average: 142 bps)

As of December 2012:

• Funding spreads: 85 bps to 99 bps (weighted average: 99 bps)

Generally, an increase in funding spreads would result in a lower fair value measurement.

Receivables from customers and counterparties not accounted for at fair value are accounted for at amortized cost net of estimated uncollectible amounts, which generally approximates fair value. Such receivables are primarily comprised of customer margin loans and collateral posted in connection with certain derivative transactions. While these items are carried at amounts that approximate fair value, they are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP and therefore are not included in the firm's fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these items been included in the firm's fair value hierarchy, substantially all would have been classified in level 2 as of December 2013.
Receivables from customers and counterparties not accounted for at fair value also includes loans held for investment, which are primarily comprised of collateralized loans to private wealth management clients and corporate loans. As of December 2013 and December 2012, the carrying value of such loans was $14.90 billion and $6.50 billion, respectively, which generally approximated fair value. As of December 2013, had these loans been carried at fair value and included in the fair value hierarchy, $6.16 billion and $8.75 billion would have been classified in level 2 and level 3, respectively. As of December 2012, had these loans been carried at fair value and included in the fair value hierarchy, $2.41 billion and $4.06 billion would have been classified in level 2 and level 3, respectively.

Deposits. The significant inputs to the valuation of time deposits are interest rates and the amount and timing of future cash flows. The inputs used to value the embedded derivative component of hybrid financial instruments are consistent with the inputs used to value the firm’s other derivative instruments. See Note 7 for further information about derivatives. See Note 14 for further information about deposits.

The firm’s deposits that are included in level 3 are hybrid financial instruments. As the significant unobservable inputs used to value hybrid financial instruments primarily relate to the embedded derivative component of these deposits, these inputs are incorporated in the firm’s derivative disclosures related to unobservable inputs in Note 7.



## Fair Value of Other Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities by Level

The tables below present, by level within the fair value hierarchy, other financial assets and financial liabilities accounted for at fair value primarily under the fair value option.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="4">Other Financial Assets at Fair Value as of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes 1</td><td>$19,502</td><td>$ 12,435</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 31,937</td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell</td><td>—</td><td>161,234</td><td>63</td><td>161,297</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed</td><td>—</td><td>60,384</td><td>—</td><td>60,384</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties</td><td>—</td><td>7,181</td><td>235</td><td>7,416</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>—</td><td>18</td><td>—</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$19,502</td><td>$241,252</td><td>$ 298</td><td>$261,052</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="4">Other Financial Liabilities at Fair Value as of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 6,870</td><td>$ 385</td><td>$ 7,255</td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>—</td><td>163,772</td><td>1,010</td><td>164,782</td></tr><tr><td>Securities loaned</td><td>—</td><td>973</td><td>—</td><td>973</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings</td><td>—</td><td>22,572</td><td>1,019</td><td>23,591</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings</td><td>—</td><td>15,680</td><td>3,387</td><td>19,067</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>—</td><td>9,854</td><td>1,837</td><td>11,691</td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses</td><td>—</td><td>362</td><td>26</td><td>388</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ —</td><td>$220,083</td><td>$7,664</td><td>$227,747</td></tr></table>

1. Includes securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes accounted for at fair value under the fair value option, which consists of securities borrowed and resale agreements. The table above includes $19.50 billion of level 1 securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes accounted for at fair value under other U.S. GAAP, consisting of U.S. Treasury securities and money market instruments.



<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="4">Other Financial Assets at Fair Value as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>$ 21,549</td><td>$ 8,935</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 30,484</td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell</td><td>—</td><td>141,053</td><td>278</td><td>141,331</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed</td><td>—</td><td>38,395</td><td>—</td><td>38,395</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties</td><td>—</td><td>7,225</td><td>641</td><td>7,866</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>4,420</td><td>8,499</td><td>507  \( {}^{3} \)</td><td>13,426</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$25,969</td><td>$204,107</td><td>$ 1,426</td><td>$231,502</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="4">Other Financial Liabilities at Fair Value as of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 4,741</td><td>$ 359</td><td>$ 5,100</td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>—</td><td>169,880</td><td>1,927</td><td>171,807</td></tr><tr><td>Securities loaned</td><td>—</td><td>1,558</td><td>—</td><td>1,558</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings</td><td>—</td><td>28,925</td><td>1,412</td><td>30,337</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings</td><td>—</td><td>15,011</td><td>2,584</td><td>17,595</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>—</td><td>10,676</td><td>1,917</td><td>12,593</td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses</td><td>—</td><td>769</td><td>11,274  \( {}^{4} \)</td><td>12,043</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ —</td><td>$231,560</td><td>$19,473</td><td>$251,033</td></tr></table>

1. Includes securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes accounted for at fair value under the fair value option, which consists of securities borrowed and resale agreements. The table above includes $21.55 billion of level 1 securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes accounted for at fair value under other U.S. GAAP, consisting of U.S. Treasury securities and money market instruments.

2. Consists of assets classified as held for sale related to the firm’s Americas reinsurance business, primarily consisting of securities accounted for as available-for-sale and insurance separate account assets which are accounted for at fair value under other U.S. GAAP.

3. Consists of insurance contracts and derivatives classified as held for sale related to the firm’s Americas reinsurance business. See “Insurance Contracts” above and Note 7 for further information about valuation techniques and inputs related to insurance contracts and derivatives, respectively.

4. Includes $692 million of liabilities classified as held for sale related to the firm’s Americas reinsurance business accounted for at fair value under the fair value option.

Transfers Between Levels of the Fair Value Hierarchy
Transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy are reported at the beginning of the reporting period in which they occur. There were no transfers of other financial assets and financial liabilities between level 1 and level 2 during 2013 or 2012. The tables below present information about transfers between level 2 and level 3.

## Level 3 Rollforward

If a financial asset or financial liability was transferred to level 3 during a reporting year, its entire gain or loss for the year is included in level 3.
The tables below present changes in fair value for other financial assets and financial liabilities accounted for at fair value categorized as level 3 as of the end of the year. Level 3 other financial assets and liabilities are frequently economically hedged with cash instruments and derivatives. Accordingly, gains or losses that are reported in level 3 can be partially offset by gains or losses attributable to level 1, 2 or 3 cash instruments or derivatives. As a result, gains or losses included in the level 3 rollforward below do not necessarily represent the overall impact on the firm’s results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.



Level 3 Other Financial Assets at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2013

<table><tr><td></td><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>Net realized gains/ (losses)</td><td>Net unrealized gains/(losses) relating to instruments still held at year-end</td><td>Purchases</td><td>Sales</td><td>Issuances</td><td>Settlements</td><td>Transfers into level 3</td><td>Transfers out of level 3</td><td>Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell</td><td>$ 278</td><td>$ 4</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>(16)</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ (203)</td><td>$ 63</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties</td><td>641</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>54</td><td>(474)</td><td>—</td><td>(1)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>235</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>507</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(507)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 1,426</td><td>$ 51</td><td>$ 141</td><td>$54</td><td>$ (981)</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ (17)</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ (203)</td><td>$ 298</td><td></td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate amounts include gains of approximately $14 million, $1 million and $4 million reported in “Market making,” “Other principal transactions” and “Interest income,” respectively.

Level 3 Other Financial Liabilities at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2013

<table><tr><td></td><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>Net realized gains/(losses)</td><td>Net unrealized gains/(losses) relating to instruments still held at year-end</td><td>Purchases</td><td>Sales</td><td>Issuances</td><td>Settlements</td><td>Transfers into level 3</td><td>Transfers out of level 3</td><td>Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>$ 359</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ (6)</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 109</td><td>$ (6)</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ (71)</td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase, at fair value</td><td>1,927</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(917)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings</td><td>1,412</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>708</td><td>(894)</td><td>126</td><td>(345)</td><td>1,019</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings</td><td>2,584</td><td>1</td><td>239</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,624</td><td>(1,502)</td><td>714</td><td>(273)</td><td>3,387</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>1,917</td><td>22</td><td>43</td><td>(3)</td><td>—</td><td>470</td><td>(558)</td><td>671</td><td>(725)</td><td>1,837</td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses</td><td>11,274</td><td>(29)</td><td>(2)</td><td>—</td><td>(10,288)</td><td>—</td><td>(426)</td><td>—</td><td>(503)</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$19,473</td><td>$ 41</td><td>$2761</td><td>$ (3)</td><td>$ (10,288)</td><td>$2,911</td><td>$ (4,303)</td><td>$1,511</td><td>$ (1,917)</td><td>$7,664</td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate amounts include losses of approximately $184 million, $88 million and $8 million reported in “Market making,” “Other principal transactions” and “Interest expense,” respectively.

The net unrealized loss on level 3 other financial liabilities of $276 million for 2013 primarily reflected losses on certain hybrid financial instruments included in unsecured short-term borrowings, principally due to an increase in global equity prices.

Sales of other liabilities and accrued expenses during 2013 primarily reflected the sale of a majority stake in the firm’s European insurance business.

Transfers out of level 3 of other financial assets during 2013 primarily reflected transfers of certain resale agreements to level 2, principally due to increased price transparency as a result of market transactions in similar instruments. Transfers into level 3 of other financial liabilities during 2013 primarily reflected transfers of certain hybrid financial instruments included in unsecured short-term and long-term borrowings from level 2, principally due to decreased transparency of certain correlation and volatility inputs used to value these instruments.

Transfers out of level 3 of other financial liabilities during 2013 primarily reflected transfers of certain hybrid financial instruments included in unsecured short-term and long-term borrowings to level 2, principally due to increased transparency of certain correlation and volatility inputs used to value these instruments, and transfers of subordinated liabilities included in other liabilities and accrued expenses to level 2, principally due to increased price transparency as a result of market transactions in the related underlying investments.



Level 3 Other Financial Assets at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2012

<table><tr><td></td><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>Net realized gains/(losses)</td><td>Net unrealized gains/(losses) relating to instruments still held at year-end</td><td>Purchases</td><td>Sales</td><td>Issuances</td><td>Settlements</td><td>Transfers into level 3</td><td>Transfers out of level 3</td><td>Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell</td><td>$ 557</td><td>$ 7</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 116</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ (402)</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 278</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties</td><td>795</td><td>—</td><td>37</td><td>199</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(17)</td><td>—</td><td>(373)</td><td>641</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>82</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(23)</td><td>448</td><td>—</td><td>507</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 1,352</td><td>$ 71</td><td>$ 1191</td><td>$ 315</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ (442)</td><td>$448</td><td>$ (373)</td><td>$ 1,426</td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate amounts include gains/(losses) of approximately $119 million, $3 million and $10 million reported in “Market making,” “Other principal transactions” and “Interest Income,” respectively.

Level 3 Other Financial Liabilities at Fair Value for the Year Ended December 2012

<table><tr><td></td><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>Net realized gains/(losses)</td><td>Net unrealized gains/(losses) relating to instruments still held at year-end</td><td>Purchases</td><td>Sales</td><td>Issuances</td><td>Settlements</td><td>Transfers into level 3</td><td>Transfers out of level 3</td><td>Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>$ 13</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 5</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 326</td><td>$ (1)</td><td>$ 16</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 359</td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase, at fair value</td><td>2,181</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(254)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,927</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings</td><td>1,752</td><td>12</td><td>(51)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>854</td><td>(1,155)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,412</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings</td><td>3,294</td><td>(13)</td><td>204</td><td>(13)</td><td>—</td><td>762</td><td>(1,206)</td><td>240</td><td>(684)</td><td>2,584</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>2,191</td><td>31</td><td>286</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>329</td><td>(344)</td><td>225</td><td>(801)</td><td>1,917</td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses</td><td>8,996</td><td>78</td><td>941</td><td>1,617</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(360)</td><td>2</td><td>—</td><td>11,274</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$18,427</td><td>$1081</td><td>$1,3851</td><td>$1,604</td><td>$—</td><td>$2,271</td><td>$3,320)</td><td>$483</td><td>$1,485)</td><td>$19,473</td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate amounts include losses of approximately $1.37 billion, $113 million and $15 million reported in “Market making,” “Other principal transactions” and “Interest expense,” respectively.

The net unrealized loss on level 3 other financial liabilities of $1.39 billion for 2012 primarily reflected the impact of tighter funding spreads and changes in foreign exchange rates on certain insurance liabilities, and an increase in global equity prices and tighter credit spreads on certain hybrid financial instruments.

Transfers into level 3 of other financial assets during 2012 reflected transfers of level 3 assets classified as held for sale related to the firm’s reinsurance business, which were previously included in level 3 “Financial instruments owned, at fair value.”

Transfers out of level 3 of other financial assets during 2012 reflected transfers to level 2 of certain insurance receivables primarily due to increased transparency of the mortality inputs used to value these receivables.
Transfers into level 3 of other financial liabilities during 2012 primarily reflected transfers from level 2 of certain hybrid financial instruments, principally due to decreased transparency of certain correlation and volatility inputs used to value these instruments.

Transfers out of level 3 of other financial liabilities during 2012 primarily reflected transfers to level 2 of certain hybrid financial instruments, principally due to increased transparency of certain correlation and volatility inputs used to value these instruments, and unobservable inputs no longer being significant to the valuation of other instruments.



## Gains and Losses on Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities Accounted for at Fair Value Under the Fair Value Option

The table below presents the gains and losses recognized as a result of the firm electing to apply the fair value option to certain financial assets and financial liabilities. These gains and losses are included in “Market making” and “Other principal transactions.” The table below also includes gains and losses on the embedded derivative component of hybrid financial instruments included in unsecured short-term borrowings, unsecured long-term borrowings and deposits. These gains and losses would have been recognized under other U.S. GAAP even if the firm had not elected to account for the entire hybrid financial instrument at fair value.

The amounts in the table exclude contractual interest, which is included in “Interest income” and “Interest expense,” for all instruments other than hybrid financial instruments. See Note 23 for further information about interest income and interest expense.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Gains/(Losses) on Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities at Fair Value Under the Fair Value Option</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>$ 25</td><td>$ 190</td><td>$ 97</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings</td><td>(412)</td><td>(190)</td><td>(63)</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>(151)</td><td>(973)</td><td>2,149</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings  \( {}^{3} \)</td><td>683</td><td>(1,523)</td><td>2,336</td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses  \( {}^{4} \)</td><td>(167)</td><td>(1,486)</td><td>(911)</td></tr><tr><td>Other  \( {}^{5} \)</td><td>(56)</td><td>(81)</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ (78)</td><td>$ (4,063)</td><td>$ 3,698</td></tr></table>

1. Primarily consists of gains/(losses) on certain insurance contracts and certain transfers accounted for as receivables rather than purchases.

2. Includes gains/(losses) on the embedded derivative component of hybrid financial instruments of $46 million for 2013, $814 million for 2012 and $2.01 billion for 2011.

3. Includes gains/(losses) on the embedded derivative component of hybrid financial instruments of $902 million for 2013, $(887) million for 2012 and $1.80 billion for 2011.

4. Primarily consists of gains/(losses) on certain insurance contracts and subordinated liabilities issued by consolidated VIEs.

5. Primarily consists of gains/(losses) on deposits, resale and repurchase agreements, securities borrowed and loaned and other assets.
Excluding the gains and losses on the instruments accounted for under the fair value option described above, "Market making" and "Other principal transactions" primarily represent gains and losses on "Financial instruments owned, at fair value" and "Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value."

## Loans and Lending Commitments

The table below presents the difference between the aggregate fair value and the aggregate contractual principal amount for loans and long-term receivables for which the fair value option was elected.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Performing loans and long-term receivables</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Aggregate contractual principal in excess of the related fair value</td><td>$ 3,106</td><td>$ 2,742</td></tr><tr><td>Loans on nonaccrual status and/or more than 90 days past due  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Aggregate contractual principal in excess of the related fair value</td><td>18,715</td><td>22,610</td></tr><tr><td>Aggregate contractual principal in excess of the related fair value (excluding loans carried at zero fair value and considered uncollectible)</td><td>11,041</td><td>13,298</td></tr><tr><td>Aggregate fair value of loans on nonaccrual status and/or more than 90 days past due</td><td>2,781</td><td>1,832</td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate contractual principal amount of these loans exceeds the related fair value primarily because the firm regularly purchases loans, such as distressed loans, at values significantly below contractual principal amounts.

As of December 2013 and December 2012, the fair value of unfunded lending commitments for which the fair value option was elected was a liability of $1.22 billion and $1.99 billion, respectively, and the related total contractual amount of these lending commitments was $51.54 billion and $59.29 billion, respectively. See Note 18 for further information about lending commitments.



## Long-Term Debt Instruments

The aggregate contractual principal amount of long-term other secured financings for which the fair value option was elected exceeded the related fair value by $154 million and $115 million as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. The aggregate contractual principal amount of unsecured long-term borrowings for which the fair value option was elected exceeded the related fair value by $92 million as of December 2013, whereas the fair value exceeded the related aggregate contractual principal amount by $379 million as of December 2012. The amounts above include both principal and non-principal-protected long-term borrowings.

## Impact of Credit Spreads on Loans and Lending Commitments

The estimated net gain/(loss) attributable to changes in instrument-specific credit spreads on loans and lending commitments for which the fair value option was elected was $2.69 billion for 2013, $3.07 billion for 2012 and $805 million for 2011. Changes in the fair value of loans and lending commitments are primarily attributable to changes in instrument-specific credit spreads. Substantially all of the firm’s performing loans and lending commitments are floating-rate.

## Impact of Credit Spreads on Borrowings

The table below presents the net gains/(losses) attributable to the impact of changes in the firm’s own credit spreads on borrowings for which the fair value option was elected. The firm calculates the fair value of borrowings by discounting future cash flows at a rate which incorporates the firm’s credit spreads.

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Net gains/(losses) including hedges</td><td>($296)</td><td>($714)</td><td>$596</td></tr><tr><td>Net gains/(losses) excluding hedges</td><td>($317)</td><td>($800)</td><td>$714</td></tr></table>

## Note 9.

## Collateralized Agreements and Financings

Collateralized agreements are securities purchased under agreements to resell (resale agreements) and securities borrowed. Collateralized financings are securities sold under agreements to repurchase (repurchase agreements), securities loaned and other secured financings. The firm enters into these transactions in order to, among other things, facilitate client activities, invest excess cash, acquire securities to cover short positions and finance certain firm activities.

Collateralized agreements and financings are presented on a net-by-counterparty basis when a legal right of setoff exists. Interest on collateralized agreements and collateralized financings is recognized over the life of the transaction and included in “Interest income” and “Interest expense,” respectively. See Note 23 for further information about interest income and interest expense.

The table below presents the carrying value of resale and repurchase agreements and securities borrowed and loaned transactions.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>161,732</td><td>141,334</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>164,566</td><td>136,893</td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>164,782</td><td>171,807</td></tr><tr><td>Securities loaned  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>18,745</td><td>13,765</td></tr></table>

1. Substantially all resale agreements and all repurchase agreements are carried at fair value under the fair value option. See Note 8 for further information about the valuation techniques and significant inputs used to determine fair value.

2. As of December 2013 and December 2012, $60.38 billion and $38.40 billion of securities borrowed and $973 million and $1.56 billion of securities loaned were at fair value, respectively.



## Resale and Repurchase Agreements

A resale agreement is a transaction in which the firm purchases financial instruments from a seller, typically in exchange for cash, and simultaneously enters into an agreement to resell the same or substantially the same financial instruments to the seller at a stated price plus accrued interest at a future date.

A repurchase agreement is a transaction in which the firm sells financial instruments to a buyer, typically in exchange for cash, and simultaneously enters into an agreement to repurchase the same or substantially the same financial instruments from the buyer at a stated price plus accrued interest at a future date.

The financial instruments purchased or sold in resale and repurchase agreements typically include U.S. government and federal agency, and investment-grade sovereign obligations.

The firm receives financial instruments purchased under resale agreements, makes delivery of financial instruments sold under repurchase agreements, monitors the market value of these financial instruments on a daily basis, and delivers or obtains additional collateral due to changes in the market value of the financial instruments, as appropriate. For resale agreements, the firm typically requires delivery of collateral with a fair value approximately equal to the carrying value of the relevant assets in the consolidated statements of financial condition.

Even though repurchase and resale agreements involve the legal transfer of ownership of financial instruments, they are accounted for as financing arrangements because they require the financial instruments to be repurchased or resold at the maturity of the agreement. However, “repos to maturity” are accounted for as sales. A repo to maturity is a transaction in which the firm transfers a security under an agreement to repurchase the security where the maturity date of the repurchase agreement matches the maturity date of the underlying security. Therefore, the firm effectively no longer has a repurchase obligation and has relinquished control over the underlying security and, accordingly, accounts for the transaction as a sale. The firm had no repos to maturity outstanding as of December 2013 or December 2012.

## Securities Borrowed and Loaned Transactions

In a securities borrowed transaction, the firm borrows securities from a counterparty in exchange for cash or securities. When the firm returns the securities, the counterparty returns the cash or securities. Interest is generally paid periodically over the life of the transaction.

In a securities loaned transaction, the firm lends securities to a counterparty typically in exchange for cash or securities. When the counterparty returns the securities, the firm returns the cash or securities posted as collateral. Interest is generally paid periodically over the life of the transaction.

The firm receives securities borrowed, makes delivery of securities loaned, monitors the market value of these securities on a daily basis, and delivers or obtains additional collateral due to changes in the market value of the securities, as appropriate. For securities borrowed transactions, the firm typically requires collateral with a fair value approximately equal to the carrying value of the securities borrowed transaction.

Securities borrowed and loaned within Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution are recorded at fair value under the fair value option. See Note 8 for further information about securities borrowed and loaned accounted for at fair value.

Securities borrowed and loaned within Securities Services are recorded based on the amount of cash collateral advanced or received plus accrued interest. As these arrangements generally can be terminated on demand, they exhibit little, if any, sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Therefore, the carrying value of such arrangements approximates fair value. While these arrangements are carried at amounts that approximate fair value, they are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP and therefore are not included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these arrangements been included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy, they would have been classified in level 2 as of December 2013 and December 2012.



## Offsetting Arrangements

The tables below present the gross and net resale and repurchase agreements and securities borrowed and loaned transactions, and the related amount of netting with the same counterparty under enforceable netting agreements (i.e., counterparty netting) included in the consolidated statements of financial condition. Substantially all of the gross carrying values of these arrangements are subject to enforceable netting agreements. The tables below also present the amounts not offset in the consolidated statements of financial condition including counterparty netting that does not meet the criteria for netting under U.S. GAAP and the fair value of cash or securities collateral received or posted subject to enforceable credit support agreements. Where the firm has received or posted collateral under credit support agreements, but has not yet determined such agreements are enforceable, the related collateral has not been netted in the table below.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="4">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Assets</td><td colspan="2">Liabilities</td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell</td><td>Securities borrowed</td><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>Securities loaned</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amounts included in the consolidated statements of financial condition</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gross carrying value</td><td>$ 190,536</td><td>$ 172,283</td><td>$ 183,913</td><td>$ 23,700</td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>(19,131)</td><td>(4,955)</td><td>(19,131)</td><td>(4,955)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>171,405  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>167,328  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>164,782</td><td>18,745</td></tr><tr><td>Amounts that have not been offset in the consolidated statements of financial condition</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>(10,725)</td><td>(2,224)</td><td>(10,725)</td><td>(2,224)</td></tr><tr><td>Collateral</td><td>(152,914)</td><td>(147,223)</td><td>(141,300)</td><td>(16,278)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 7,766</td><td>$ 17,881</td><td>$ 12,757</td><td>$ 243</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="4">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Assets</td><td colspan="2">Liabilities</td></tr><tr><td>Securities purchased under agreements to resell</td><td>Securities borrowed</td><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>Securities loaned</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amounts included in the consolidated statements of financial condition</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gross carrying value</td><td>$ 175,656</td><td>$ 151,162</td><td>$ 201,688</td><td>$ 23,509</td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>(29,766)</td><td>(9,744)</td><td>(29,766)</td><td>(9,744)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>145,890  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>141,418  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>171,922  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>13,765</td></tr><tr><td>Amounts that have not been offset in the consolidated statements of financial condition</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Counterparty netting</td><td>(27,512)</td><td>(2,583)</td><td>(27,512)</td><td>(2,583)</td></tr><tr><td>Collateral</td><td>(104,344)</td><td>(117,552)</td><td>(106,638)</td><td>(10,990)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 14,034</td><td>$ 21,283</td><td>$ 37,772</td><td>$ 192</td></tr></table>

1. As of December 2013 and December 2012, the firm had $9.67 billion and $4.41 billion, respectively, of securities received under resale agreements and $2.77 billion and $4.53 billion, respectively, of securities borrowed transactions that were segregated to satisfy certain regulatory requirements. These securities are included in "Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes."

2. As of December 2012, the firm classified $148 million of resale agreements and $115 million of repurchase agreements related to the firm’s Americas reinsurance business as held for sale. See Note 3 for further information about this sale.



## Other Secured Financings

In addition to repurchase agreements and securities lending transactions, the firm funds certain assets through the use of other secured financings and pledges financial instruments and other assets as collateral in these transactions. These other secured financings consist of:

• liabilities of consolidated VIEs;

• transfers of assets accounted for as financings rather than sales (primarily collateralized central bank financings, pledged commodities, bank loans and mortgage whole loans); and

• other structured financing arrangements.

Other secured financings include arrangements that are nonrecourse. As of December 2013 and December 2012, nonrecourse other secured financings were $1.54 billion and $1.76 billion, respectively.

The firm has elected to apply the fair value option to substantially all other secured financings because the use of fair value eliminates non-economic volatility in earnings that would arise from using different measurement attributes. See Note 8 for further information about other secured financings that are accounted for at fair value.

Other secured financings that are not recorded at fair value are recorded based on the amount of cash received plus accrued interest, which generally approximates fair value. While these financings are carried at amounts that approximate fair value, they are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP and therefore are not included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these financings been included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy, they would have primarily been classified in level 2 and level 3 as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively.

The table below presents information about other secured financings. In the table below:

• short-term secured financings include financings maturing within one year of the financial statement date and financings that are redeemable within one year of the financial statement date at the option of the holder;

• long-term secured financings that are repayable prior to maturity at the option of the firm are reflected at their contractual maturity dates;
• long-term secured financings that are redeemable prior to maturity at the option of the holders are reflected at the dates such options become exercisable; and

• weighted average interest rates exclude secured financings at fair value and include the effect of hedging activities. See Note 7 for further information about hedging activities.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">$ in millions</td><td colspan="3">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Dollar</td><td>Non-U.S. Dollar</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (short-term):</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At fair value</td><td>$ 9,374</td><td>$ 7,828</td><td>$17,202</td></tr><tr><td>At amortized cost</td><td>88</td><td>—</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average interest rates</td><td>2.86%</td><td>—%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (long-term):</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At fair value</td><td>3,711</td><td>2,678</td><td>6,389</td></tr><tr><td>At amortized cost</td><td>372</td><td>763</td><td>1,135</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average interest rates</td><td>3.78%</td><td>1.53%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total 1</td><td>$13,545</td><td>$11,269</td><td>$24,814</td></tr><tr><td>Amount of other secured financings collateralized by:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments 2</td><td>$13,366</td><td>$10,880</td><td>$24,246</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>179</td><td>389</td><td>568</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">$ in millions</td><td colspan="3">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Dollar</td><td>Non-U.S. Dollar</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (short-term):</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At fair value</td><td>$16,504</td><td>$ 6,181</td><td>$22,685</td></tr><tr><td>At amortized cost</td><td>34</td><td>326</td><td>360</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average interest rates</td><td>6.18%</td><td>0.10%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (long-term):</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At fair value</td><td>6,134</td><td>1,518</td><td>7,652</td></tr><tr><td>At amortized cost</td><td>577</td><td>736</td><td>1,313</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average interest rates</td><td>3.38%</td><td>2.55%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total 1</td><td>$23,249</td><td>$ 8,761</td><td>$32,010</td></tr><tr><td>Amount of other secured financings collateralized by:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments 2</td><td>$22,323</td><td>$ 8,442</td><td>$30,765</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>926</td><td>319</td><td>1,245</td></tr></table>

1. Includes $1.54 billion and $8.68 billion related to transfers of financial assets accounted for as financings rather than sales as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. Such financings were collateralized by financial assets included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” of $1.58 billion and $8.92 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively.

2. Includes $14.75 billion and $17.24 billion of other secured financings collateralized by financial instruments owned, at fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, and includes $9.50 billion and $13.53 billion of other secured financings collateralized by financial instruments received as collateral and replegged as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively.



The table below presents other secured financings by maturity.

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (short-term)</td><td>$17,290</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (long-term):</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>3,896</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>1,951</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>162</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>781</td></tr><tr><td>2019-thereafter</td><td>734</td></tr><tr><td>Total other secured financings (long-term)</td><td>7,524</td></tr><tr><td>Total other secured financings</td><td>$24,814</td></tr></table>

## Collateral Received and Pledged

The firm receives cash and securities (e.g., U.S. government and federal agency, other sovereign and corporate obligations, as well as equities and convertible debentures) as collateral, primarily in connection with resale agreements, securities borrowed, derivative transactions and customer margin loans. The firm obtains cash and securities as collateral on an upfront or contingent basis for derivative instruments and collateralized agreements to reduce its credit exposure to individual counterparties.

In many cases, the firm is permitted to deliver or repledge financial instruments received as collateral when entering into repurchase agreements and securities lending agreements, primarily in connection with secured client financing activities. The firm is also permitted to deliver or repledge these financial instruments in connection with other secured financings, collateralizing derivative transactions and meeting firm or customer settlement requirements.
The firm also pledges certain financial instruments owned, at fair value in connection with repurchase agreements, securities lending agreements and other secured financings, and other assets (primarily real estate and cash) in connection with other secured financings to counterparties who may or may not have the right to deliver or repledge them.

The table below presents financial instruments at fair value received as collateral that were available to be delivered or repledged and were delivered or repledged by the firm.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Collateral available to be delivered or repledged</td><td>$608,390</td><td>$540,949</td></tr><tr><td>Collateral that was delivered or repledged</td><td>450,127</td><td>397,652</td></tr></table>

The table below presents information about assets pledged.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value pledged to counterparties that:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Had the right to deliver or repledge</td><td>$ 62,348</td><td>$ 67,177</td></tr><tr><td>Did not have the right to deliver or repledge</td><td>84,799</td><td>120,980</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets pledged to counterparties that:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Did not have the right to deliver or repledge</td><td>769</td><td>2,031</td></tr></table>



## Note 10.

## Securitization Activities

The firm securitizes residential and commercial mortgages, corporate bonds, loans and other types of financial assets by selling these assets to securitization vehicles (e.g., trusts, corporate entities and limited liability companies) or through a resecuritization. The firm acts as underwriter of the beneficial interests that are sold to investors. The firm’s residential mortgage securitizations are substantially all in connection with government agency securitizations.

Beneficial interests issued by securitization entities are debt or equity securities that give the investors rights to receive all or portions of specified cash inflows to a securitization vehicle and include senior and subordinated interests in principal, interest and/or other cash inflows. The proceeds from the sale of beneficial interests are used to pay the transferor for the financial assets sold to the securitization vehicle or to purchase securities which serve as collateral.

The firm accounts for a securitization as a sale when it has relinquished control over the transferred assets. Prior to securitization, the firm accounts for assets pending transfer at fair value and therefore does not typically recognize significant gains or losses upon the transfer of assets. Net revenues from underwriting activities are recognized in connection with the sales of the underlying beneficial interests to investors.

For transfers of assets that are not accounted for as sales, the assets remain in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and the transfer is accounted for as a collateralized financing, with the related interest expense recognized over the life of the transaction. See Notes 9 and 23 for further information about collateralized financings and interest expense, respectively.
The firm generally receives cash in exchange for the transferred assets but may also have continuing involvement with transferred assets, including ownership of beneficial interests in securitized financial assets, primarily in the form of senior or subordinated securities. The firm may also purchase senior or subordinated securities issued by securitization vehicles (which are typically VIEs) in connection with secondary market-making activities.

The primary risks included in beneficial interests and other interests from the firm’s continuing involvement with securitization vehicles are the performance of the underlying collateral, the position of the firm’s investment in the capital structure of the securitization vehicle and the market yield for the security. These interests are accounted for at fair value and are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and are generally classified in level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. See Notes 5 through 8 for further information about fair value measurements.

The table below presents the amount of financial assets securitized and the cash flows received on retained interests in securitization entities in which the firm had continuing involvement.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgages</td><td>$29,772</td><td>$33,755</td><td>$40,131</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial mortgages</td><td>6,086</td><td>300</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other financial assets</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$35,858</td><td>$34,055</td><td>$40,400</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flows on retained interests</td><td>$ 249</td><td>$ 389</td><td>$ 569</td></tr></table>



The tables below present the firm’s continuing involvement in nonconsolidated securitization entities to which the firm sold assets, as well as the total outstanding principal amount of transferred assets in which the firm has continuing involvement. In these tables:

• the outstanding principal amount is presented for the purpose of providing information about the size of the securitization entities in which the firm has continuing involvement and is not representative of the firm’s risk of loss;

• for retained or purchased interests, the firm’s risk of loss is limited to the fair value of these interests; and

• purchased interests represent senior and subordinated interests, purchased in connection with secondary market-making activities, in securitization entities in which the firm also holds retained interests.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Outstanding Principal Amount</td><td>Fair Value of Retained Interests</td><td>Fair Value of Purchased Interests</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government agency-issued collateralized mortgage obligations</td><td>$61,543</td><td>$3,455</td><td>$ —</td></tr><tr><td>Other residential mortgage-backed</td><td>2,072</td><td>46</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other commercial mortgage-backed</td><td>7,087</td><td>140</td><td>153</td></tr><tr><td>CDOs, CLOs and other</td><td>6,861</td><td>86</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Total \( ^{1} \)</td><td>$77,563</td><td>$3,727</td><td>$161</td></tr></table>

As of December 2012

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Outstanding Principal Amount</td><td>Fair Value of Retained Interests</td><td>Fair Value of Purchased Interests</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government agency-issued collateralized mortgage obligations</td><td>$57,685</td><td>$4,654</td><td>$ —</td></tr><tr><td>Other residential mortgage-backed</td><td>3,656</td><td>106</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other commercial mortgage-backed</td><td>1,253</td><td>1</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>CDOs, CLOs and other</td><td>8,866</td><td>51</td><td>331</td></tr><tr><td>Total \( ^{1} \)</td><td>$71,460</td><td>$4,812</td><td>$387</td></tr></table>

1. Outstanding principal amount includes $418 million and $835 million as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, related to securitization entities in which the firm's only continuing involvement is retained servicing which is not a variable interest.

In addition, the outstanding principal and fair value of retained interests in the tables above relate to the following types of securitizations and vintage as described:

• the outstanding principal amount and fair value of retained interests for U.S. government agency-issued collateralized mortgage obligations as of December 2013 primarily relate to securitizations during 2013 and 2012, and as of December 2012 primarily relate to securitizations during 2012 and 2011;

• the outstanding principal amount and fair value of retained interests for other residential mortgage-backed obligations as of both December 2013 and December 2012 primarily relate to prime and Alt-A securitizations during 2007 and 2006;

• the outstanding principal amount and fair value of retained interests for other commercial mortgage-backed obligations as of December 2013 primarily relate to securitizations during 2013. As of December 2012, the outstanding principal amount primarily relates to securitizations during 2012 and 2007 and the fair value of retained interests primarily relates to securitizations during 2012; and

• the outstanding principal amount and fair value of retained interests for CDOs, CLOs and other as of December 2013 primarily relate to CDO and CLO securitizations during 2007 and as of December 2012 primarily relate to securitizations during 2007 and 2006.



In addition to the interests in the table above, the firm had other continuing involvement in the form of derivative transactions and guarantees with certain nonconsolidated VIEs. The carrying value of these derivatives and guarantees was a net asset of $26 million and $45 million as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. The notional amounts of these derivatives and guarantees are included in maximum exposure to loss in the nonconsolidated VIE tables in Note 11.

The tables below do not give effect to the offsetting benefit of other financial instruments that are held to mitigate risks inherent in these retained interests. Changes in fair value based on an adverse variation in assumptions generally cannot be extrapolated because the relationship of the change in assumptions to the change in fair value is not usually linear. In addition, the impact of a change in a particular assumption in the below tables are calculated independently of changes in any other assumption. In practice, simultaneous changes in assumptions might magnify or counteract the sensitivities disclosed below.

The tables below present the weighted average key economic assumptions used in measuring the fair value of retained interests and the sensitivity of this fair value to immediate adverse changes of 10% and 20% in those assumptions. In the tables below, the constant prepayment rate is included only for positions for which it is a key assumption in the determination of fair value. The discount rate for retained interests that relate to U.S. government agency-issued collateralized mortgage obligations does not include any credit loss. Expected credit loss assumptions are reflected in the discount rate for the remainder of retained interests.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in \text{millions}\)</td><td colspan="2">Type of Retained Interests</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Mortgage-Backed</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value of retained interests</td><td>$3,641</td><td>$ 86</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average life (years)</td><td>8.3</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Constant prepayment rate</td><td>7.5%</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of 10% adverse change</td><td>$ (36)</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of 20% adverse change</td><td>(64)</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Discount rate</td><td>3.9%</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of 10% adverse change</td><td>$ (85)</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of 20% adverse change</td><td>(164)</td><td>N.M.</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Type of Retained Interests</td></tr><tr><td>$ in millions</td><td>Mortgage-Backed</td><td>Other 1</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value of retained interests</td><td>$4,761</td><td>$ 51</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average life (years)</td><td>8.2</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Constant prepayment rate</td><td>10.9%</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of 10% adverse change</td><td>$ (57)</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of 20% adverse change</td><td>(110)</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Discount rate</td><td>4.6%</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of 10% adverse change</td><td>$ (96)</td><td>N.M.</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of 20% adverse change</td><td>(180)</td><td>N.M.</td></tr></table>

1. Due to the nature and current fair value of certain of these retained interests, the weighted average assumptions for constant prepayment and discount rates and the related sensitivity to adverse changes are not meaningful as of December 2013 and December 2012. The firm’s maximum exposure to adverse changes in the value of these interests is the carrying value of $86 million and $51 million as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively.



## Note 11.

## Variable Interest Entities

VIEs generally finance the purchase of assets by issuing debt and equity securities that are either collateralized by or indexed to the assets held by the VIE. The debt and equity securities issued by a VIE may include tranches of varying levels of subordination. The firm’s involvement with VIEs includes securitization of financial assets, as described in Note 10, and investments in and loans to other types of VIEs, as described below. See Note 10 for additional information about securitization activities, including the definition of beneficial interests. See Note 3 for the firm’s consolidation policies, including the definition of a VIE.

The firm is principally involved with VIEs through the following business activities:

Mortgage-Backed VIEs and Corporate CDO and CLO VIEs. The firm sells residential and commercial mortgage loans and securities to mortgage-backed VIEs and corporate bonds and loans to corporate CDO and CLO VIEs and may retain beneficial interests in the assets sold to these VIEs. The firm purchases and sells beneficial interests issued by mortgage-backed and corporate CDO and CLO VIEs in connection with market-making activities. In addition, the firm may enter into derivatives with certain of these VIEs, primarily interest rate swaps, which are typically not variable interests. The firm generally enters into derivatives with other counterparties to mitigate its risk from derivatives with these VIEs.

Certain mortgage-backed and corporate CDO and CLO VIEs, usually referred to as synthetic CDOs or credit-linked note VIEs, synthetically create the exposure for the beneficial interests they issue by entering into credit derivatives, rather than purchasing the underlying assets. These credit derivatives may reference a single asset, an index, or a portfolio/basket of assets or indices. See Note 7 for further information about credit derivatives. These VIEs use the funds from the sale of beneficial interests and the premiums received from credit derivative counterparties to purchase securities which serve to collateralize the beneficial interest holders and/or the credit derivative counterparty. These VIEs may enter into other derivatives, primarily interest rate swaps, which are typically not variable interests. The firm may be a counterparty to derivatives with these VIEs and generally enters into derivatives with other counterparties to mitigate its risk.
Real Estate, Credit-Related and Other Investing VIEs. The firm purchases equity and debt securities issued by and makes loans to VIEs that hold real estate, performing and nonperforming debt, distressed loans and equity securities. The firm typically does not sell assets to, or enter into derivatives with, these VIEs.

Other Asset-Backed VIEs. The firm structures VIEs that issue notes to clients, and purchases and sells beneficial interests issued by other asset-backed VIEs in connection with market-making activities. In addition, the firm may enter into derivatives with certain other asset-backed VIEs, primarily total return swaps on the collateral assets held by these VIEs under which the firm pays the VIE the return due to the note holders and receives the return on the collateral assets owned by the VIE. The firm generally can be removed as the total return swap counterparty. The firm generally enters into derivatives with other counterparties to mitigate its risk from derivatives with these VIEs. The firm typically does not sell assets to the other asset-backed VIEs it structures.

Power-Related VIEs. The firm purchases debt and equity securities issued by, and may provide commitments to, VIEs that hold power-related assets. The firm typically does not sell assets to, or enter into derivatives with, these VIEs.

Investment Fund VIEs. The firm makes equity investments in, and is entitled to receive fees from, certain of the investment fund VIEs it manages. The firm typically does not sell assets to, or enter into derivatives with, these VIEs.

Principal-Protected Note VIEs. The firm structures VIEs that issue principal-protected notes to clients. These VIEs own portfolios of assets, principally with exposure to hedge funds. Substantially all of the principal protection on the notes issued by these VIEs is provided by the asset portfolio rebalancing that is required under the terms of the notes. The firm enters into total return swaps with these VIEs under which the firm pays the VIE the return due to the principal-protected note holders and receives the return on the assets owned by the VIE. The firm may enter into derivatives with other counterparties to mitigate the risk it has from the derivatives it enters into with these VIEs. The firm also obtains funding through these VIEs.



## VIE Consolidation Analysis

A variable interest in a VIE is an investment (e.g., debt or equity securities) or other interest (e.g., derivatives or loans and lending commitments) in a VIE that will absorb portions of the VIE’s expected losses and/or receive portions of the VIE’s expected residual returns.

The firm’s variable interests in VIEs include senior and subordinated debt in residential and commercial mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securitization entities, CDOs and CLOs; loans and lending commitments; limited and general partnership interests; preferred and common equity; derivatives that may include foreign currency, equity and/or credit risk; guarantees; and certain of the fees the firm receives from investment funds. Certain interest rate, foreign currency and credit derivatives the firm enters into with VIEs are not variable interests because they create rather than absorb risk.

The enterprise with a controlling financial interest in a VIE is known as the primary beneficiary and consolidates the VIE. The firm determines whether it is the primary beneficiary of a VIE by performing an analysis that principally considers:

• which variable interest holder has the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIE’s economic performance;

• which variable interest holder has the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE;

• the VIE’s purpose and design, including the risks the VIE was designed to create and pass through to its variable interest holders;

• the VIE’s capital structure;

• the terms between the VIE and its variable interest holders and other parties involved with the VIE; and

• related-party relationships.

The firm reassesses its initial evaluation of whether an entity is a VIE when certain reconsideration events occur. The firm reassesses its determination of whether it is the primary beneficiary of a VIE on an ongoing basis based on current facts and circumstances.

## Nonconsolidated VIEs

The firm’s exposure to the obligations of VIEs is generally limited to its interests in these entities. In certain instances, the firm provides guarantees, including derivative guarantees, to VIEs or holders of variable interests in VIEs.

The tables below present information about nonconsolidated VIEs in which the firm holds variable interests. Nonconsolidated VIEs are aggregated based on principal business activity. The nature of the firm’s variable interests can take different forms, as described in the rows under maximum exposure to loss. In the tables below:

• The maximum exposure to loss excludes the benefit of offsetting financial instruments that are held to mitigate the risks associated with these variable interests.

• For retained and purchased interests, and loans and investments, the maximum exposure to loss is the carrying value of these interests.

• For commitments and guarantees, and derivatives, the maximum exposure to loss is the notional amount, which does not represent anticipated losses and also has not been reduced by unrealized losses already recorded. As a result, the maximum exposure to loss exceeds liabilities recorded for commitments and guarantees, and derivatives provided to VIEs.

The carrying values of the firm’s variable interests in nonconsolidated VIEs are included in the consolidated statement of financial condition as follows:

• Substantially all assets held by the firm related to mortgage-backed, corporate CDO and CLO, other asset-backed, and investment fund VIEs are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value.” Substantially all liabilities held by the firm related to corporate CDO and CLO and other asset-backed VIEs are included in “Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value.”

• Assets held by the firm related to real estate, credit-related and other investing VIEs are primarily included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and “Receivables from customers and counterparties,” and liabilities are substantially all included in “Financial Instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value.”

• Assets held by the firm related to power-related VIEs are primarily included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and “Other assets.”



<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="7">Nonconsolidated VIEs</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage-backed</td><td>Corporate CDOs and CLOs</td><td>Real estate, credit-related and other investing</td><td>Other asset-backed</td><td>Power-related</td><td>Investment funds</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Assets in VIE</td><td>$86,562 2</td><td>$19,761</td><td>$8,599</td><td>$4,401</td><td>$593</td><td>$2,332</td><td>$122,248</td></tr><tr><td>Carrying Value of the Firm&#x27;s Variable Interests</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td>5,269</td><td>1,063</td><td>2,756</td><td>284</td><td>116</td><td>49</td><td>9,537</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities</td><td>—</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>40</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Exposure to Loss in Nonconsolidated VIEs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retained interests</td><td>3,641</td><td>80</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>3,727</td></tr><tr><td>Purchased interests</td><td>1,627</td><td>659</td><td>—</td><td>142</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2,428</td></tr><tr><td>Commitments and guarantees 1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>485</td><td>—</td><td>278</td><td>3</td><td>766</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives 1</td><td>586</td><td>4,809</td><td>—</td><td>2,115</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>7,510</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and investments</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2,756</td><td>—</td><td>116</td><td>49</td><td>2,921</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 5,854 2</td><td>$ 5,548</td><td>$3,241</td><td>$2,263</td><td>$394</td><td>$ 52</td><td>$ 17,352</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="7">Nonconsolidated VIEs</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage-backed</td><td>Corporate CDOs and CLOs</td><td>Real estate, credit-related and other investing</td><td>Other asset-backed</td><td>Power-related</td><td>Investment funds</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Assets in VIE</td><td>$79,171 2</td><td>$23,842</td><td>$9,244</td><td>$3,510</td><td>$147</td><td>$1,898</td><td>$117,812</td></tr><tr><td>Carrying Value of the Firm&#x27;s Variable Interests</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td>6,269</td><td>1,193</td><td>1,801</td><td>220</td><td>32</td><td>4</td><td>9,519</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities</td><td>—</td><td>12</td><td>—</td><td>30</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Exposure to Loss in Nonconsolidated VIEs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retained interests</td><td>4,761</td><td>51</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>4,812</td></tr><tr><td>Purchased interests</td><td>1,162</td><td>659</td><td>—</td><td>204</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2,025</td></tr><tr><td>Commitments and guarantees 1</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>438</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>440</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives 1</td><td>1,574</td><td>6,761</td><td>—</td><td>952</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>9,287</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and investments</td><td>39</td><td>—</td><td>1,801</td><td>—</td><td>32</td><td>4</td><td>1,876</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 7,536 2</td><td>$ 7,472</td><td>$2,239</td><td>$1,156</td><td>$ 32</td><td>$ 5</td><td>$ 18,440</td></tr></table>

1. The aggregate amounts include $2.01 billion and $3.25 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, related to guarantees and derivative transactions with VIEs to which the firm transferred assets.

2. Assets in VIE and maximum exposure to loss include $4.55 billion and $900 million, respectively, as of December 2013, and $3.57 billion and $1.72 billion, respectively, as of December 2012, related to CDOs backed by mortgage obligations.



## Consolidated VIEs

The tables below present the carrying amount and classification of assets and liabilities in consolidated VIEs, excluding the benefit of offsetting financial instruments that are held to mitigate the risks associated with the firm’s variable interests. Consolidated VIEs are aggregated based on principal business activity and their assets and liabilities are presented net of intercompany eliminations. The majority of the assets in principal-protected notes VIEs are intercompany and are eliminated in consolidation.

## in millions

<table><tr><td>Assets</td><td>Real estate, credit-related and other investing</td><td>CDOs, mortgage-backed and other asset-backed</td><td>Principal-protected notes</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents</td><td>$ 183</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 183</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes</td><td>84</td><td>—</td><td>63</td><td>147</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from customers and counterparties</td><td>50</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>1,309</td><td>310</td><td>155</td><td>1,774</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>921</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>921</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$2,547</td><td>$310</td><td>$ 218</td><td>$3,075</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings</td><td>$ 417</td><td>$198</td><td>$ 404</td><td>$1,019</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings, including the current portion of unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,258</td><td>1,258</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>57</td><td>—</td><td>193</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses</td><td>556</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>556</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$1,030</td><td>$198</td><td>$1,855</td><td>$3,083</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="3">in millions</td><td colspan="4">Consolidated VIEs</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate, credit-related and other investing</td><td>CDOs, mortgage-backed and other asset-backed</td><td>Principal-protected notes</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents</td><td>$ 236</td><td>$107</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 343</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes</td><td>134</td><td>—</td><td>92</td><td>226</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables from brokers, dealers and clearing organizations</td><td>5</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>2,958</td><td>763</td><td>124</td><td>3,845</td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>1,080</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,080</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$4,413</td><td>$870</td><td>$ 216</td><td>$5,499</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings</td><td>$ 594</td><td>$699</td><td>$ 301</td><td>$1,594</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value</td><td>—</td><td>107</td><td>—</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings, including the current portion of unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,584</td><td>1,584</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>4</td><td>—</td><td>334</td><td>338</td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses</td><td>1,478</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,478</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$2,076</td><td>$806</td><td>$2,219</td><td>$5,101</td></tr></table>



## Note 12.

## Other Assets

Other assets are generally less liquid, non-financial assets. The table below presents other assets by type.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Property, leasehold improvements and equipment</td><td>$ 9,196</td><td>$ 8,217</td></tr><tr><td>Goodwill and identifiable intangible assets</td><td>4,376</td><td>5,099</td></tr><tr><td>Income tax-related assets  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>5,241</td><td>5,620</td></tr><tr><td>Equity-method investments  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>417</td><td>453</td></tr><tr><td>Miscellaneous receivables and other</td><td>3,279</td><td>20,234</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$22,509</td><td>$39,623</td></tr></table>

1. See Note 24 for further information about income taxes.

2. Excludes investments accounted for at fair value under the fair value option where the firm would otherwise apply the equity method of accounting of $6.07 billion and $5.54 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, which are included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value.” The firm has generally elected the fair value option for such investments acquired after the fair value option became available.

## Assets Held for Sale

In the fourth quarter of 2012, the firm classified its Americas reinsurance business within its Institutional Client Services segment as held for sale. As of December 2012, assets related to this business were $16.92 billion. In the table above, $16.77 billion of such assets were included in “Miscellaneous receivables and other” (primarily available-for-sale securities and separate account assets) and $149 million were included in “Goodwill and identifiable intangible assets.” Liabilities related to this business of $14.62 billion as of December 2012 were included in “Other liabilities and accrued expenses.”

The firm completed the sale of a majority stake in its Americas reinsurance business in April 2013. See Note 3 for further information.

Property, Leasehold Improvements and Equipment
Property, leasehold improvements and equipment in the table above is presented net of accumulated depreciation and amortization of $9.04 billion and $9.05 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. Property, leasehold improvements and equipment included $6.02 billion and $6.20 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, related to property, leasehold improvements and equipment that the firm uses in connection with its operations. The remainder is held by investment entities, including VIEs, consolidated by the firm.
Substantially all property and equipment are depreciated on a straight-line basis over the useful life of the asset. Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis over the useful life of the improvement or the term of the lease, whichever is shorter. Certain costs of software developed or obtained for internal use are capitalized and amortized on a straight-line basis over the useful life of the software.

## Impairments

The firm tests property, leasehold improvements and equipment, identifiable intangible assets and other assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances suggest that an asset’s or asset group’s carrying value may not be fully recoverable. To the extent the carrying value of an asset exceeds the projected undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposal of the asset or asset group, the firm determines the asset is impaired and records an impairment loss equal to the difference between the estimated fair value and the carrying value of the asset or asset group. In addition, the firm will recognize an impairment loss prior to the sale of an asset if the carrying value of the asset exceeds its estimated fair value.

Primarily as a result of a decline in the market conditions in which certain of the firm’s consolidated investments operate, during 2013 and 2012, the firm determined certain assets were impaired and recorded impairment losses of $216 million ($160 million related to property, leasehold improvements and equipment and $56 million related to identifiable intangible assets) for 2013 and $404 million ($253 million related to property, leasehold improvements and equipment and $151 million related to identifiable intangible and other assets) for 2012.

These impairment losses, substantially all of which were included in “Depreciation and amortization” within the firm’s Investing & Lending segment, represented the excess of the carrying values of these assets over their estimated fair values, which are primarily level 3 measurements, using a combination of discounted cash flow analyses and relative value analyses, including the estimated cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of these assets.



## Note 13.

## Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets

The tables below present the carrying values of goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, which are included in “Other assets.”

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">Goodwill</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Banking:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial Advisory</td><td>$ 98</td><td>$ 98</td></tr><tr><td>Underwriting</td><td>183</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional Client Services:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution</td><td>269</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>Equities Client Execution</td><td>2,404</td><td>2,402</td></tr><tr><td>Securities Services</td><td>105</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>60</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Management</td><td>586</td><td>586</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$3,705</td><td>$3,702</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">Identifiable Intangible Assets</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Banking:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial Advisory</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 1</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional Client Services:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution 1</td><td>35</td><td>421</td></tr><tr><td>Equities Client Execution 2</td><td>348</td><td>565</td></tr><tr><td>Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>180</td><td>281</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Management</td><td>108</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 671</td><td>$1,397</td></tr></table>

1. The decrease from December 2012 to December 2013 is related to the sale of the firm’s television broadcast royalties in the first quarter of 2013.

2. The decrease from December 2012 to December 2013 is primarily related to the sale of a majority stake in the firm’s Americas reinsurance business in April 2013. See Note 3 for further information about this sale.

## Goodwill

Goodwill is the cost of acquired companies in excess of the fair value of net assets, including identifiable intangible assets, at the acquisition date.
Goodwill is assessed annually in the fourth quarter for impairment or more frequently if events occur or circumstances change that indicate impairment may exist. First, qualitative factors are assessed to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If results of the qualitative assessment are not conclusive, a quantitative test would be performed.

The quantitative goodwill impairment test consists of two steps.

• The first step compares the estimated fair value of each reporting unit with its estimated net book value (including goodwill and identifiable intangible assets). If the reporting unit’s fair value exceeds its estimated net book value, goodwill is not impaired.

• If the estimated fair value of a reporting unit is less than its estimated net book value, the second step of the goodwill impairment test is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. An impairment loss is equal to the excess of the carrying amount of goodwill over its fair value.

The firm performed a quantitative goodwill impairment test during the fourth quarter of 2012 (2012 quantitative goodwill test) and determined that goodwill was not impaired.

When performing the quantitative test in 2012, the firm estimated the fair value of each reporting unit and compared it to the respective reporting unit’s net book value (estimated carrying value). The reporting units were valued using relative value and residual income valuation techniques because the firm believes market participants would use these techniques to value the firm’s reporting units. The net book value of each reporting unit reflected an allocation of total shareholders’ equity and represented the estimated amount of shareholders’ equity required to support the activities of the reporting unit under guidelines issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee) in December 2010. In performing its 2012 quantitative goodwill test, the firm determined that goodwill was not impaired, and the estimated fair value of the firm’s reporting units, in which substantially all of the firm’s goodwill is held, significantly exceeded their estimated carrying values.



During the fourth quarter of 2013, the firm assessed goodwill for impairment. Multiple factors were assessed with respect to each of the firm’s reporting units to determine whether it was more likely than not that the fair value of any of the reporting units was less than its carrying amount. The qualitative assessment considered changes since the 2012 quantitative goodwill test.

In accordance with ASC 350, the firm considered the following factors in the 2013 qualitative assessment performed in the fourth quarter when evaluating whether it was more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit was less than its carrying amount:

• Macroeconomic conditions. Since the 2012 quantitative goodwill test was performed, the firm’s general operating environment improved as credit spreads tightened, global equity prices increased significantly, levels of volatility were generally lower and industry-wide equity underwriting activity improved.

• Industry and market considerations. Since the 2012 quantitative goodwill test was performed, industry-wide metrics have trended positively and many industry participants, including the firm, experienced increases in stock price, price-to-book multiples and price-to-earnings multiples. In addition, clarity was obtained on a number of regulations. It is early in the process of determining the impact of these regulations, the rules are highly complex and their full impact will not be known until market practices are fully developed. However, the firm does not expect compliance to have a significant negative impact on reporting unit results.

• Cost factors. Although certain expenses increased, there were no significant negative changes to the firm’s overall cost structure since the 2012 quantitative goodwill test was performed.
• Overall financial performance. During 2013, the firm’s net earnings, pre-tax margin, diluted earnings per share, return on average common shareholders’ equity and book value per common share increased as compared with 2012.

• Entity-specific events. There were no entity-specific events since the 2012 quantitative goodwill test was performed that would have had a significant negative impact on the valuation of the firm’s reporting units.

• Events affecting reporting units. There were no events since the 2012 quantitative goodwill test was performed that would have had a significant negative impact on the valuation of the firm’s reporting units.

• Sustained changes in stock price. Since the 2012 quantitative goodwill test was performed, the firm’s stock price has increased significantly. In addition, the stock price exceeded book value per common share throughout most of 2013.

The firm also considered other factors in its qualitative assessment, including changes in the book value of reporting units, the estimated excess of the fair values as compared with the carrying values for the reporting units in the 2012 quantitative goodwill test, projected earnings and the cost of equity. The firm considered all of the above factors in the aggregate as part of its qualitative assessment.

As a result of the 2013 qualitative assessment, the firm determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of the reporting units exceeded its respective carrying amount. Therefore, the firm determined that goodwill was not impaired and that a quantitative goodwill impairment test was not required.



## Identifiable Intangible Assets

The table below presents the gross carrying amount, accumulated amortization and net carrying amount of identifiable intangible assets and their weighted average remaining lives.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in millions</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>Weighted Average Remaining Lives (years)</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Customer lists</td><td>Gross carrying amount</td><td>$ 1,102</td><td></td><td>$ 1,099</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated amortization</td><td>(706)</td><td></td><td>(643)</td></tr><tr><td>Net carrying amount</td><td>396</td><td>7</td><td>456</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Commodities-related intangibles 1</td><td>Gross carrying amount</td><td>510</td><td></td><td>513</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated amortization</td><td>(341)</td><td></td><td>(226)</td></tr><tr><td>Net carrying amount</td><td>169</td><td>8</td><td>287</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Television broadcast royalties 2</td><td>Gross carrying amount</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>560</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated amortization</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>(186)</td></tr><tr><td>Net carrying amount</td><td>—</td><td>N/A 2</td><td>374</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Insurance-related intangibles 3</td><td>Gross carrying amount</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>380</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated amortization</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>(231)</td></tr><tr><td>Net carrying amount</td><td>—</td><td>N/A 3</td><td>149</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Other 4</td><td>Gross carrying amount</td><td>906</td><td></td><td>950</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated amortization</td><td>(800)</td><td></td><td>(819)</td></tr><tr><td>Net carrying amount</td><td>106</td><td>11</td><td>131</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Total</td><td>Gross carrying amount</td><td>2,518</td><td></td><td>3,502</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated amortization</td><td>(1,847)</td><td></td><td>(2,105)</td></tr><tr><td>Net carrying amount</td><td>$ 671</td><td>8</td><td>$ 1,397</td></tr></table>

1. Primarily includes commodities-related customer contracts and relationships, permits and access rights.

2. These assets were sold in the first quarter of 2013 and total proceeds received approximated carrying value.

3. These assets were related to the firm’s Americas reinsurance business, in which a majority stake was sold in April 2013. See Note 3 for further information about this sale.

4. Primarily includes the firm’s exchange-traded fund lead market maker rights.

Substantially all of the firm’s identifiable intangible assets are considered to have finite lives and are amortized over their estimated lives or based on economic usage for certain commodities-related intangibles. Substantially all of the amortization expense for identifiable intangible assets is included in “Depreciation and amortization.”

The tables below present amortization expense for identifiable intangible assets for 2013, 2012 and 2011, and the estimated future amortization expense through 2018 for identifiable intangible assets as of December 2013.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization expense</td><td>$205</td><td>$338</td><td>$389</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td>As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Estimated future amortization expense:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td></td><td></td><td>$127</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td></td><td></td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td></td><td></td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td></td><td></td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td></td><td></td><td>80</td></tr></table>

See Note 12 for information about impairment testing and impairments of the firm’s identifiable intangible assets.



## Note 14.

## Deposits

The table below presents deposits held in U.S. and non-U.S. offices, substantially all of which were interest-bearing. Substantially all U.S. deposits were held at Goldman Sachs Bank USA (GS Bank USA) as of December 2013 and December 2012. Substantially all non-U.S. deposits were held at Goldman Sachs International Bank (GSIB) as of December 2013 and held at Goldman Sachs Bank (Europe) plc (GS Bank Europe) and GSIB as of December 2012. On January 18, 2013, GS Bank Europe surrendered its banking license to the Central Bank of Ireland after transferring its deposits to GSIB and subsequently changed its name to Goldman Sachs Ireland Finance plc.

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. offices</td><td>$61,016</td><td>$62,377</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. offices</td><td>9,791</td><td>7,747</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$70,807 \(^{1} \)</td><td>$70,124 \(^{1} \)</td></tr></table>

The table below presents maturities of time deposits held in U.S. and non-U.S. offices.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>$ 4,047</td><td>$5,080</td><td>$ 9,127</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>4,269</td><td>—</td><td>4,269</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>2,285</td><td>—</td><td>2,285</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>2,796</td><td>—</td><td>2,796</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>1,830</td><td>—</td><td>1,830</td></tr><tr><td>2019 - thereafter</td><td>4,481</td><td>—</td><td>4,481</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$19,708 \(^{2}</td><td>$5,080 \(^{3}</td><td>$24,788 \(^{1}</td></tr></table>

1. Includes $7.26 billion and $5.10 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, of time deposits accounted for at fair value under the fair value option. See Note 8 for further information about deposits accounted for at fair value.

2. Includes $42 million greater than $100,000, of which $31 million matures within three months, $4 million matures within three to six months, $4 million matures within six to twelve months, and $3 million matures after twelve months.

3. Substantially all were greater than $100,000.

As of December 2013 and December 2012, savings and demand deposits, which represent deposits with no stated maturity, were $46.02 billion and $46.51 billion, respectively, which were recorded based on the amount of cash received plus accrued interest, which approximates fair value. In addition, the firm designates certain derivatives as fair value hedges on substantially all of its time deposits for which it has not elected the fair value option. Accordingly, $17.53 billion and $18.52 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, of time deposits were effectively converted from fixed-rate obligations to floating-rate obligations and were recorded at amounts that generally approximate fair value. While these savings and demand deposits and time deposits are carried at amounts that approximate fair value, they are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP and therefore are not included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these deposits been included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy, they would have been classified in level 2.



## Note 15.

## Short-Term Borrowings

Short-term borrowings were comprised of the following:

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (short-term)</td><td>$17,290</td><td>$23,045</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings</td><td>44,692</td><td>44,304</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$61,982</td><td>$67,349</td></tr></table>

See Note 9 for further information about other secured financings.

Unsecured short-term borrowings include the portion of unsecured long-term borrowings maturing within one year of the financial statement date and unsecured long-term borrowings that are redeemable within one year of the financial statement date at the option of the holder.

The firm accounts for promissory notes, commercial paper and certain hybrid financial instruments at fair value under the fair value option. See Note 8 for further information about unsecured short-term borrowings that are accounted for at fair value. The carrying value of unsecured short-term borrowings that are not recorded at fair value generally approximates fair value due to the short-term nature of the obligations. While these unsecured short-term borrowings are carried at amounts that approximate fair value, they are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP and therefore are not included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these borrowings been included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy, substantially all would have been classified in level 2 as of December 2013 and December 2012.

The table below presents unsecured short-term borrowings.

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>$ in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Current portion of unsecured long-term borrowings 1</td><td>$25,312</td><td>$25,344</td></tr><tr><td>Hybrid financial instruments</td><td>13,391</td><td>12,295</td></tr><tr><td>Promissory notes</td><td>292</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper</td><td>1,011</td><td>884</td></tr><tr><td>Other short-term borrowings</td><td>4,686</td><td>5,521</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$44,692</td><td>$44,304</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average interest rate 2</td><td>1.65%</td><td>1.57%</td></tr></table>

1. Includes $24.20 billion and $24.65 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, issued by Group Inc.

2. The weighted average interest rates for these borrowings include the effect of hedging activities and exclude financial instruments accounted for at fair value under the fair value option. See Note 7 for further information about hedging activities.

## Note 16.

## Long-Term Borrowings

Long-term borrowings were comprised of the following:

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (long-term)</td><td>$ 7,524</td><td>$ 8,965</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>160,965</td><td>167,305</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$168,489</td><td>$176,270</td></tr></table>

See Note 9 for further information about other secured financings. The table below presents unsecured long-term borrowings extending through 2061 and consisting principally of senior borrowings.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Dollar</td><td>Non-U.S. Dollar</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed-rate obligations 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Group Inc.</td><td>$ 83,537</td><td>$34,362</td><td>$117,899</td></tr><tr><td>Subsidiaries</td><td>1,978</td><td>989</td><td>2,967</td></tr><tr><td>Floating-rate obligations 2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Group Inc.</td><td>19,446</td><td>16,168</td><td>35,614</td></tr><tr><td>Subsidiaries</td><td>3,144</td><td>1,341</td><td>4,485</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$108,105</td><td>$52,860</td><td>$160,965</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Dollar</td><td>Non-U.S. Dollar</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed-rate obligations 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Group Inc.</td><td>$ 86,170</td><td>$36,207</td><td>$122,377</td></tr><tr><td>Subsidiaries</td><td>2,391</td><td>662</td><td>3,053</td></tr><tr><td>Floating-rate obligations 2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Group Inc.</td><td>17,075</td><td>19,227</td><td>36,302</td></tr><tr><td>Subsidiaries</td><td>3,719</td><td>1,854</td><td>5,573</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$109,355</td><td>$57,950</td><td>$167,305</td></tr></table>

1. Interest rates on U.S. dollar-denominated debt ranged from 1.35% to 10.04% (with a weighted average rate of 5.19%) and 0.20% to 10.04% (with a weighted average rate of 5.48%) as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. Interest rates on non-U.S. dollar-denominated debt ranged from 0.33% to 13.00% (with a weighted average rate of 4.29%) and 0.10% to 14.85% (with a weighted average rate of 4.66%) as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively.

2. Floating interest rates generally are based on LIBOR or OIS. Equity-linked and indexed instruments are included in floating-rate obligations.



The table below presents unsecured long-term borrowings by maturity date and reflects the following:

• unsecured long-term borrowings maturing within one year of the financial statement date and unsecured long-term borrowings that are redeemable within one year of the financial statement date at the option of the holders are excluded from the table as they are included as unsecured short-term borrowings;

• unsecured long-term borrowings that are repayable prior to maturity at the option of the firm are reflected at their contractual maturity dates; and

• unsecured long-term borrowings that are redeemable prior to maturity at the option of the holders are reflected at the dates such options become exercisable.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Group Inc.</td><td>Subsidiaries</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>$ 23,170</td><td>$ 682</td><td>$ 23,852</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>21,634</td><td>220</td><td>21,854</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>20,044</td><td>489</td><td>20,533</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>21,843</td><td>1,263</td><td>23,106</td></tr><tr><td>2019 - thereafter</td><td>66,822</td><td>4,798</td><td>71,620</td></tr><tr><td>Total  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>$153,513</td><td>$7,452</td><td>$160,965</td></tr></table>

1. Includes $7.48 billion of adjustments to the carrying value of certain unsecured long-term borrowings resulting from the application of hedge accounting by year of maturity as follows: $301 million in 2015, $775 million in 2016, $999 million in 2017, $970 million in 2018 and $4.43 billion in 2019 and thereafter.

The firm designates certain derivatives as fair value hedges to effectively convert a substantial portion of its fixed-rate unsecured long-term borrowings which are not accounted for at fair value into floating-rate obligations. Accordingly, excluding the cumulative impact of changes in the firm's credit spreads, the carrying value of unsecured long-term borrowings approximated fair value as of December 2013 and December 2012. See Note 7 for further information about hedging activities. For unsecured long-term borrowings for which the firm did not elect the fair value option, the cumulative impact due to changes in the firm's own credit spreads would be an increase of approximately 3% and 1% in the carrying value of total unsecured long-term borrowings as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. As these borrowings are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP, their fair value is not included in the firm's fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these borrowings been included in the firm's fair value hierarchy, substantially all would have been classified in level 2 as of December 2013 and December 2012.

The table below presents unsecured long-term borrowings, after giving effect to hedging activities that converted a substantial portion of fixed-rate obligations to floating-rate obligations.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Group Inc.</td><td>Subsidiaries</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed-rate obligations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At fair value</td><td>$ -</td><td>$ 471</td><td>$ 471</td></tr><tr><td>At amortized cost  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>31,741</td><td>1,959</td><td>33,700</td></tr><tr><td>Floating-rate obligations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At fair value</td><td>8,671</td><td>2,549</td><td>11,220</td></tr><tr><td>At amortized cost  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>113,101</td><td>2,473</td><td>115,574</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$153,513</td><td>$7,452</td><td>$160,965</td></tr></table>

As of December 2012

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Group Inc.</td><td>Subsidiaries</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed-rate obligations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At fair value</td><td>$ 28</td><td>$ 94</td><td>$ 122</td></tr><tr><td>At amortized cost  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>22,500</td><td>2,047</td><td>24,547</td></tr><tr><td>Floating-rate obligations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At fair value</td><td>8,166</td><td>4,305</td><td>12,471</td></tr><tr><td>At amortized cost  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>127,985</td><td>2,180</td><td>130,165</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$158,679</td><td>$8,626</td><td>$167,305</td></tr></table>

1. The weighted average interest rates on the aggregate amounts were 2.73% (5.23% related to fixed-rate obligations and 2.04% related to floating-rate obligations) and 2.47% (5.26% related to fixed-rate obligations and 1.98% related to floating-rate obligations) as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. These rates exclude financial instruments accounted for at fair value under the fair value option.



## Subordinated Borrowings

Unsecured long-term borrowings include subordinated debt and junior subordinated debt. Junior subordinated debt is junior in right of payment to other subordinated borrowings, which are junior to senior borrowings. As of both December 2013 and December 2012, subordinated debt had maturities ranging from 2015 to 2038. The table below presents subordinated borrowings.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in \text{millions}\)</td><td colspan="3">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Par Amount</td><td>Carrying Amount</td><td>Rate</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated debt  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>14,508</td><td>16,982</td><td>4.16%</td></tr><tr><td>Junior subordinated debt</td><td>2,835</td><td>3,760</td><td>4.79%</td></tr><tr><td>Total subordinated borrowings</td><td>17,343</td><td>20,742</td><td>4.26%</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in \text{millions}\)</td><td colspan="3">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Par Amount</td><td>Carrying Amount</td><td>Rate</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated debt  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>14,409</td><td>17,358</td><td>4.24%</td></tr><tr><td>Junior subordinated debt</td><td>2,835</td><td>4,228</td><td>3.16%</td></tr><tr><td>Total subordinated borrowings</td><td>17,244</td><td>21,586</td><td>4.06%</td></tr></table>

1. Weighted average interest rates after giving effect to fair value hedges used to convert these fixed-rate obligations into floating-rate obligations. See Note 7 for further information about hedging activities. See below for information about interest rates on junior subordinated debt.

2. Par amount and carrying amount of subordinated debt issued by Group Inc. was $13.94 billion and $16.41 billion, respectively, as of December 2013, and $13.85 billion and $16.80 billion, respectively, as of December 2012.

## Junior Subordinated Debt

Junior Subordinated Debt Held by 2012 Trusts. In 2012, the Vesey Street Investment Trust I and the Murray Street Investment Trust I (together, the 2012 Trusts) issued an aggregate of $2.25 billion of senior guaranteed trust securities to third parties. The proceeds of that offering were used to fund purchases of $1.75 billion of junior subordinated debt securities issued by Group Inc. that pay interest semi-annually at a fixed annual rate of 4.647% and mature on March 9, 2017, and $500 million of junior subordinated debt securities issued by Group Inc. that pay interest semi-annually at a fixed annual rate of 4.404% and mature on September 1, 2016.
The 2012 Trusts purchased the junior subordinated debt from Goldman Sachs Capital II and Goldman Sachs Capital III (APEX Trusts). The APEX Trusts used the proceeds from such sales to purchase shares of Group Inc.'s Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series E (Series E Preferred Stock) and Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series F (Series F Preferred Stock). See Note 19 for more information about the Series E and Series F Preferred Stock.

The 2012 Trusts are required to pay distributions on their senior guaranteed trust securities in the same amounts and on the same dates that they are scheduled to receive interest on the junior subordinated debt they hold, and are required to redeem their respective senior guaranteed trust securities upon the maturity or earlier redemption of the junior subordinated debt they hold.

The firm has the right to defer payments on the junior subordinated debt, subject to limitations. During any such deferral period, the firm will not be permitted to, among other things, pay dividends on or make certain repurchases of its common or preferred stock. However, as Group Inc. fully and unconditionally guarantees the payment of the distribution and redemption amounts when due on a senior basis on the senior guaranteed trust securities issued by the 2012 Trusts, if the 2012 Trusts are unable to make scheduled distributions to the holders of the senior guaranteed trust securities, under the guarantee, Group Inc. would be obligated to make those payments. As such, the $2.25 billion of junior subordinated debt held by the 2012 Trusts for the benefit of investors is not classified as junior subordinated debt.

The APEX Trusts and the 2012 Trusts are Delaware statutory trusts sponsored by the firm and wholly-owned finance subsidiaries of the firm for regulatory and legal purposes but are not consolidated for accounting purposes.

The firm has covenanted in favor of the holders of Group Inc.’s 6.345% Junior Subordinated Debentures due February 15, 2034, that, subject to certain exceptions, the firm will not redeem or purchase the capital securities issued by the APEX Trusts or shares of Group Inc.’s Series E or Series F Preferred Stock prior to specified dates in 2022 for a price that exceeds a maximum amount determined by reference to the net cash proceeds that the firm has received from the sale of qualifying securities.



Junior Subordinated Debt Issued in Connection with Trust Preferred Securities. Group Inc. issued $2.84 billion of junior subordinated debentures in 2004 to Goldman Sachs Capital I (Trust), a Delaware statutory trust. The Trust issued $2.75 billion of guaranteed preferred beneficial interests to third parties and $85 million of common beneficial interests to Group Inc. and used the proceeds from the issuances to purchase the junior subordinated debentures from Group Inc. The Trust is a wholly-owned finance subsidiary of the firm for regulatory and legal purposes but is not consolidated for accounting purposes.

The firm pays interest semi-annually on the debentures at an annual rate of 6.345% and the debentures mature on February 15, 2034. The coupon rate and the payment dates applicable to the beneficial interests are the same as the interest rate and payment dates for the debentures. The firm has the right, from time to time, to defer payment of interest on the debentures, and therefore cause payment on the Trust’s preferred beneficial interests to be deferred, in each case up to ten consecutive semi-annual periods. During any such deferral period, the firm will not be permitted to, among other things, pay dividends on or make certain repurchases of its common stock. The Trust is not permitted to pay any distributions on the common beneficial interests held by Group Inc. unless all dividends payable on the preferred beneficial interests have been paid in full.

## Note 17.

## Other Liabilities and Accrued Expenses

The table below presents other liabilities and accrued expenses by type.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Compensation and benefits</td><td>$ 7,874</td><td>$ 8,292</td></tr><tr><td>Insurance-related liabilities  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>—</td><td>10,274</td></tr><tr><td>Noncontrolling interests  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>326</td><td>508</td></tr><tr><td>Income tax-related liabilities  \( {}^{3} \)</td><td>1,974</td><td>2,724</td></tr><tr><td>Employee interests in consolidated funds</td><td>210</td><td>246</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated liabilities issued by consolidated VIEs</td><td>477</td><td>1,360</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued expenses and other</td><td>5,183</td><td>18,991 \( ^{4} \)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>16,044</td><td>42,395</td></tr></table>

1. Represents liabilities for future benefits and unpaid claims carried at fair value under the fair value option related to the firm’s European insurance business, in which a majority stake was sold in December 2013. See Note 3 for further information.

2. Primarily relates to consolidated investment funds.

3. See Note 24 for further information about income taxes.

4. Includes $14.62 billion of liabilities classified as held for sale as of December 2012 related to the firm’s Americas reinsurance business, in which a majority stake was sold in April 2013. See Note 12 for further information.



## Note 18.

## Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

## Commitments

The table below presents the firm’s commitments.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="5">Commitment Amount by Period of Expiration as of December 2013</td><td colspan="2">Total Commitments as of December</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>2015-2016</td><td>2017-2018</td><td>2019-Thereafter</td><td></td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commitments to extend credit</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial lending:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Investment-grade</td><td>$ 9,735</td><td>$16,903</td><td>$32,960</td><td>$ 901</td><td>$ 60,499</td><td>$ 53,736</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-investment-grade</td><td>4,339</td><td>6,590</td><td>10,396</td><td>4,087</td><td>25,412</td><td>21,102</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Warehouse financing</td><td>995</td><td>721</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,716</td><td>784</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total commitments to extend credit</td><td>15,069</td><td>24,214</td><td>43,356</td><td>4,988</td><td>87,627</td><td>75,622</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Contingent and forward starting resale and securities borrowing agreements</td><td>34,410</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>34,410</td><td>47,599</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forward starting repurchase and secured lending agreements</td><td>8,256</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>8,256</td><td>6,144</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Letters of credit 1</td><td>465</td><td>21</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>501</td><td>789</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Investment commitments</td><td>1,359</td><td>5,387</td><td>20</td><td>350</td><td>7,116</td><td>7,339</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3,734</td><td>102</td><td>54</td><td>65</td><td>3,955</td><td>4,624</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total commitments</td><td>$63,293</td><td>$29,724</td><td>$43,440</td><td>$5,408</td><td>$141,865</td><td>$142,117</td><td></td></tr></table>

1. Consists of commitments under letters of credit issued by various banks which the firm provides to counterparties in lieu of securities or cash to satisfy various collateral and margin deposit requirements.

## Commitments to Extend Credit

The firm’s commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend with fixed termination dates and depend on the satisfaction of all contractual conditions to borrowing. These commitments are presented net of amounts syndicated to third parties. The total commitment amount does not necessarily reflect actual future cash flows because the firm may syndicate all or substantial additional portions of these commitments. In addition, commitments can expire unused or be reduced or cancelled at the counterparty’s request.

The firm generally accounts for commitments to extend credit at fair value. Losses, if any, are generally recorded, net of any fees in “Other principal transactions.”

As of December 2013 and December 2012, approximately $35.66 billion and $16.09 billion, respectively, of the firm’s lending commitments were held for investment and were accounted for on an accrual basis. The carrying value and the estimated fair value of such lending commitments were liabilities of $132 million and $1.02 billion, respectively, as of December 2013, and $63 million and $523 million, respectively, as of December 2012. As these lending commitments are not accounted for at fair value under the fair value option or at fair value in accordance with other U.S. GAAP, their fair value is not included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy in Notes 6, 7 and 8. Had these commitments been included in the firm’s fair value hierarchy, they would have primarily been classified in level 3 as of December 2013 and December 2012.

Commercial Lending. The firm’s commercial lending commitments are extended to investment-grade and non-investment-grade corporate borrowers. Commitments to investment-grade corporate borrowers are principally used for operating liquidity and general corporate purposes. The firm also extends lending commitments in connection with contingent acquisition financing and other types of corporate lending as well as commercial real estate financing. Commitments that are extended for contingent acquisition financing are often intended to be short-term in nature, as borrowers often seek to replace them with other funding sources.



Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. (SMFG) provides the firm with credit loss protection on certain approved loan commitments (primarily investment-grade commercial lending commitments). The notional amount of such loan commitments was $29.24 billion and $32.41 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. The credit loss protection on loan commitments provided by SMFG is generally limited to 95% of the first loss the firm realizes on such commitments, up to a maximum of approximately $950 million. In addition, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, upon the firm’s request, SMFG will provide protection for 70% of additional losses on such commitments, up to a maximum of $1.13 billion, of which $870 million and $300 million of protection had been provided as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively. The firm also uses other financial instruments to mitigate credit risks related to certain commitments not covered by SMFG. These instruments primarily include credit default swaps that reference the same or similar underlying instrument or entity, or credit default swaps that reference a market index.

Warehouse Financing. The firm provides financing to clients who warehouse financial assets. These arrangements are secured by the warehoused assets, primarily consisting of corporate loans and commercial mortgage loans.

## Contingent and Forward Starting Resale and Securities Borrowing Agreements/Forward Starting Repurchase and Secured Lending Agreements

The firm enters into resale and securities borrowing agreements and repurchase and secured lending agreements that settle at a future date, generally within three business days. The firm also enters into commitments to provide contingent financing to its clients and counterparties through resale agreements. The firm’s funding of these commitments depends on the satisfaction of all contractual conditions to the resale agreement and these commitments can expire unused.

## Investment Commitments

The firm’s investment commitments consist of commitments to invest in private equity, real estate and other assets directly and through funds that the firm raises and manages. These commitments include $659 million and $872 million as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, related to real estate private investments and $6.46 billion and $6.47 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, related to corporate and other private investments. Of these amounts, $5.48 billion and $6.21 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, relate to commitments to invest in funds managed by the firm. If these commitments are called, they would be funded at market value on the date of investment.

## Leases

The firm has contractual obligations under long-term noncancelable lease agreements, principally for office space, expiring on various dates through 2069. Certain agreements are subject to periodic escalation provisions for increases in real estate taxes and other charges. The table below presents future minimum rental payments, net of minimum sublease rentals.

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>$ 387</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>340</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>280</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>271</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>222</td></tr><tr><td>2019 - thereafter</td><td>1,195</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$2,695</td></tr></table>

Rent charged to operating expense was $324 million for 2013, $374 million for 2012 and $475 million for 2011.

Operating leases include office space held in excess of current requirements. Rent expense relating to space held for growth is included in “Occupancy.” The firm records a liability, based on the fair value of the remaining lease rentals reduced by any potential or existing sublease rentals, for leases where the firm has ceased using the space and management has concluded that the firm will not derive any future economic benefits. Costs to terminate a lease before the end of its term are recognized and measured at fair value on termination.

## Contingencies

Legal Proceedings. See Note 27 for information about legal proceedings, including certain mortgage-related matters.

Certain Mortgage-Related Contingencies. There are multiple areas of focus by regulators, governmental agencies and others within the mortgage market that may impact originators, issuers, servicers and investors. There remains significant uncertainty surrounding the nature and extent of any potential exposure for participants in this market.



• Representations and Warranties. The firm has not been a significant originator of residential mortgage loans. The firm did purchase loans originated by others and generally received loan-level representations of the type described below from the originators. During the period 2005 through 2008, the firm sold approximately $10 billion of loans to government-sponsored enterprises and approximately $11 billion of loans to other third parties. In addition, the firm transferred loans to trusts and other mortgage securitization vehicles. As of December 2013 and December 2012, the outstanding balance of the loans transferred to trusts and other mortgage securitization vehicles during the period 2005 through 2008 was approximately $29 billion and $35 billion, respectively. These amounts reflect paydowns and cumulative losses of approximately $96 billion ($22 billion of which are cumulative losses) as of December 2013 and approximately $90 billion ($20 billion of which are cumulative losses) as of December 2012. A small number of these Goldman Sachs-issued securitizations with an outstanding principal balance of $463 million and total paydowns and cumulative losses of $1.60 billion ($534 million of which are cumulative losses) as of December 2013, and an outstanding principal balance of $540 million and total paydowns and cumulative losses of $1.52 billion ($508 million of which are cumulative losses) as of December 2012, were structured with credit protection obtained from monoline insurers. In connection with both sales of loans and securitizations, the firm provided loan level representations of the type described below and/or assigned the loan level representations from the party from whom the firm purchased the loans.

The loan level representations made in connection with the sale or securitization of mortgage loans varied among transactions but were generally detailed representations applicable to each loan in the portfolio and addressed matters relating to the property, the borrower and the note. These representations generally included, but were not limited to, the following: (i) certain attributes of the borrower's financial status; (ii) loan-to-value ratios, owner occupancy status and certain other characteristics of the property; (iii) the lien position; (iv) the fact that the loan was originated in compliance with law; and (v) completeness of the loan documentation.
The firm has received repurchase claims for residential mortgage loans based on alleged breaches of representations from government-sponsored enterprises, other third parties, trusts and other mortgage securitization vehicles, which have not been significant. During the years ended December 2013 and December 2012, the firm repurchased loans with an unpaid principal balance of less than $10 million. The loss related to the repurchase of these loans was not material for 2013 or 2012. The firm has received a communication from counsel purporting to represent certain institutional investors in portions of Goldman Sachs-issued securitizations between 2003 and 2007, such securitizations having a total original notional face amount of approximately $150 billion, offering to enter into a “settlement dialogue” with respect to alleged breaches of representations made by Goldman Sachs in connection with such offerings.

Ultimately, the firm’s exposure to claims for repurchase of residential mortgage loans based on alleged breaches of representations will depend on a number of factors including the following: (i) the extent to which these claims are actually made within the statute of limitations taking into consideration the agreements to toll the statute of limitations the firm has entered into with trustees representing trusts; (ii) the extent to which there are underlying breaches of representations that give rise to valid claims for repurchase; (iii) in the case of loans originated by others, the extent to which the firm could be held liable and, if it is, the firm’s ability to pursue and collect on any claims against the parties who made representations to the firm; (iv) macroeconomic factors, including developments in the residential real estate market; and (v) legal and regulatory developments. See Note 27 for more information about the agreements the firm has entered into to toll the statute of limitations.

Based upon the large number of defaults in residential mortgages, including those sold or securitized by the firm, there is a potential for increasing claims for repurchases. However, the firm is not in a position to make a meaningful estimate of that exposure at this time.



• Foreclosure and Other Mortgage Loan Servicing Practices and Procedures. The firm had received a number of requests for information from regulators and other agencies, including state attorneys general and banking regulators, as part of an industry-wide focus on the practices of lenders and servicers in connection with foreclosure proceedings and other aspects of mortgage loan servicing practices and procedures. The requests sought information about the foreclosure and servicing protocols and activities of Litton, a residential mortgage servicing subsidiary sold by the firm to Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen) in the third quarter of 2011. The firm is cooperating with the requests and these inquiries may result in the imposition of fines or other regulatory action.

In connection with the sale of Litton, the firm provided customary representations and warranties, and indemnities for breaches of these representations and warranties, to Ocwen. These indemnities are subject to various limitations, and are capped at approximately $50 million. The firm has not yet received any claims under these indemnities. The firm also agreed to provide specific indemnities to Ocwen related to claims made by third parties with respect to servicing activities during the period that Litton was owned by the firm and which are in excess of the related reserves accrued for such matters by Litton at the time of the sale. These indemnities are capped at approximately $125 million. The firm has recorded a reserve for the portion of these potential losses that it believes is probable and can be reasonably estimated. As of December 2013, claims under these indemnities, and payments made in connection with these claims, were not material to the firm.

The firm further agreed to provide indemnities to Ocwen not subject to a cap, which primarily relate to potential liabilities constituting fines or civil monetary penalties which could be imposed in settlements with certain terms with U.S. states' attorneys general or in consent orders with certain terms with the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC or the New York State Department of Financial Services, in each case relating to Litton's foreclosure and servicing practices while it was owned by the firm. The firm has entered into a settlement with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) relating to foreclosure and servicing matters as described below.
Under the Litton sale agreement the firm also retained liabilities associated with claims related to Litton’s failure to maintain lender-placed mortgage insurance, obligations to repurchase certain loans from government-sponsored enterprises, subpoenas from one of Litton’s regulators, and fines or civil penalties imposed by the Federal Reserve or the New York State Department of Financial Services in connection with certain compliance matters. Management is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments under these indemnities because the firm has received no claims under these indemnities other than an immaterial amount with respect to government-sponsored enterprises. However, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that any payments under these indemnities will have a material adverse effect on the firm’s financial condition.

On September 1, 2011, Group Inc. and GS Bank USA entered into a Consent Order (the Order) with the Federal Reserve Board relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans. The terms of the Order were substantially similar and, in many respects, identical to the orders entered into with the Federal Reserve Board by other large U.S. financial institutions. The Order set forth various allegations of improper conduct in servicing by Litton, requires that Group Inc. and GS Bank USA cease and desist such conduct, and required that Group Inc. and GS Bank USA, and their boards of directors, take various affirmative steps. The Order required (i) Group Inc. and GS Bank USA to engage a third-party consultant to conduct a review of certain foreclosure actions or proceedings that occurred or were pending between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010; (ii) the adoption of policies and procedures related to management of third parties used to outsource residential mortgage servicing, loss mitigation or foreclosure; (iii) a “validation report” from an independent third-party consultant regarding compliance with the Order for the first year; and (iv) submission of quarterly progress reports as to compliance with the Order by the boards of directors (or committees thereof) of Group Inc. and GS Bank USA.



In February 2013, Group Inc. and GS Bank USA entered into a settlement with the Federal Reserve Board relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans and foreclosure processing. This settlement amends the Order which is described above, provides for the termination of the independent foreclosure review under the Order and calls for Group Inc. and GS Bank USA collectively to: (i) make cash payments into a settlement fund for distribution to eligible borrowers; and (ii) provide other assistance for foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation through January 2015. The other provisions of the Order will remain in effect.

## Guarantees

The firm enters into various derivatives that meet the definition of a guarantee under U.S. GAAP, including written equity and commodity put options, written currency contracts and interest rate caps, floors and swaptions. Disclosures about derivatives are not required if they may be cash settled and the firm has no basis to conclude it is probable that the counterparties held the underlying instruments at inception of the contract. The firm has concluded that these conditions have been met for certain large, internationally active commercial and investment bank counterparties, central clearing counterparties and certain other counterparties. Accordingly, the firm has not included such contracts in the table below.
The firm, in its capacity as an agency lender, indemnifies most of its securities lending customers against losses incurred in the event that borrowers do not return securities and the collateral held is insufficient to cover the market value of the securities borrowed.

In the ordinary course of business, the firm provides other financial guarantees of the obligations of third parties (e.g., standby letters of credit and other guarantees to enable clients to complete transactions and fund-related guarantees). These guarantees represent obligations to make payments to beneficiaries if the guaranteed party fails to fulfill its obligation under a contractual arrangement with that beneficiary.

The table below presents certain information about derivatives that meet the definition of a guarantee and certain other guarantees. The maximum payout in the table below is based on the notional amount of the contract and therefore does not represent anticipated losses. See Note 7 for further information about credit derivatives that meet the definition of a guarantee which are not included below.

Because derivatives are accounted for at fair value, the carrying value is considered the best indication of payment/performance risk for individual contracts. However, the carrying values below exclude the effect of a legal right of setoff that may exist under an enforceable netting agreement and the effect of netting of collateral posted under enforceable credit support agreements.

As of December 2013

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2">Carrying Value of Net Liability</td><td colspan="5">Maximum Payout/Notional Amount by Period of Expiration</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>2015-2016</td><td>2017-2018</td><td>2019-Thereafter</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives 1</td><td>$7,634</td><td>$517,634</td><td>$180,543</td><td>$39,367</td><td>$57,736</td><td>$795,280</td></tr><tr><td>Securities lending indemnifications 2</td><td>—</td><td>26,384</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>26,384</td></tr><tr><td>Other financial guarantees 3</td><td>213</td><td>1,361</td><td>620</td><td>1,140</td><td>1,046</td><td>4,167</td></tr></table>

1. These derivatives are risk managed together with derivatives that do not meet the definition of a guarantee, and therefore these amounts do not reflect the firm’s overall risk related to its derivative activities. As of December 2012, the carrying value of the net liability and the notional amount related to derivative guarantees were $8.58 billion and $663.15 billion, respectively.

2. Collateral held by the lenders in connection with securities lending indemnifications was $27.14 billion as of December 2013. Because the contractual nature of these arrangements requires the firm to obtain collateral with a market value that exceeds the value of the securities lent to the borrower, there is minimal performance risk associated with these guarantees. As of December 2012, the maximum payout and collateral held related to securities lending indemnifications were $27.12 billion and $27.89 billion, respectively.

3. Other financial guarantees excludes certain commitments to issue standby letters of credit that are included in “Commitments to extend credit.” See table in “Commitments” above for a summary of the firm’s commitments. As of December 2012, the carrying value of the net liability and the maximum payout related to other financial guarantees were $152 million and $3.48 billion, respectively.



Guarantees of Securities Issued by Trusts. The firm has established trusts, including Goldman Sachs Capital I, the APEX Trusts, the 2012 Trusts, and other entities for the limited purpose of issuing securities to third parties, lending the proceeds to the firm and entering into contractual arrangements with the firm and third parties related to this purpose. The firm does not consolidate these entities. See Note 16 for further information about the transactions involving Goldman Sachs Capital I, the APEX Trusts, and the 2012 Trusts.

The firm effectively provides for the full and unconditional guarantee of the securities issued by these entities. Timely payment by the firm of amounts due to these entities under the guarantee, borrowing, preferred stock and related contractual arrangements will be sufficient to cover payments due on the securities issued by these entities.

Management believes that it is unlikely that any circumstances will occur, such as nonperformance on the part of paying agents or other service providers, that would make it necessary for the firm to make payments related to these entities other than those required under the terms of the guarantee, borrowing, preferred stock and related contractual arrangements and in connection with certain expenses incurred by these entities.

Indemnities and Guarantees of Service Providers. In the ordinary course of business, the firm indemnifies and guarantees certain service providers, such as clearing and custody agents, trustees and administrators, against specified potential losses in connection with their acting as an agent of, or providing services to, the firm or its affiliates.

The firm may also be liable to some clients for losses caused by acts or omissions of third-party service providers, including sub-custodians and third-party brokers. In addition, the firm is a member of payment, clearing and settlement networks as well as securities exchanges around the world that may require the firm to meet the obligations of such networks and exchanges in the event of member defaults.
In connection with its prime brokerage and clearing businesses, the firm agrees to clear and settle on behalf of its clients the transactions entered into by them with other brokerage firms. The firm’s obligations in respect of such transactions are secured by the assets in the client’s account as well as any proceeds received from the transactions cleared and settled by the firm on behalf of the client. In connection with joint venture investments, the firm may issue loan guarantees under which it may be liable in the event of fraud, misappropriation, environmental liabilities and certain other matters involving the borrower.

The firm is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum payout under these guarantees and indemnifications. However, management believes that it is unlikely the firm will have to make any material payments under these arrangements, and no material liabilities related to these guarantees and indemnifications have been recognized in the consolidated statements of financial condition as of December 2013 and December 2012.

Other Representations, Warranties and Indemnifications. The firm provides representations and warranties to counterparties in connection with a variety of commercial transactions and occasionally indemnifies them against potential losses caused by the breach of those representations and warranties. The firm may also provide indemnifications protecting against changes in or adverse application of certain U.S. tax laws in connection with ordinary-course transactions such as securities issuances, borrowings or derivatives.

In addition, the firm may provide indemnifications to some counterparties to protect them in the event additional taxes are owed or payments are withheld, due either to a change in or an adverse application of certain non-U.S. tax laws.

These indemnifications generally are standard contractual terms and are entered into in the ordinary course of business. Generally, there are no stated or notional amounts included in these indemnifications, and the contingencies triggering the obligation to indemnify are not expected to occur. The firm is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum payout under these guarantees and indemnifications. However, management believes that it is unlikely the firm will have to make any material payments under these arrangements, and no material liabilities related to these arrangements have been recognized in the consolidated statements of financial condition as of December 2013 or December 2012.



Guarantees of Subsidiaries. Group Inc. fully and unconditionally guarantees the securities issued by GS Finance Corp., a wholly-owned finance subsidiary of the firm.

Group Inc. has guaranteed the payment obligations of Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. (GSEC), subject to certain exceptions.

In November 2008, the firm contributed subsidiaries into GS Bank USA, and Group Inc. agreed to guarantee the reimbursement of certain losses, including credit-related losses, relating to assets held by the contributed entities. In connection with this guarantee, Group Inc. also agreed to pledge to GS Bank USA certain collateral, including interests in subsidiaries and other illiquid assets.

In addition, Group Inc. guarantees many of the obligations of its other consolidated subsidiaries on a transaction-by-transaction basis, as negotiated with counterparties. Group Inc. is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum payout under its subsidiary guarantees; however, because these guaranteed obligations are also obligations of consolidated subsidiaries, Group Inc.'s liabilities as guarantor are not separately disclosed.

## Note 19.

## Shareholders' Equity

## Common Equity

Dividends declared per common share were $2.05 in 2013, $1.77 in 2012 and $1.40 in 2011. On January 15, 2014, Group Inc. declared a dividend of $0.55 per common share to be paid on March 28, 2014 to common shareholders of record on February 28, 2014.
The firm’s share repurchase program is intended to help maintain the appropriate level of common equity. The repurchase program is effected primarily through regular open-market purchases, the amounts and timing of which are determined primarily by the firm’s current and projected capital positions (i.e., comparisons of the firm’s desired level and composition of capital to its actual level and composition of capital), but which may also be influenced by general market conditions and the prevailing price and trading volumes of the firm’s common stock. Any repurchase of the firm’s common stock requires approval by the Federal Reserve Board.

During 2013, 2012 and 2011, the firm repurchased 39.3 million, 42.0 million and 47.0 million shares of its common stock at an average cost per share of $157.11, $110.31 and $128.33, for a total cost of $6.17 billion, $4.64 billion and $6.04 billion, respectively, under the share repurchase program. In addition, pursuant to the terms of certain share-based compensation plans, employees may remit shares to the firm or the firm may cancel restricted stock units (RSUs) to satisfy minimum statutory employee tax withholding requirements. Under these plans, during 2013, 2012 and 2011, employees remitted 161,211 shares, 33,477 shares and 75,517 shares with a total value of $25 million, $3 million and $12 million, and the firm cancelled 4.0 million, 12.7 million and 12.0 million of RSUs with a total value of $599 million, $1.44 billion and $1.91 billion, respectively.

On October 1, 2013, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Berkshire Hathaway) exercised in full a warrant to purchase shares of the firm’s common stock. The warrant, as amended in March 2013, required net share settlement, and the firm delivered 13.1 million shares of common stock to Berkshire Hathaway on October 4, 2013. The number of shares delivered represented the value of the difference between the average closing price of the firm’s common stock over the 10 trading days preceding October 1, 2013 and the exercise price of $115.00 multiplied by the number of shares of common stock (43.5 million) covered by the warrant.



## Preferred Equity

The table below presents perpetual preferred stock issued and outstanding as of December 2013.

<table><tr><td>Series</td><td>Shares Authorized</td><td>Shares Issued</td><td>Shares Outstanding</td><td>Dividend Rate</td><td>Redemption Value (in millions)</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td>50,000</td><td>30,000</td><td>29,999</td><td>3 month LIBOR + 0.75%, with floor of 3.75% per annum</td><td>$ 750</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>50,000</td><td>32,000</td><td>32,000</td><td>6.20% per annum</td><td>800</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>25,000</td><td>8,000</td><td>8,000</td><td>3 month LIBOR + 0.75%, with floor of 4.00% per annum</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td>60,000</td><td>54,000</td><td>53,999</td><td>3 month LIBOR + 0.67%, with floor of 4.00% per annum</td><td>1,350</td></tr><tr><td>E</td><td>17,500</td><td>17,500</td><td>17,500</td><td>3 month LIBOR + 0.77%, with floor of 4.00% per annum</td><td>1,750</td></tr><tr><td>F</td><td>5,000</td><td>5,000</td><td>5,000</td><td>3 month LIBOR + 0.77%, with floor of 4.00% per annum</td><td>500</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>34,500</td><td>34,000</td><td>34,000</td><td>5.95% per annum</td><td>850</td></tr><tr><td>J</td><td>46,000</td><td>40,000</td><td>40,000</td><td>5.50% per annum to, but excluding, May 10, 2023; 3 month LIBOR + 3.64% per annum thereafter</td><td>1,000</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>288,000</td><td>220,500</td><td>220,498</td><td></td><td>$7,200</td></tr></table>

Each share of non-cumulative Series A Preferred Stock, Series B Preferred Stock, Series C Preferred Stock and Series D Preferred Stock issued and outstanding has a par value of $0.01, has a liquidation preference of $25,000, is represented by 1,000 depositary shares and is redeemable at the firm's option at a redemption price equal to $25,000 plus declared and unpaid dividends.

Each share of non-cumulative Series E and Series F Preferred Stock issued and outstanding has a par value of $0.01, has a liquidation preference of $100,000 and is redeemable at the option of the firm at any time, subject to certain covenant restrictions governing the firm's ability to redeem or purchase the preferred stock without issuing common stock or other instruments with equity-like characteristics, at a redemption price equal to $100,000 plus declared and unpaid dividends. See Note 16 for further information about the replacement capital covenants applicable to the Series E and Series F Preferred Stock.

Each share of non-cumulative Series I Preferred Stock issued and outstanding has a par value of $0.01, has a liquidation preference of $25,000, is represented by 1,000 depositary shares and is redeemable at the firm's option beginning November 10, 2017 at a redemption price equal to $25,000 plus accrued and unpaid dividends.
On April 25, 2013, Group Inc. issued 40,000 shares of perpetual 5.50% Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series J, par value $0.01 per share (Series J Preferred Stock), out of a total of 46,000 shares of Series J Preferred Stock authorized for issuance. Each share of Series J Preferred Stock issued and outstanding has a liquidation preference of $25,000, is represented by 1,000 depositary shares and is redeemable at the firm's option beginning May 10, 2023 at a redemption price equal to $25,000 plus accrued and unpaid dividends.

Any redemption of preferred stock by the firm requires the approval of the Federal Reserve Board. All series of preferred stock are pari passu and have a preference over the firm’s common stock on liquidation. Dividends on each series of preferred stock, if declared, are payable quarterly in arrears. The firm’s ability to declare or pay dividends on, or purchase, redeem or otherwise acquire, its common stock is subject to certain restrictions in the event that the firm fails to pay or set aside full dividends on the preferred stock for the latest completed dividend period.



The tables below present preferred dividends declared on preferred stock.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="2">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2013</td></tr><tr><td>per share</td><td>in millions</td></tr><tr><td>Series A</td><td>$ 947.92</td><td>$ 28</td></tr><tr><td>Series B</td><td>1,550.00</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Series C</td><td>1,011.11</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Series D</td><td>1,011.11</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Series E</td><td>4,044.44</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Series F</td><td>4,044.44</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Series I</td><td>1,553.63</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Series J</td><td>744.79</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>$314</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="2">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2012</td></tr><tr><td>per share</td><td>in millions</td></tr><tr><td>Series A</td><td>$ 960.94</td><td>$ 29</td></tr><tr><td>Series B</td><td>1,550.00</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Series C</td><td>1,025.01</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Series D</td><td>1,025.01</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Series E</td><td>2,055.56</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Series F</td><td>1,000.00</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>$183</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="2">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2011</td></tr><tr><td>per share</td><td>in millions</td></tr><tr><td>Series A</td><td>$ 950.51</td><td>$ 28</td></tr><tr><td>Series B</td><td>1,550.00</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Series C</td><td>1,013.90</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Series D</td><td>1,013.90</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Series G 1</td><td>2,500.00</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>$266</td></tr></table>

1. Excludes preferred dividends related to the redemption of the firm’s Series G Preferred Stock.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income/(Loss)
The tables below present accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss), net of tax by type.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>Other comprehensive income/(loss) adjustments, net of tax</td><td>Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>$ (314)</td><td>$ (50)</td><td>$ (364)</td></tr><tr><td>Currency translation</td><td>(206)</td><td>38</td><td>(168)</td></tr><tr><td>Pension and postretirement liabilities</td><td>327</td><td>(327)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Available-for-sale securities</td><td>—</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flow hedges</td><td>—</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated comprehensive income/(loss), net of tax</td><td>$ (193)</td><td>$ (331)</td><td>$ (524)</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>Other comprehensive income/(loss) adjustments, net of tax</td><td>Balance, end of year</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>$ (225)</td><td>$ (89)</td><td>$ (314)</td></tr><tr><td>Currency translation</td><td>(374)</td><td>168</td><td>(206)</td></tr><tr><td>Pension and postretirement liabilities</td><td>83</td><td>244</td><td>327</td></tr><tr><td>Available-for-sale securities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated comprehensive income/(loss), net of tax</td><td>$ (516)</td><td>$ 323</td><td>$ (193)</td></tr></table>

1. As of December 2012, substantially all consisted of net unrealized gains on securities held by the firm’s Americas reinsurance business, in which a majority stake was sold in April 2013. See Note 12 for further information about this sale.



## Note 20.

## Regulation and Capital Adequacy

The Federal Reserve Board is the primary regulator of Group Inc., a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHC Act) and a financial holding company under amendments to the BHC Act effected by the U.S. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. As a bank holding company, the firm is subject to consolidated risk-based regulatory capital requirements. These requirements are computed in accordance with the Federal Reserve Board's risk-based capital regulations which, as of December 2013, were based on the Basel I Capital Accord of the Basel Committee and also reflected the Federal Reserve Board's revised market risk regulatory capital requirements which became effective on January 1, 2013. These capital requirements are expressed as capital ratios that compare measures of capital to risk-weighted assets (RWAs). The capital regulations also include requirements with respect to leverage. The firm's capital levels are also subject to qualitative judgments by its regulators about components of capital, risk weightings and other factors. Beginning January 1, 2014, the Federal Reserve Board implemented revised consolidated regulatory capital and leverage requirements discussed below.

The firm’s U.S. bank depository institution subsidiary, GS Bank USA, is subject to similar capital and leverage regulations. Under the Federal Reserve Board’s capital adequacy requirements and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, the firm and GS Bank USA must meet specific capital requirements. The firm’s and GS Bank USA’s capital levels, as well as GS Bank USA’s prompt corrective action classification, are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components of capital, risk weightings and other factors.

Many of the firm’s subsidiaries, including GS&Co. and the firm’s other broker-dealer subsidiaries, are subject to separate regulation and capital requirements as described below.

## Group Inc.

As of December 2013, Federal Reserve Board regulations required bank holding companies to maintain a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 4% and a minimum Total capital ratio of 8%. The required minimum Tier 1 capital ratio and Total capital ratio in order to meet the quantitative requirements for being a “well-capitalized” bank holding company under the Federal Reserve Board guidelines are 6% and 10%, respectively. Bank holding companies may be expected to maintain ratios well above the minimum levels, depending on their particular condition, risk profile and growth plans. As of December 2013, the minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio was 3% for bank holding companies that had received the highest supervisory rating under Federal Reserve Board guidelines or that had implemented the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital measure for market risk. Beginning January 1, 2014, all bank holding companies became subject to a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%.

Tier 1 leverage ratio is defined as Tier 1 capital divided by average adjusted total assets (which includes adjustments for goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, and the carrying value of certain equity investments in nonconsolidated entities that are subject to deduction from Tier 1 capital).

RWAs under the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital requirements are calculated based on measures of credit risk and market risk. Credit risk requirements for on-balance-sheet assets are generally based on the balance sheet value. For off-balance-sheet exposures, including OTC derivatives, commitments and guarantees, a credit equivalent amount is calculated based on the notional amount of each trade and, to the extent applicable, positive net exposure. All such assets and exposures are then assigned a risk weight depending on, among other things, whether the counterparty is a sovereign, bank or a qualifying securities firm or other entity (or if collateral is held, depending on the nature of the collateral).

As of December 2012, RWAs for market risk were determined by reference to the firm’s Value-at-Risk (VaR) model, supplemented by the standardized measurement method used to determine RWAs for specific risk for certain positions. Under the Federal Reserve Board’s revised market risk regulatory capital requirements, which became effective on January 1, 2013, RWAs for market risk are determined using VaR, stressed VaR, incremental risk, comprehensive risk and a standardized measurement method for specific risk.



The table below presents information regarding Group Inc.’s regulatory capital ratios and Tier 1 leverage ratio under Basel I, as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board. The information as of December 2013 reflects the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements. These changes resulted in increased regulatory capital requirements for market risk. The information as of December 2012 is prior to the implementation of these revised market risk regulatory capital requirements.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in \text{millions}\)</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 capital</td><td>$ 72,471</td><td>$ 66,977</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 2 capital</td><td>$ 13,632</td><td>$ 13,429</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital</td><td>$ 86,103</td><td>$ 80,406</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-weighted assets</td><td>$ 433,226</td><td>$ 399,928</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 capital ratio</td><td>16.7%</td><td>16.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital ratio</td><td>19.9%</td><td>20.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 leverage ratio</td><td>8.1%</td><td>7.3%</td></tr></table>

## Revised Capital Framework

The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies (Agencies) have approved revised risk-based capital and leverage ratio regulations establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations (Revised Capital Framework). These regulations are largely based on the Basel Committee’s December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards (Basel III) and also implement certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Under the Revised Capital Framework, Group Inc. is an “Advanced approach” banking organization. Below are the aspects of the rules that are most relevant to the firm, as an Advanced approach banking organization.

Definition of Capital and Capital Ratios. The Revised Capital Framework introduced changes to the definition of regulatory capital, which, subject to transitional provisions, became effective across the firm’s regulatory capital and leverage ratios on January 1, 2014. These changes include the introduction of a new capital measure called Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1), and the related regulatory capital ratio of CET1 to RWAs (CET1 ratio). In addition, the definition of Tier 1 capital has been narrowed to include only CET1 and instruments such as perpetual non-cumulative preferred stock, which meet certain criteria.
Certain aspects of the revised requirements phase in over time. These include increases in the minimum capital ratio requirements and the introduction of new capital buffers and certain deductions from regulatory capital (such as investments in nonconsolidated financial institutions). In addition, junior subordinated debt issued to trusts is being phased out of regulatory capital.

The minimum CET1 ratio is 4.0% as of January 1, 2014 and will increase to 4.5% on January 1, 2015. The minimum Tier 1 capital ratio increased from 4.0% to 5.5% on January 1, 2014 and will increase to 6.0% beginning January 1, 2015. The minimum Total capital ratio remains unchanged at 8.0%. These minimum ratios will be supplemented by a new capital conservation buffer that phases in, beginning January 1, 2016, in increments of 0.625% per year until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019. The Revised Capital Framework also introduces a new counter-cyclical capital buffer, to be imposed in the event that national supervisors deem it necessary in order to counteract excessive credit growth.

Risk-Weighted Assets. In February 2014, the Federal Reserve Board informed us that we have completed a satisfactory “parallel run,” as required of Advanced approach banking organizations under the Revised Capital Framework, and therefore changes to RWAs will take effect beginning with the second quarter of 2014. Accordingly, the calculation of RWAs in future quarters will be based on the following methodologies:

• During the first quarter of 2014 — the Basel I risk-based capital framework adjusted for certain items related to existing capital deductions and the phase-in of new capital deductions (Basel I Adjusted);

• During the remaining quarters of 2014 — the higher of RWAs computed under the Basel III Advanced approach or the Basel I Adjusted calculation; and

• Beginning in the first quarter of 2015 — the higher of RWAs computed under the Basel III Advanced or Standardized approach.



The primary difference between the Standardized approach and the Basel III Advanced approach is that the Standardized approach utilizes prescribed risk-weightings and does not contemplate the use of internal models to compute exposure for credit risk on derivatives and securities financing transactions, whereas the Basel III Advanced approach permits the use of such models, subject to supervisory approval. In addition, RWAs under the Standardized approach depend largely on the type of counterparty (e.g., whether the counterparty is a sovereign, bank, broker-dealer or other entity), rather than on assessments of each counterparty's creditworthiness. Furthermore, the Standardized approach does not include a capital requirement for operational risk. RWAs for market risk under both the Standardized and Basel III Advanced approaches are based on the Federal Reserve Board's revised market risk regulatory capital requirements described above.

Regulatory Leverage Ratios. The Revised Capital Framework increased the minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio applicable to the firm from 3% to 4% effective January 1, 2014.

In addition, the Revised Capital Framework will introduce a new Tier 1 supplementary leverage ratio (supplementary leverage ratio) for Advanced approach banking organizations, which compares Tier 1 capital (as defined under the Revised Capital Framework) to a measure of leverage exposure (defined as the sum of the firm’s assets less certain CET1 deductions plus certain off-balance-sheet exposures). Effective January 1, 2018, the minimum supplementary leverage ratio requirement will be 3%; however, disclosure will be required beginning in the first quarter of 2015. While a definition of the leverage exposure measure was set out in the Revised Capital Framework, this measure and/or the minimum requirement applicable may be amended by the regulatory authorities prior to the January 2018 effective date.

## Global Systemically Important Banking Institutions (G-SIBs)

The Basel Committee has updated its methodology for assessing the global systemic importance of banking institutions and determining the range of additional CET1 that should be maintained by those deemed to be G-SIBs. The required amount of additional CET1 for these institutions will initially range from 1% to 2.5% and could be higher in the future for a banking institution that increases its systemic footprint (e.g., by increasing total assets). In November 2013, the Financial Stability Board (established at the direction of the leaders of the Group of 20) indicated that the firm, based on its 2012 financial data, would be required to hold an additional 1.5% of CET1 as a G-SIB. The final determination of the amount of additional CET1 that the firm will be required to hold will initially be based on the firm’s 2013 financial data and the manner and timing of the U.S. banking regulators’ implementation of the Basel Committee’s methodology. The Basel Committee indicated that G-SIBs will be required to meet the capital surcharges on a phased-in basis beginning in 2016 through 2019.

## Bank Subsidiaries

GS Bank USA, an FDIC-insured, New York State-chartered bank and a member of the Federal Reserve System, is supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the New York State Department of Financial Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and is subject to minimum capital requirements (described below) that are calculated in a manner similar to those applicable to bank holding companies. For purposes of assessing the adequacy of its capital, GS Bank USA computes its risk-based capital ratios in accordance with the regulatory capital requirements applicable to state member banks, which, as of December 2013, were based on Basel I and also reflected the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board. Beginning January 1, 2014, the Federal Reserve Board implemented the Revised Capital Framework discussed above.



Under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action applicable to GS Bank USA, in order to meet the quantitative requirements for being a “well-capitalized” depository institution, GS Bank USA is required to maintain a Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 6%, a Total capital ratio of at least 10% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5%. GS Bank USA agreed with the Federal Reserve Board to maintain minimum capital ratios in excess of these “well-capitalized” levels. Accordingly, for a period of time, GS Bank USA is expected to maintain a Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 8%, a Total capital ratio of at least 11% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 6%. As noted in the table below, GS Bank USA was in compliance with these minimum capital requirements as of December 2013 and December 2012.

The table below presents information regarding GS Bank USA’s regulatory capital ratios under Basel I, as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board. The information as of December 2013 reflects the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements, which became effective on January 1, 2013. These changes resulted in increased regulatory capital requirements for market risk. The information as of December 2012 is prior to the implementation of these revised market risk regulatory capital requirements.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in \text{millions}\)</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 capital</td><td>$ 20,086</td><td>$ 20,704</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 2 capital</td><td>$ 116</td><td>$ 39</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital</td><td>$ 20,202</td><td>$ 20,743</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-weighted assets</td><td>$134,935</td><td>$109,669</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 capital ratio</td><td>14.9%</td><td>18.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital ratio</td><td>15.0%</td><td>18.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 leverage ratio</td><td>16.9%</td><td>17.6%</td></tr></table>

The Revised Capital Framework described above is also applicable to GS Bank USA, which is an Advanced approach banking organization under this framework. GS Bank USA has also been informed by the Federal Reserve Board that it has completed a satisfactory parallel run, as required of Advanced approach banking organizations under the Revised Capital Framework, and therefore changes to its calculations of RWAs will take effect beginning with the second quarter of 2014. Under the Revised Capital Framework, as of January 1, 2014, GS Bank USA became subject to a new minimum CET1 ratio requirement of 4%, increasing to 4.5% in 2015. In addition, the Revised Capital Framework changes the standards for “well-capitalized” status under prompt corrective action regulations beginning January 1, 2015 by, among other things, introducing a CET1 ratio requirement of 6.5% and increasing the Tier 1 capital ratio requirement from 6% to 8%. In addition, commencing January 1, 2018, Advanced approach banking organizations must have a supplementary leverage ratio of 3% or greater.

The Basel Committee published its final guidelines for calculating incremental capital requirements for domestic systemically important banking institutions (D-SIBs). These guidelines are complementary to the framework outlined above for G-SIBs. The impact of these guidelines on the regulatory capital requirements of GS Bank USA will depend on how they are implemented by the banking regulators in the United States.

The deposits of GS Bank USA are insured by the FDIC to the extent provided by law. The Federal Reserve Board requires depository institutions to maintain cash reserves with a Federal Reserve Bank. The amount deposited by the firm’s depository institution held at the Federal Reserve Bank was approximately $50.39 billion and $58.67 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, which exceeded required reserve amounts by $50.29 billion and $58.59 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively.

Transactions between GS Bank USA and its subsidiaries and Group Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates (other than, generally, subsidiaries of GS Bank USA) are regulated by the Federal Reserve Board. These regulations generally limit the types and amounts of transactions (including credit extensions from GS Bank USA) that may take place and generally require those transactions to be on market terms or better to GS Bank USA.

The firm’s principal non-U.S. bank subsidiary, GSIB, is a wholly-owned credit institution, regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and is subject to minimum capital requirements. As of December 2013 and December 2012, GSIB was in compliance with all regulatory capital requirements.



## Broker-Dealer Subsidiaries

The firm’s U.S. regulated broker-dealer subsidiaries include GS&Co. and GSEC. GS&Co. and GSEC are registered U.S. broker-dealers and futures commission merchants, and are subject to regulatory capital requirements, including those imposed by the SEC, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) and the National Futures Association. Rule 15c3-1 of the SEC and Rule 1.17 of the CFTC specify uniform minimum net capital requirements, as defined, for their registrants, and also effectively require that a significant part of the registrants’ assets be kept in relatively liquid form. GS&Co. and GSEC have elected to compute their minimum capital requirements in accordance with the “Alternative Net Capital Requirement” as permitted by Rule 15c3-1.

As of December 2013 and December 2012, GS&Co. had regulatory net capital, as defined by Rule 15c3-1, of $15.81 billion and $14.12 billion, respectively, which exceeded the amount required by $13.76 billion and $12.42 billion, respectively. As of December 2013 and December 2012, GSEC had regulatory net capital, as defined by Rule 15c3-1, of $1.38 billion and $2.02 billion, respectively, which exceeded the amount required by $1.21 billion and $1.92 billion, respectively.

In addition to its alternative minimum net capital requirements, GS&Co. is also required to hold tentative net capital in excess of $1 billion and net capital in excess of $500 million in accordance with the market and credit risk standards of Appendix E of Rule 15c3-1. GS&Co. is also required to notify the SEC in the event that its tentative net capital is less than $5 billion. As of December 2013 and December 2012, GS&Co. had tentative net capital and net capital in excess of both the minimum and the notification requirements.

## Other Non-U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries

The firm’s principal non-U.S. regulated subsidiaries include Goldman Sachs International (GSI) and Goldman Sachs Japan Co., Ltd. (GSJCL). GSI, the firm’s regulated U.K. broker-dealer, is regulated by the PRA and the FCA. GSJCL, the firm’s Japanese broker-dealer, is regulated by Japan’s Financial Services Agency. These and certain other non-U.S. subsidiaries of the firm are also subject to capital adequacy requirements promulgated by authorities of the countries in which they operate. As of December 2013 and December 2012, these subsidiaries were in compliance with their local capital adequacy requirements.

The Basel Committee’s guidelines for calculating incremental capital requirements for D-SIBs may also impact certain of the firm’s non-U.S. regulated subsidiaries, including GSI. However, the impact of these guidelines will depend on how they are implemented in local jurisdictions.

## Restrictions on Payments

The regulatory requirements referred to above restrict Group Inc.’s ability to withdraw capital from its regulated subsidiaries. As of December 2013 and December 2012, Group Inc. was required to maintain approximately $31.20 billion and $31.01 billion, respectively, of minimum equity capital in these regulated subsidiaries. This minimum equity capital requirement includes certain restrictions imposed by federal and state laws as to the payment of dividends to Group Inc. by its regulated subsidiaries. In addition to limitations on the payment of dividends imposed by federal and state laws, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC and the New York State Department of Financial Services have authority to prohibit or to limit the payment of dividends by the banking organizations they supervise (including GS Bank USA) if, in the relevant regulator’s opinion, payment of a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in the light of the financial condition of the banking organization.



## Note 21.

## Earnings Per Common Share

Basic earnings per common share (EPS) is calculated by dividing net earnings applicable to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Common shares outstanding includes common stock and RSUs for which no future service is required as a condition to the delivery of the underlying common stock. Diluted EPS includes the determinants of basic EPS and, in addition, reflects the dilutive effect of the common stock deliverable for stock warrants and options and for RSUs for which future service is required as a condition to the delivery of the underlying common stock.

The table below presents the computations of basic and diluted EPS.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions, except per share amounts</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Numerator for basic and diluted EPS — net earnings applicable to common shareholders</td><td>$7,726</td><td>$7,292</td><td>$2,510</td></tr><tr><td>Denominator for basic EPS — weighted average number of common shares</td><td>471.3</td><td>496.2</td><td>524.6</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of dilutive securities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>RSUs</td><td>7.2</td><td>11.3</td><td>14.6</td></tr><tr><td>Stock options and warrants</td><td>21.1</td><td>8.6</td><td>17.7</td></tr><tr><td>Dilutive potential common shares</td><td>28.3</td><td>19.9</td><td>32.3</td></tr><tr><td>Denominator for diluted EPS — weighted average number of common shares and dilutive potential common shares</td><td>499.6</td><td>516.1</td><td>556.9</td></tr><tr><td>Basic EPS</td><td>$16.34</td><td>$14.63</td><td>$ 4.71</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted EPS</td><td>15.46</td><td>14.13</td><td>4.51</td></tr></table>

In the table above, unvested share-based payment awards that have non-forfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents are treated as a separate class of securities in calculating EPS. The impact of applying this methodology was a reduction in basic EPS of $0.05 for 2013 and $0.07 for both 2012 and 2011.

The diluted EPS computations in the table above do not include antidilutive RSUs and common shares underlying antidilutive stock options and warrants of 6.0 million for 2013, 52.4 million for 2012 and 9.2 million for 2011.

## Note 22.

## Transactions with Affiliated Funds

The firm has formed numerous nonconsolidated investment funds with third-party investors. As the firm generally acts as the investment manager for these funds, it is entitled to receive management fees and, in certain cases, advisory fees or incentive fees from these funds. Additionally, the firm invests alongside the third-party investors in certain funds.

The tables below present fees earned from affiliated funds, fees receivable from affiliated funds and the aggregate carrying value of the firm’s interests in affiliated funds.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Fees earned from affiliated funds</td><td>$2,897</td><td>$ 2,935</td><td>$ 2,789</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fees receivable from funds</td><td>$ 817</td><td>$ 704</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Aggregate carrying value of interests in funds</td><td>13,124</td><td>14,725</td><td></td></tr></table>

As of December 2013 and December 2012, the firm had outstanding guarantees to its funds of $147 million and outstanding loans and guarantees to its funds of $582 million, respectively. The amount as of December 2013 primarily relates to a guarantee that the firm has voluntarily provided in connection with a financing agreement with a third-party lender executed by one of the firm’s real estate funds that is not covered by the Volcker Rule. The amount of the guarantee could be increased up to a maximum of $300 million. The amount as of December 2012 was collateralized by certain fund assets and primarily related to certain real estate funds for which the firm voluntarily provided financial support to alleviate liquidity constraints during the financial crisis and to enable them to fund certain investment opportunities. As of December 2013 and December 2012, the firm had no outstanding commitments to extend credit or other guarantees to its funds.



The Volcker Rule will restrict the firm from providing financial support to covered funds (as defined in the rule) after the expiration of the transition period in July 2015, subject to possible extensions through July 2017. As a general matter, in the ordinary course of business, the firm does not expect to provide additional voluntary financial support to any covered funds but may choose to do so with respect to funds that are not subject to the Volcker Rule; however, in the event that such support is provided, the amount of any such support is not expected to be material.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, the firm may also engage in other activities with its affiliated funds including, among others, securities lending, trade execution, market making, custody, and acquisition and bridge financing. See Note 18 for the firm’s investment commitments related to these funds.

## Note 23.

## Interest Income and Interest Expense

Interest income is recorded on an accrual basis based on contractual interest rates. The table below presents the firm’s sources of interest income and interest expense.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits with banks</td><td>$ 186</td><td>$ 156</td><td>$ 125</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed, securities purchased under agreements to resell and federal funds sold 1</td><td>43</td><td>(77)</td><td>666</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>8,159</td><td>9,817</td><td>10,718</td></tr><tr><td>Other interest 2</td><td>1,672</td><td>1,485</td><td>1,665</td></tr><tr><td>Total interest income</td><td>10,060</td><td>11,381</td><td>13,174</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>387</td><td>399</td><td>280</td></tr><tr><td>Securities loaned and securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>576</td><td>822</td><td>905</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value</td><td>2,054</td><td>2,438</td><td>2,464</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term borrowings 3</td><td>394</td><td>581</td><td>526</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term borrowings 3</td><td>3,752</td><td>3,736</td><td>3,439</td></tr><tr><td>Other interest 4</td><td>(495)</td><td>(475)</td><td>368</td></tr><tr><td>Total interest expense</td><td>6,668</td><td>7,501</td><td>7,982</td></tr><tr><td>Net interest income</td><td>$ 3,392</td><td>$ 3,880</td><td>$ 5,192</td></tr></table>

1. Includes rebates paid and interest income on securities borrowed.

2. Includes interest income on customer debit balances and other interest-earning assets.

3. Includes interest on unsecured borrowings and other secured financings.

4. Includes rebates received on other interest-bearing liabilities and interest expense on customer credit balances.



## Note 24.

## Income Taxes

## Provision for Income Taxes

Income taxes are provided for using the asset and liability method under which deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities. The firm reports interest expense related to income tax matters in “Provision for taxes” and income tax penalties in “Other expenses.”

The tables below present the components of the provision/ (benefit) for taxes and a reconciliation of the U.S. federal statutory income tax rate to the firm’s effective income tax rate.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Current taxes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>U.S. federal</td><td>$2,589</td><td>$3,013</td><td>$ 405</td></tr><tr><td>State and local</td><td>466</td><td>628</td><td>392</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>613</td><td>447</td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td>Total current tax expense</td><td>3,668</td><td>4,088</td><td>1,001</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred taxes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>U.S. federal</td><td>(188)</td><td>(643)</td><td>683</td></tr><tr><td>State and local</td><td>67</td><td>38</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>150</td><td>249</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Total deferred tax (benefit)/expense</td><td>29</td><td>(356)</td><td>726</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for taxes</td><td>$3,697</td><td>$3,732</td><td>$1,727</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. federal statutory income tax rate</td><td>35.0%</td><td>35.0%</td><td>35.0%</td></tr><tr><td>State and local taxes, net of U.S. federal income tax effects</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Tax credits</td><td>(1.0)</td><td>(1.0)</td><td>(1.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. operations  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>(5.6)</td><td>(4.8)</td><td>(6.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Tax-exempt income, including dividends</td><td>(0.5)</td><td>(0.5)</td><td>(2.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>(0.5)</td><td>0.8</td><td>(0.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Effective income tax rate</td><td>31.5%</td><td>33.3%</td><td>28.0%</td></tr></table>

1. Includes the impact of permanently reinvested earnings.

## Deferred Income Taxes

Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities. These temporary differences result in taxable or deductible amounts in future years and are measured using the tax rates and laws that will be in effect when such differences are expected to reverse. Valuation allowances are established to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount that more likely than not will be realized and primarily relate to the ability to utilize losses in various tax jurisdictions. Tax assets and liabilities are presented as a component of “Other assets” and “Other liabilities and accrued expenses,” respectively.

The table below presents the significant components of deferred tax assets and liabilities, excluding the impact of netting within tax jurisdictions.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred tax assets</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Compensation and benefits</td><td>$2,740</td><td>$2,447</td></tr><tr><td>Unrealized losses</td><td>309</td><td>1,477</td></tr><tr><td>ASC 740 asset related to unrecognized tax benefits</td><td>475</td><td>685</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. operations</td><td>1,318</td><td>965</td></tr><tr><td>Net operating losses</td><td>232</td><td>222</td></tr><tr><td>Occupancy-related</td><td>108</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>Other comprehensive income-related</td><td>69</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>Other, net</td><td>729</td><td>435</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>5,980</td><td>6,464</td></tr><tr><td>Valuation allowance</td><td>(183)</td><td>(168)</td></tr><tr><td>Total deferred tax assets</td><td>$5,797</td><td>$6,296</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>1,269</td><td>1,230</td></tr><tr><td>Other comprehensive income-related</td><td>68</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>Total deferred tax liabilities</td><td>$1,337</td><td>$1,315</td></tr></table>



The firm has recorded deferred tax assets of $232 million and $222 million as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, in connection with U.S. federal, state and local and foreign net operating loss carryforwards. The firm also recorded a valuation allowance of $45 million and $60 million as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively, related to these net operating loss carryforwards.

As of December 2013, the U.S. federal and foreign net operating loss carryforwards were $38 million and $854 million, respectively. If not utilized, the U.S. federal net operating loss carryforward will begin to expire in 2014. The foreign net operating loss carryforwards can be carried forward indefinitely. State and local net operating loss carryforwards of $781 million will begin to expire in 2014. If these carryforwards expire, they will not have a material impact on the firm's results of operations. The firm had no foreign tax credit carryforwards and no related net deferred income tax assets as of December 2013 or December 2012.

The firm had no capital loss carryforwards and no related net deferred income tax assets as of December 2013 or December 2012.

The valuation allowance increased by $15 million and $103 million during 2013 and 2012, respectively. The increase in 2013 was primarily due to an increase in deferred tax assets from which the firm does not expect to realize any benefit. The increase in 2012 was primarily due to the acquisition of deferred tax assets considered more likely than not to be unrealizable.
The firm permanently reinvests eligible earnings of certain foreign subsidiaries and, accordingly, does not accrue any U.S. income taxes that would arise if such earnings were repatriated. As of December 2013 and December 2012, this policy resulted in an unrecognized net deferred tax liability of $4.06 billion and $3.75 billion, respectively, attributable to reinvested earnings of $22.54 billion and $21.69 billion, respectively.

## Unrecognized Tax Benefits

The firm recognizes tax positions in the financial statements only when it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained on examination by the relevant taxing authority based on the technical merits of the position. A position that meets this standard is measured at the largest amount of benefit that will more likely than not be realized on settlement. A liability is established for differences between positions taken in a tax return and amounts recognized in the financial statements.

As of December 2013 and December 2012, the accrued liability for interest expense related to income tax matters and income tax penalties was $410 million and $374 million, respectively. The firm recognized $53 million for 2013, $95 million for 2012 and $21 million for 2011 of interest and income tax penalties. It is reasonably possible that unrecognized tax benefits could change significantly during the twelve months subsequent to December 2013 due to potential audit settlements, however, at this time it is not possible to estimate any potential change.



The table below presents the changes in the liability for unrecognized tax benefits. This liability is included in “Other liabilities and accrued expenses.” See Note 17 for further information.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>$2,237</td><td>$1,887</td><td>$2,081</td></tr><tr><td>Increases based on tax positions related to the current year</td><td>144</td><td>190</td><td>171</td></tr><tr><td>Increases based on tax positions related to prior years</td><td>149</td><td>336</td><td>278</td></tr><tr><td>Decreases related to tax positions of prior years</td><td>(471)</td><td>(109)</td><td>(41)</td></tr><tr><td>Decreases related to settlements</td><td>(299)</td><td>(35)</td><td>(638)</td></tr><tr><td>Acquisitions/(dispositions)</td><td>—</td><td>(47)</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange rate fluctuations</td><td>5</td><td>15</td><td>(11)</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>$1,765</td><td>$2,237</td><td>$1,887</td></tr><tr><td>Related deferred income tax asset  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>475</td><td>685</td><td>569</td></tr><tr><td>Net unrecognized tax benefit  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>$1,290</td><td>$1,552</td><td>$1,318</td></tr></table>

1. Included in “Other assets.” See Note 12.

2. If recognized, the net tax benefit would reduce the firm’s effective income tax rate.

## Regulatory Tax Examinations

The firm is subject to examination by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other taxing authorities in jurisdictions where the firm has significant business operations, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and various states, such as New York. The tax years under examination vary by jurisdiction. The firm does not expect completion of these audits to have a material impact on the firm’s financial condition but it may be material to operating results for a particular period, depending, in part, on the operating results for that period. The table below presents the earliest tax years that remain subject to examination by major jurisdiction.

<table><tr><td>Jurisdiction</td><td>As of December 2013</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Federal</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>New York State and City</td><td>2004</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td>Hong Kong</td><td>2006</td></tr><tr><td>Korea</td><td>2010</td></tr></table>

For U.S. Federal, IRS examinations of fiscal 2008 through calendar 2010 began in 2011. IRS examinations of fiscal 2005 through 2007 were finalized during the third quarter of 2013. The field work for the examinations of 2008 through 2010 has been completed but the examinations have not been administratively finalized. The examinations of 2011 and 2012 began in 2013.

New York State and City examinations of fiscal 2004 through 2006 began in 2008. The examinations of fiscal 2007 through 2010 began in 2013.

All years subsequent to the years in the table above remain open to examination by the taxing authorities. The firm believes that the liability for unrecognized tax benefits it has established is adequate in relation to the potential for additional assessments.

In January 2013, the firm was accepted into the Compliance Assurance Process program by the IRS. This program allows the firm to work with the IRS to identify and resolve potential U.S. federal tax issues before the filing of tax returns. The 2013 tax year is the first year being examined under the program. The firm was accepted into the program again for the 2014 tax year.



## Note 25.

## Business Segments

The firm reports its activities in the following four business segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending and Investment Management.

## Basis of Presentation

In reporting segments, certain of the firm’s business lines have been aggregated where they have similar economic characteristics and are similar in each of the following areas: (i) the nature of the services they provide, (ii) their methods of distribution, (iii) the types of clients they serve and (iv) the regulatory environments in which they operate.

The cost drivers of the firm taken as a whole — compensation, headcount and levels of business activity — are broadly similar in each of the firm’s business segments. Compensation and benefits expenses in the firm’s segments reflect, among other factors, the overall performance of the firm as well as the performance of individual businesses. Consequently, pre-tax margins in one segment of the firm’s business may be significantly affected by the performance of the firm’s other business segments.

The firm allocates assets (including allocations of excess liquidity and cash, secured client financing and other assets), revenues and expenses among the four business segments. Due to the integrated nature of these segments, estimates and judgments are made in allocating certain assets, revenues and expenses. The allocation process is based on the manner in which management currently views the performance of the segments. Transactions between segments are based on specific criteria or approximate third-party rates. Total operating expenses include corporate items that have not been allocated to individual business segments.
The segment information presented in the table below is prepared according to the following methodologies:

• Revenues and expenses directly associated with each segment are included in determining pre-tax earnings.

• Net revenues in the firm’s segments include allocations of interest income and interest expense to specific securities, commodities and other positions in relation to the cash generated by, or funding requirements of, such underlying positions. Net interest is included in segment net revenues as it is consistent with the way in which management assesses segment performance.

• Overhead expenses not directly allocable to specific segments are allocated ratably based on direct segment expenses.

Management believes that the following information provides a reasonable representation of each segment’s contribution to consolidated pre-tax earnings and total assets.



## Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">For the Year Ended or as of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Investment Banking</td><td>Financial Advisory</td><td>$ 1,978</td><td>$ 1,975</td></tr><tr><td>Equity underwriting</td><td>1,659</td><td>987</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Debt underwriting</td><td>2,367</td><td>1,964</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total Underwriting</td><td>4,026</td><td>2,951</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total net revenues</td><td>6,004</td><td>4,926</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Operating expenses</td><td>3,475</td><td>3,330</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 2,529</td><td>$ 1,596</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Segment assets</td><td>$ 1,901</td><td>$ 1,712</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Institutional Client Services</td><td>Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Client Execution</td><td>$ 8,651</td><td>$ 9,914</td></tr><tr><td>Equities client execution</td><td>2,594</td><td>3,171</td></tr><tr><td>Commissions and fees</td><td>3,103</td><td>3,053</td></tr><tr><td>Securities services</td><td>1,373</td><td>1,986</td></tr><tr><td>Total Equities</td><td>7,070</td><td>8,210</td></tr><tr><td>Total net revenues  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>15,721</td><td>18,124</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Operating expenses</td><td>11,782</td><td>12,480</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 3,939</td><td>$ 5,644</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Segment assets</td><td>$ 788,238</td><td>$ 825,496</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>Equity securities</td><td>$ 3,930</td><td>$ 2,800</td></tr><tr><td>Debt securities and loans</td><td>1,947</td><td>1,850</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1,141</td><td>1,241</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total net revenues</td><td>7,018</td><td>5,891</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Operating expenses</td><td>2,684</td><td>2,666</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings/(loss)</td><td>$ 4,334</td><td>$ 3,225</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Segment assets</td><td>$ 109,285</td><td>$ 98,600</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Investment Management</td><td>Management and other fees</td><td>$ 4,386</td><td>$ 4,105</td></tr><tr><td>Incentive fees</td><td>662</td><td>701</td></tr><tr><td>Transaction revenues</td><td>415</td><td>416</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total net revenues</td><td>5,463</td><td>5,222</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Operating expenses</td><td>4,354</td><td>4,294</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 1,109</td><td>$ 928</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Segment assets</td><td>$ 12,083</td><td>$ 12,747</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Total</td><td>Net revenues</td><td>$ 34,206</td><td>$ 34,163</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td>22,469</td><td>22,956</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 11,737</td><td>$ 11,207</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total assets</td><td>$ 911,507</td><td>$938,555</td></tr></table>

1. Includes $37 million for 2013, $121 million for 2012 and $115 million for 2011 of realized gains on available-for-sale securities held in the firm’s Americas reinsurance business, in which a majority stake was sold in April 2013.



Total operating expenses in the table above include the following expenses that have not been allocated to the firm’s segments:

• charitable contributions of $155 million for 2013, $169 million for 2012 and $103 million for 2011; and

• real estate-related exit costs of $19 million for 2013, $17 million for 2012 and $14 million for 2011. Real estate-related exit costs are included in “Depreciation and amortization” and “Occupancy” in the consolidated statements of earnings.

The tables below present the amounts of net interest income or interest expense included in net revenues, and the amounts of depreciation and amortization expense included in pre-tax earnings.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Banking</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ (15)</td><td>$ (6)</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional Client Services</td><td>3,250</td><td>3,723</td><td>4,360</td></tr><tr><td>Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>25</td><td>26</td><td>635</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Management</td><td>117</td><td>146</td><td>203</td></tr><tr><td>Total net interest income</td><td>$3,392</td><td>$3,880</td><td>$5,192</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Banking</td><td>$ 143</td><td>$ 164</td><td>$ 174</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional Client Services</td><td>567</td><td>796</td><td>944</td></tr><tr><td>Investing &amp; Lending</td><td>440</td><td>564</td><td>563</td></tr><tr><td>Investment Management</td><td>165</td><td>204</td><td>188</td></tr><tr><td>Total depreciation and amortization  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>$1,322</td><td>$1,738</td><td>$1,869</td></tr></table>

1. Includes real estate-related exit costs of $7 million for 2013 and $10 million for 2012 that have not been allocated to the firm’s segments.

## Geographic Information

Due to the highly integrated nature of international financial markets, the firm manages its businesses based on the profitability of the enterprise as a whole. The methodology for allocating profitability to geographic regions is dependent on estimates and management judgment because a significant portion of the firm’s activities require cross-border coordination in order to facilitate the needs of the firm’s clients.

Geographic results are generally allocated as follows:

• Investment Banking: location of the client and investment banking team.

• Institutional Client Services: Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution, and Equities (excluding Securities Services): location of the market-making desk; Securities Services: location of the primary market for the underlying security.

• Investing & Lending: Investing: location of the investment; Lending: location of the client.

• Investment Management: location of the sales team.



The table below presents the total net revenues, pre-tax earnings and net earnings of the firm by geographic region allocated based on the methodology referred to above, as well as the percentage of total net revenues, pre-tax earnings and net earnings (excluding Corporate) for each geographic region.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in millions</td><td colspan="6">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2013</td><td colspan="2">2012</td><td colspan="2">2011</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Americas</td><td>$19,858</td><td>58%</td><td>$20,159</td><td>59%</td><td>$17,873</td><td>62%</td></tr><tr><td>Europe, Middle East and Africa</td><td>8,828</td><td>26</td><td>8,612</td><td>25</td><td>7,074</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Asia 1 (includes Australia and New Zealand)</td><td>5,520</td><td>16</td><td>5,392</td><td>16</td><td>3,864</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Total net revenues</td><td>$34,206</td><td>100%</td><td>$34,163</td><td>100%</td><td>$28,811</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings/(loss)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Americas</td><td>$ 6,794</td><td>57%</td><td>$ 6,960</td><td>61%</td><td>$ 5,307</td><td>85%</td></tr><tr><td>Europe, Middle East and Africa</td><td>3,237</td><td>27</td><td>2,943</td><td>26</td><td>1,210</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Asia (includes Australia and New Zealand)</td><td>1,880</td><td>16</td><td>1,490</td><td>13</td><td>(231)</td><td>(4)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>11,911</td><td>100%</td><td>11,393</td><td>100%</td><td>6,286</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate 2</td><td>(174)</td><td></td><td>(186)</td><td></td><td>(117)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total pre-tax earnings</td><td>$11,737</td><td></td><td>$11,207</td><td></td><td>$ 6,169</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings/(loss)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Americas</td><td>$ 4,425</td><td>54%</td><td>$ 4,259</td><td>56%</td><td>$ 3,522</td><td>78%</td></tr><tr><td>Europe, Middle East and Africa</td><td>2,382</td><td>29</td><td>2,369</td><td>31</td><td>1,103</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Asia (includes Australia and New Zealand)</td><td>1,353</td><td>17</td><td>972</td><td>13</td><td>(103)</td><td>(2)</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>8,160</td><td>100%</td><td>7,600</td><td>100%</td><td>4,522</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate</td><td>(120)</td><td></td><td>(125)</td><td></td><td>(80)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total net earnings</td><td>$ 8,040</td><td></td><td>$ 7,475</td><td></td><td>$ 4,442</td><td></td></tr></table>

1. Net revenues in Asia in 2011 primarily reflect lower net revenues in Investing & Lending, principally due to losses from public equities, reflecting a significant decline in equity markets in Asia during 2011.

2. Consists of charitable contributions of $155 million for 2013, $169 million for 2012 and $103 million for 2011; and real estate-related exit costs of $19 million for 2013, $17 million for 2012 and $14 million for 2011.



## Note 26.

## Credit Concentrations

Credit concentrations may arise from market making, client facilitation, investing, underwriting, lending and collateralized transactions and may be impacted by changes in economic, industry or political factors. The firm seeks to mitigate credit risk by actively monitoring exposures and obtaining collateral from counterparties as deemed appropriate.

While the firm’s activities expose it to many different industries and counterparties, the firm routinely executes a high volume of transactions with asset managers, investment funds, commercial banks, brokers and dealers, clearing houses and exchanges, which results in significant credit concentrations.

In the ordinary course of business, the firm may also be subject to a concentration of credit risk to a particular counterparty, borrower or issuer, including sovereign issuers, or to a particular clearing house or exchange.

The table below presents the credit concentrations in cash instruments held by the firm.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">\( in \text{millions}\)</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>90,118</td><td>114,418</td></tr><tr><td>% of total assets</td><td>9.9%</td><td>12.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>40,944</td><td>62,252</td></tr><tr><td>% of total assets</td><td>4.5%</td><td>6.6%</td></tr></table>

1. Substantially all included in “Financial instruments owned, at fair value” and “Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes.”

As of December 2013 and December 2012, the firm did not have credit exposure to any other counterparty that exceeded 2% of total assets.
To reduce credit exposures, the firm may enter into agreements with counterparties that permit the firm to offset receivables and payables with such counterparties and/or enable the firm to obtain collateral on an upfront or contingent basis. Collateral obtained by the firm related to derivative assets is principally cash and is held by the firm or a third-party custodian. Collateral obtained by the firm related to resale agreements and securities borrowed transactions is primarily U.S. government and federal agency obligations and non-U.S. government and agency obligations. See Note 9 for further information about collateralized agreements and financings.

The table below presents U.S. government and federal agency obligations, and non-U.S. government and agency obligations, that collateralize resale agreements and securities borrowed transactions (including those in “Cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes”). Because the firm’s primary credit exposure on such transactions is to the counterparty to the transaction, the firm would be exposed to the collateral issuer only in the event of counterparty default.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="2">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>$100,672</td><td>$73,477</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>79,021</td><td>64,724</td></tr></table>

1. Principally consists of securities issued by the governments of Germany, France and the United Kingdom.



## Note 27.

## Legal Proceedings

The firm is involved in a number of judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of the firm’s businesses. Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages.

Under ASC 450, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the firm is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the firm believes the risk of loss is more than slight.

With respect to matters described below for which management has been able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss where (i) actual or potential plaintiffs have claimed an amount of money damages, (ii) the firm is being, or threatened to be, sued by purchasers in an underwriting and is not being indemnified by a party that the firm believes will pay any judgment, or (iii) the purchasers are demanding that the firm repurchase securities, management has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss as being equal to (a) in the case of (i), the amount of money damages claimed, (b) in the case of (ii), the amount of securities that the firm sold in the underwriting and (c) in the case of (iii), the price that purchasers paid for the securities less the estimated value, if any, as of December 2013 of the relevant securities, in each of cases (i), (ii) and (iii), taking into account any factors believed to be relevant to the particular matter or matters of that type. As of the date hereof, the firm has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible aggregate loss for such matters and for any other matters described below where management has been able to estimate a range of reasonably possible aggregate loss to be approximately $3.6 billion in excess of the aggregate reserves for such matters.

Management is generally unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for matters other than those included in the estimate above, including where (i) actual or potential plaintiffs have not claimed an amount of money damages, unless management can otherwise determine an appropriate amount, (ii) the matters are in early stages (such as the action filed by the Libyan Investment Authority discussed below), (iii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues presented. For example, the firm’s potential liability with respect to future mortgage-related “put-back” claims and any future claims arising from the ongoing investigations by members of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group of the U.S. Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (RMBS Working Group) may ultimately result in a significant increase in the firm’s liabilities for mortgage-related matters, but is not included in management’s estimate of reasonably possible loss. However, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of such matters will have a material adverse effect on the firm’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the firm’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. See Note 18 for further information on mortgage-related contingencies.



Mortgage-Related Matters. Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the CDO market, the firm's conflict of interest management, and the SEC investigation that led to GS&Co. entering into a consent agreement with the SEC, settling all claims made against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection with the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction), pursuant to which GS&Co. paid $550 million of disgorgement and civil penalties. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages. On June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to proceed.

On February 1, 2013, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in connection with mortgage-related activities during 2006 and 2007, including three CDO offerings. The derivative complaint, which is based on similar allegations to those at issue in the consolidated class action discussed above and purported shareholder derivative actions that were previously dismissed, includes allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, challenges the accuracy and adequacy of Group Inc.'s disclosure and seeks, among other things, declaratory relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and restitution from the individual defendants and certain corporate governance reforms. On May 20, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the action.
In June 2012, the Board received a demand from a shareholder that the Board investigate and take action relating to the firm’s mortgage-related activities and to stock sales by certain directors and executives of the firm. On February 15, 2013, this shareholder filed a putative shareholder derivative action in New York Supreme Court, New York County, against Group Inc. and certain current or former directors and employees, based on these activities and stock sales. The derivative complaint includes allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste, and seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of profits and certain corporate governance and disclosure reforms. On May 28, 2013, Group Inc. informed the shareholder that the Board completed its investigation and determined to refuse the demand. On June 20, 2013, the shareholder made a books and records demand requesting materials relating to the Board’s determination. The parties have agreed to stay proceedings in the putative derivative action pending resolution of the books and records demand.

In addition, the Board has received books and records demands from several shareholders for materials relating to, among other subjects, the firm’s mortgage servicing and foreclosure activities, participation in federal programs providing assistance to financial institutions and homeowners, loan sales to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, mortgage-related activities and conflicts management.



GS&Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. (GSMSC) and three current or former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts established by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or rescissionary damages. By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings included in plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven offerings. On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served a fourth amended complaint relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional offerings (additional offerings). On June 3, 2010, another investor (who had unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the action) filed a separate putative class action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one of the additional offerings. The district court twice granted defendants' motions to dismiss this separate action, both times with leave to replead. That separate plaintiff has filed an amended complaint and has moved to further amend this complaint to add claims with respect to two more of the additional offerings; defendants have moved to dismiss and opposed the amendment. The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote, approximately $11 billion principal amount of certificates to all purchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue in the complaints.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The amended complaint asserts federal securities law and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud. By a decision dated January 22, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On February 6, 2014, defendants petitioned for leave to appeal the class certification order.

Various alleged purchasers of, and counterparties and providers of credit enhancement involved in transactions relating to, mortgage pass-through certificates, CDOs and other mortgage-related products (including Aozora Bank, Ltd., Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master), the Charles Schwab Corporation, CIFG Assurance of North America, Inc., CMFG Life Insurance Company and related parties, Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftbank, the FDIC (as receiver for Guaranty Bank), the Federal Home Loan Banks of Chicago and Seattle, the FHFA (as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), HSH Nordbank, IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, Joel I. Sher (Chapter 11 Trustee) on behalf of TMST, Inc. (TMST), f/k/a Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. and certain TMST affiliates, John Hancock and related parties, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc., National Australia Bank, the National Credit Union Administration (as conservator or liquidating agent for several failed credit unions), Phoenix Light SF Limited and related parties, Royal Park Investments SA/NV, The Union Central Life Insurance Company, Ameritas Life Insurance Corp., Acacia Life Insurance Company, Watertown Savings Bank and Commerzbank) have filed complaints or summonses with notice in state and federal court or initiated arbitration proceedings against firm affiliates, generally alleging that the offering documents for the securities that they purchased contained untrue statements of material fact and material omissions and generally seeking rescission and/or damages. Certain of these complaints allege fraud and seek punitive damages. Certain of these complaints also name other firms as defendants.



A number of other entities (including John Hancock and related parties, Norges Bank Investment Management, Selective Insurance Company and Texas County & District Retirement System) have threatened to assert claims of various types against the firm in connection with the sale of mortgage-related securities. The firm has entered into agreements with a number of these entities to toll the relevant statute of limitations.

As of the date hereof, the aggregate amount of mortgage-related securities sold to plaintiffs in active and threatened cases described in the preceding two paragraphs where those plaintiffs are seeking rescission of such securities was approximately $17.9 billion (which does not reflect adjustment for any subsequent paydowns or distributions or any residual value of such securities, statutory interest or any other adjustments that may be claimed). This amount does not include the potential claims by these or other purchasers in the same or other mortgage-related offerings that have not been described above, or claims that have been dismissed.

The firm has entered into agreements with Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and U.S. Bank National Association to toll the relevant statute of limitations with respect to claims for repurchase of residential mortgage loans based on alleged breaches of representations related to $11.4 billion original notional face amount of securitizations issued by trusts for which they act as trustees.

Group Inc., Litton, Ocwen and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC, a former subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York generally challenging the procurement manner and scope of “force-placed” hazard insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The second amended complaint, filed on November 19, 2013, added an additional plaintiff and RICO claims. On January 21, 2014, Group Inc. moved to sever the claims against it and certain other defendants.
On February 25, 2013, Group Inc. was added as a defendant through an amended complaint in a putative class action, originally filed on April 6, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Litton, Ocwen and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen Servicing). The amended complaint generally alleges that Litton and Ocwen Servicing systematically breached agreements and violated various federal and state consumer protection laws by failing to modify the mortgage loans of homeowners participating in the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, and names Group Inc. based on its prior ownership of Litton. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 29, 2013, Group Inc. moved to dismiss.

The firm has also received, and continues to receive, requests for information and/or subpoenas from federal, state and local regulators and law enforcement authorities, including members of the RMBS Working Group, relating to the mortgage-related securitization process, subprime mortgages, CDOs, synthetic mortgage-related products, particular transactions involving these products, and servicing and foreclosure activities, and is cooperating with these regulators and other authorities, including in some cases agreeing to the tolling of the relevant statute of limitations. See also “Regulatory Investigations and Reviews and Related Litigation” below.

The firm expects to be the subject of additional putative shareholder derivative actions, purported class actions, rescission and “put back” claims and other litigation, additional investor and shareholder demands, and additional regulatory and other investigations and actions with respect to mortgage-related offerings, loan sales, CDOs, and servicing and foreclosure activities. See Note 18 for information regarding mortgage-related contingencies not described in this Note 27.



Private Equity-Sponsored Acquisitions Litigation. Group Inc. is among numerous private equity firms named as defendants in a federal antitrust action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in December 2007. As amended, the complaint generally alleges that the defendants have colluded to limit competition in bidding for private equity-sponsored acquisitions of public companies, thereby resulting in lower prevailing bids and, by extension, less consideration for shareholders of those companies in violation of Section 1 of the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act and common law. The complaint seeks, among other things, treble damages in an unspecified amount. On March 13, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions for summary judgment, rejecting plaintiffs' theory of overcharging collusion, but permitting plaintiffs' claims to proceed based on narrower theories. On October 21, 2013, plaintiffs moved for class certification.

RALI Pass-Through Certificates Litigation. GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action initially filed in September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed pass-through certificates violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation (RFC), Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain of their officers and directors. On January 3, 2013, the district court certified a class in connection with one offering underwritten by GS&Co. which includes only initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days after the offering date. On April 30, 2013, the district court granted in part plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of the previously dismissed claims relating to an additional nine offerings underwritten by GS&Co. On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint incorporating those nine additional offerings. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the nine additional offerings but denied the plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and scope covered by the previous class definition. On January 10, 2014, defendants petitioned for leave to appeal the December 27, 2013 class certification order.
GS&Co. underwrote approximately $5.57 billion principal amount of securities to all purchasers in the offerings included in the amended complaint. On May 14, 2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 28, 2013, the district court entered a final order and judgment approving a settlement between plaintiffs and ResCap, RALI, RFC, RFSC and their officers and directors named as defendants in the action.

MF Global Securities Litigation. GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing November 18, 2011. These complaints generally allege that the offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd. convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575 million in principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among other things, failed to describe adequately the nature, scope and risks of MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. On November 12, 2013, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate principal amount of approximately $214 million of the notes. On October 31, 2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, New York.

GS&Co. has also received inquiries from various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations concerning certain transactions with MF Global prior to its bankruptcy filing. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such inquiries.

Employment-Related Matters. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of



plaintiffs’ class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.’s and GS&Co.’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ class allegations in their entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm.

Investment Management Services. Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are parties to various civil litigation and arbitration proceedings and other disputes with clients relating to losses allegedly sustained as a result of the firm’s investment management services. These claims generally seek, among other things, restitution or other compensatory damages and, in some cases, punitive damages.

Goldman Sachs Asset Management International (GSAMI) is the defendant in an action filed on July 9, 2012 with the High Court of Justice in London by certain entities representing Vervoer, a Dutch pension fund, alleging that GSAMI was negligent in performing its duties as investment manager in connection with the allocation of the plaintiffs' funds among asset managers in accordance with asset allocations provided by plaintiffs and that GSAMI breached its contractual and common law duties to the plaintiffs. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that GSAMI caused their assets to be invested in unsuitable products for an extended period, thereby causing losses, and caused them to be under-exposed for a period of time to certain other investments that performed well, thereby resulting in foregone potential gains. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages up to €209 million.

Financial Advisory Services. Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are from time to time parties to various civil litigation and arbitration proceedings and other disputes with clients and third parties relating to the firm’s financial advisory activities. These claims generally seek, among other things, compensatory damages and, in some cases, punitive damages, and in certain cases allege that the firm did not appropriately disclose or deal with conflicts of interest.

Credit Derivatives Antitrust Matters. The European Commission announced in April 2011 that it was initiating proceedings to investigate further numerous financial services companies, including Group Inc., in connection with the supply of data related to credit default swaps and in connection with profit sharing and fee arrangements for clearing of credit default swaps, including potential anti-competitive practices. On July 1, 2013, the European Commission issued to those financial services companies a Statement of Objections alleging that they colluded to limit competition in the trading of exchange-traded unfunded credit derivatives and exchange trading of credit default swaps more generally, and setting out its process for determining fines and other remedies. Group Inc.'s current understanding is that the proceedings related to profit sharing and fee arrangements for clearing of credit default swaps have been suspended indefinitely. The firm has received civil investigative demands from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for information on similar matters. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with the investigations and reviews.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the numerous defendants in putative antitrust class actions relating to credit derivatives, filed beginning in May 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to forestall the development of alternatives to over-the-counter trading of credit derivatives and maintain inflated bid-ask spreads for credit derivatives trading. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On January 31, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

Libya-Related Litigation. GSI is the defendant in an action filed on January 21, 2014 with the High Court of Justice in London by the Libyan Investment Authority, relating to nine derivative transactions between the plaintiff and GSI and seeking, among other things, rescission of the transactions and unspecified equitable compensation and damages exceeding $1 billion.

European Commission Price-Fixing Matter. On July 5, 2011, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections to Group Inc. raising allegations of an industry-wide conspiracy to fix prices for power cables, including by an Italian cable company in which certain Goldman Sachs-affiliated investment funds held ownership interests from 2005 to 2009. The Statement of Objections proposes to hold Group Inc. jointly and severally liable for some or all of any fine levied against the cable company under the concept of parental liability under EU competition law.

Municipal Securities Matters. GS&Co. (along with, in some cases, other financial services firms) is named as respondent in a number of FINRA arbitrations filed by municipalities, municipal-owned entities, state-owned agencies or instrumentalities and non-profit entities, based on GS&Co.'s role as underwriter of the claimants' issuances of an aggregate of over $2.4 billion of auction rate securities from 2003 through 2007 and as a broker-dealer with respect to auctions for these securities. The claimants generally allege that GS&Co. failed to disclose that it had a practice of placing cover bids in auctions, and failed to inform the claimant of the deterioration of the auction rate



market beginning in the fall of 2007, and that, as a result, the claimant was forced to engage in a series of expensive refinancing and conversion transactions after the failure of the auction market in February 2008. Certain claimants also allege that GS&Co. advised them to enter into interest rate swaps in connection with their auction rate securities issuances, causing them to incur additional losses. The claims include breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, violations of the Exchange Act and state securities laws, and breach of duties under the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and the NASD. One claimant has also filed a complaint against GS&Co. in federal court asserting the same claims as in the FINRA arbitration.

GS&Co. filed complaints and motions in federal court seeking to enjoin certain of the arbitrations pursuant to the exclusive forum selection clauses in the transaction documents, which have been denied in one case and granted in others, and in each case has been appealed.

Commodities-Related Litigation. Group Inc. and its subsidiaries, GS Power Holdings LLC and Metro International Trade Services LLC, are among the defendants in a number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violation of federal antitrust laws and other federal and state laws in connection with the management of aluminum storage facilities. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages.

Currencies-Related Litigation. GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in several putative antitrust class actions relating to trading in the foreign exchange markets, filed since December 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.
Regulatory Investigations and Reviews and Related Litigation. Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are subject to a number of other investigations and reviews by, and in some cases have received subpoenas and requests for documents and information from, various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations and litigation relating to various matters relating to the firm’s businesses and operations, including:

• the 2008 financial crisis;

• the public offering process;

• the firm’s investment management and financial advisory services;

• conflicts of interest;

• research practices, including research independence and interactions between research analysts and other firm personnel, including investment banking personnel, as well as third parties;

• transactions involving municipal securities, including wall-cross procedures and conflict of interest disclosure with respect to state and municipal clients, the trading and structuring of municipal derivative instruments in connection with municipal offerings, political contribution rules, underwriting of Build America Bonds, municipal advisory services and the possible impact of credit default swap transactions on municipal issuers;

• the sales, trading and clearance of corporate and government securities, currencies, commodities and other financial products and related activities, including compliance with the SEC’s short sale rule, algorithmic and quantitative trading, futures trading, options trading, transaction reporting, technology systems and controls, securities lending practices, trading and clearance of credit derivative instruments, commodities activities and metals storage, private placement practices, allocations of and trading in fixed-income securities, trading activities and communications in connection with the establishment of benchmark rates and compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and

• insider trading, the potential misuse of material nonpublic information regarding private company and governmental developments and the effectiveness of the firm’s insider trading controls and information barriers.

Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such regulatory investigations and reviews.



## Note 28.

## Employee Benefit Plans

The firm sponsors various pension plans and certain other postretirement benefit plans, primarily healthcare and life insurance. The firm also provides certain benefits to former or inactive employees prior to retirement.

## Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Postretirement Plans

Employees of certain non-U.S. subsidiaries participate in various defined benefit pension plans. These plans generally provide benefits based on years of credited service and a percentage of the employee’s eligible compensation. The firm maintains a defined benefit pension plan for certain U.K. employees. As of April 2008, the U.K. defined benefit plan was closed to new participants, but continues to accrue benefits for existing participants. These plans do not have a material impact on the firm’s consolidated results of operations.

The firm also maintains a defined benefit pension plan for substantially all U.S. employees hired prior to November 1, 2003. As of November 2004, this plan was closed to new participants and frozen such that existing participants would not accrue any additional benefits. In addition, the firm maintains unfunded postretirement benefit plans that provide medical and life insurance for eligible retirees and their dependents covered under these programs. These plans do not have a material impact on the firm’s consolidated results of operations.

The firm recognizes the funded status of its defined benefit pension and postretirement plans, measured as the difference between the fair value of the plan assets and the benefit obligation, in the consolidated statements of financial condition. As of December 2013, “Other assets” and “Other liabilities and accrued expenses” included $179 million (related to overfunded pension plans) and $482 million, respectively, related to these plans. As of December 2012, “Other assets” and “Other liabilities and accrued expenses” included $225 million (related to overfunded pension plans) and $645 million, respectively, related to these plans.

## Defined Contribution Plans

The firm contributes to employer-sponsored U.S. and non-U.S. defined contribution plans. The firm’s contribution to these plans was $219 million for 2013, $221 million for 2012 and $225 million for 2011.

## Note 29.

## Employee Incentive Plans

The cost of employee services received in exchange for a share-based award is generally measured based on the grant-date fair value of the award. Share-based awards that do not require future service (i.e., vested awards, including awards granted to retirement-eligible employees) are expensed immediately. Share-based awards that require future service are amortized over the relevant service period. Expected forfeitures are included in determining share-based employee compensation expense.

The firm pays cash dividend equivalents on outstanding RSUs. Dividend equivalents paid on RSUs are generally charged to retained earnings. Dividend equivalents paid on RSUs expected to be forfeited are included in compensation expense. The firm accounts for the tax benefit related to dividend equivalents paid on RSUs as an increase to additional paid-in capital.

The firm generally issues new shares of common stock upon delivery of share-based awards. In certain cases, primarily related to conflicted employment (as outlined in the applicable award agreements), the firm may cash settle share-based compensation awards accounted for as equity instruments. For these awards, whose terms allow for cash settlement, additional paid-in capital is adjusted to the extent of the difference between the value of the award at the time of cash settlement and the grant-date value of the award.

## Stock Incentive Plan

The firm sponsors a stock incentive plan, The Goldman Sachs Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (2013) (2013 SIP), which provides for grants of incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, dividend equivalent rights, restricted stock, RSUs, and other share-based awards, each of which may be subject to performance conditions. On May 23, 2013, shareholders approved the 2013 SIP. The 2013 SIP replaces The Goldman Sachs Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (SIP) previously in effect, and applies to awards granted on or after the date of approval.



The total number of shares of common stock that may be delivered pursuant to awards granted under the 2013 SIP cannot exceed 60 million shares, subject to adjustment for certain changes in corporate structure as permitted under the 2013 SIP. The 2013 SIP will terminate on the date of the annual meeting of shareholders that occurs in 2016. As of December 2013, 59.3 million shares were available for grant under the 2013 SIP.

## Restricted Stock Units

The firm grants RSUs to employees under the 2013 SIP, which are valued based on the closing price of the underlying shares on the date of grant after taking into account a liquidity discount for any applicable post-vesting transfer restrictions. RSUs generally vest and underlying shares of common stock deliver as outlined in the applicable RSU agreements. Employee RSU agreements generally provide that vesting is accelerated in certain circumstances, such as on retirement, death, disability and conflicted employment. Delivery of the underlying shares of common stock is conditioned on the grantees satisfying certain vesting and other requirements outlined in the award agreements. The table below presents the activity related to RSUs.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">Restricted Stock Units Outstanding</td><td colspan="2">Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value of Restricted Stock Units Outstanding</td></tr><tr><td>Future Service Required</td><td>No Future Service Required</td><td>Future Service Required</td><td>No Future Service Required</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding, December 2012</td><td>8,689,521  \( {}^{4} \)</td><td>15,390,351</td><td>11,106.07</td><td>12,199.99</td></tr><tr><td>Granted  \( {}^{1,2} \)</td><td>6,230,961</td><td>11,226,808</td><td>125.49</td><td>120.98</td></tr><tr><td>Forfeited</td><td>(785,926)</td><td>(152,194)</td><td>120.54</td><td>117.56</td></tr><tr><td>Delivered  \( {}^{3} \)</td><td>—</td><td>(11,369,831)</td><td>—</td><td>129.01</td></tr><tr><td>Vested  \( {}^{2,4} \)</td><td>(5,907,687)</td><td>5,907,687</td><td>121.45</td><td>121.45</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding, December 2013</td><td>8,226,869  \( {}^{4} \)</td><td>21,002,821</td><td>118.91</td><td>117.53</td></tr></table>

1. The weighted average grant-date fair value of RSUs granted during 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $122.59, $84.72 and $141.21, respectively. The fair value of the RSUs granted during 2013, 2012 and 2011 includes a liquidity discount of 13.7%, 21.7% and 12.7%, respectively, to reflect post-vesting transfer restrictions of up to 4 years.

2. The aggregate fair value of awards that vested during 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $2.26 billion, $1.57 billion and $2.40 billion, respectively.

3. Includes RSUs that were cash settled.

4. Includes restricted stock subject to future service requirements as of December 2013 and December 2012 of 4,768 and 276,317 shares, respectively. 271,549 shares of restricted stock vested during 2013.

In the first quarter of 2014, the firm granted to its employees 13.8 million year-end RSUs, of which 4.2 million RSUs require future service as a condition of delivery. These awards are subject to additional conditions as outlined in the award agreements. Generally, shares underlying these awards, net of required withholding tax, deliver over a three-year period but are subject to post-vesting transfer restrictions through January 2019. These grants are not included in the above table.

## Stock Options

Stock options generally vest as outlined in the applicable stock option agreement. No options have been granted since 2010. In general, options expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant date, although they may be subject to earlier termination or cancellation under certain circumstances in accordance with the terms of the applicable stock option agreement and the SIP in effect at the time of grant.



The table below presents the activity related to stock options.

<table><tr><td></td><td>Options Outstanding</td><td>Weighted Average Exercise Price</td><td>Aggregate Intrinsic Value (in millions)</td><td>Weighted Average Remaining Life (years)</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding, December 2012</td><td>43,217,111</td><td>$ 99.51</td><td>$1,672</td><td>5.55</td></tr><tr><td>Exercised</td><td>(579,066)</td><td>112.43</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forfeited</td><td>(71,865)</td><td>78.78</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Expired</td><td>(939)</td><td>96.08</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding, December 2013</td><td>42,565,241</td><td>99.37</td><td>3,465</td><td>4.60</td></tr><tr><td>Exercisable, December 2013</td><td>42,565,241</td><td>99.37</td><td>3,465</td><td>4.60</td></tr></table>

The total intrinsic value of options exercised during 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $26 million, $151 million and $143 million, respectively. The table below presents options outstanding.

<table><tr><td>Exercise Price</td><td>Options Outstanding</td><td>Weighted Average Exercise Price</td><td>Weighted Average Remaining Life (years)</td></tr><tr><td>$ 75.00 - $ 89.99</td><td>34,002,081</td><td>$ 78.78</td><td>5.00</td></tr><tr><td>90.00 - 119.99</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>120.00 - 134.99</td><td>2,527,036</td><td>131.64</td><td>1.92</td></tr><tr><td>135.00 - 149.99</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>150.00 - 164.99</td><td>55,000</td><td>154.16</td><td>0.17</td></tr><tr><td>165.00 - 194.99</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>195.00 - 209.99</td><td>5,981,124</td><td>202.27</td><td>3.48</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding, December 2013</td><td>42,565,241</td><td>99.37</td><td>4.60</td></tr></table>

As of December 2013, there was $475 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested share-based compensation arrangements. This cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.54 years.

The table below presents the share-based compensation and the related excess tax benefit/(provision).

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Share-based compensation</td><td>$2,039</td><td>$1,338</td><td>$2,843</td></tr><tr><td>Excess net tax benefit related to options exercised</td><td>3</td><td>53</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Excess net tax benefit/(provision) related to share-based awards  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>94</td><td>(11)</td><td>138</td></tr></table>

1. Represents the net tax benefit/(provision) recognized in additional paid-in capital on stock options exercised and the delivery of common stock underlying share-based awards.



## Note 30.

## Parent Company

Group Inc. — Condensed Statements of Earnings

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Revenues</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dividends from bank subsidiaries</td><td>$2,000</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 1,000</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends from nonbank subsidiaries</td><td>4,176</td><td>3,622</td><td>4,967</td></tr><tr><td>Undistributed earnings of subsidiaries</td><td>1,086</td><td>3,682</td><td>481</td></tr><tr><td>Other revenues</td><td>2,209</td><td>1,567</td><td>(3,381)</td></tr><tr><td>Total non-interest revenues</td><td>9,471</td><td>8,871</td><td>3,067</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income</td><td>4,048</td><td>4,751</td><td>4,547</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense</td><td>4,161</td><td>4,287</td><td>3,917</td></tr><tr><td>Net interest income/(expense)</td><td>(113)</td><td>464</td><td>630</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues, including net interest income/(expense)</td><td>9,358</td><td>9,335</td><td>3,697</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Compensation and benefits</td><td>403</td><td>452</td><td>300</td></tr><tr><td>Other expenses</td><td>424</td><td>448</td><td>252</td></tr><tr><td>Total operating expenses</td><td>827</td><td>900</td><td>552</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>8,531</td><td>8,435</td><td>3,145</td></tr><tr><td>Provision/(benefit) for taxes</td><td>491</td><td>960</td><td>(1,297)</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>8,040</td><td>7,475</td><td>4,442</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock dividends</td><td>314</td><td>183</td><td>1,932</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings applicable to common shareholders</td><td>$7,726</td><td>$ 7,292</td><td>$ 2,510</td></tr></table>

Group Inc. — Condensed Statements of Financial Condition

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents</td><td>$ 17</td><td>$ 14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans to and receivables from subsidiaries</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bank subsidiaries</td><td>3,453</td><td>4,103</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nonbank subsidiaries 1</td><td>171,566</td><td>174,609</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Investments in subsidiaries and other affiliates</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bank subsidiaries</td><td>20,041</td><td>20,671</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nonbank subsidiaries and other affiliates</td><td>53,353</td><td>52,646</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>16,065</td><td>19,132</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other assets</td><td>7,575</td><td>4,782</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$272,070</td><td>$275,957</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities and shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Payables to subsidiaries</td><td>$ 489</td><td>$ 657</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value</td><td>421</td><td>301</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With third parties 2</td><td>30,611</td><td>29,898</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With subsidiaries</td><td>4,289</td><td>4,253</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With third parties 3</td><td>153,576</td><td>158,761</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With subsidiaries 4</td><td>1,587</td><td>3,574</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other liabilities and accrued expenses</td><td>2,630</td><td>2,797</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities</td><td>193,603</td><td>200,241</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commitments, contingencies and guarantees</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock</td><td>7,200</td><td>6,200</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Common stock</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Restricted stock units and employee stock options</td><td>3,839</td><td>3,298</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Additional paid-in capital</td><td>48,998</td><td>48,030</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retained earnings</td><td>71,961</td><td>65,223</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated other comprehensive loss</td><td>(524)</td><td>(193)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stock held in treasury, at cost</td><td>(53,015)</td><td>(46,850)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>78,467</td><td>75,716</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities and shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$272,070</td><td>$275,957</td><td></td></tr></table>

Group Inc. — Condensed Statements of Cash Flows

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flows from operating activities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>$ 8,040</td><td>$ 7,475</td><td>$ 4,442</td></tr><tr><td>Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash provided by operating activities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Undistributed earnings of subsidiaries</td><td>(1,086)</td><td>(3,682)</td><td>(481)</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>15</td><td>15</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred income taxes</td><td>1,398</td><td>(1,258)</td><td>809</td></tr><tr><td>Share-based compensation</td><td>194</td><td>81</td><td>244</td></tr><tr><td>Changes in operating assets and liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>(3,235)</td><td>2,197</td><td>7,387</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value</td><td>183</td><td>(3)</td><td>(536)</td></tr><tr><td>Other, net</td><td>586</td><td>1,888</td><td>(2,408)</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by operating activities</td><td>6,095</td><td>6,713</td><td>9,471</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td colspan="4">Cash flows from investing activities</td></tr><tr><td>Purchase of property, leasehold improvements and equipment</td><td>(3)</td><td>(12)</td><td>(42)</td></tr><tr><td>Repayments/(issuances) of short-term loans by/(to) subsidiaries, net</td><td>(5,153)</td><td>6,584</td><td>20,319</td></tr><tr><td>Issuance of term loans to subsidiaries</td><td>(2,174)</td><td>(17,414)</td><td>(42,902)</td></tr><tr><td>Repayments of term loans by subsidiaries</td><td>7,063</td><td>18,715</td><td>21,850</td></tr><tr><td>Capital distributions from/(contributions to) subsidiaries, net</td><td>655</td><td>(298)</td><td>4,642</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by/(used for) investing activities</td><td>388</td><td>7,575</td><td>3,867</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td colspan="4">Cash flows from financing activities</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured short-term borrowings, net</td><td>1,296</td><td>(2,647)</td><td>(727)</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from issuance of long-term borrowings</td><td>28,458</td><td>26,160</td><td>27,251</td></tr><tr><td>Repayment of long-term borrowings, including the current portion</td><td>(29,910)</td><td>(35,608)</td><td>(27,865)</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock repurchased</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>(3,857)</td></tr><tr><td>Common stock repurchased</td><td>(6,175)</td><td>(4,640)</td><td>(6,048)</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends and dividend equivalents paid on common stock, preferred stock and restricted stock units</td><td>(1,302)</td><td>(1,086)</td><td>(2,771)</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from issuance of preferred stock, net of issuance costs</td><td>991</td><td>3,087</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from issuance of common stock, including stock option exercises</td><td>65</td><td>317</td><td>368</td></tr><tr><td>Excess tax benefit related to share-based compensation</td><td>98</td><td>130</td><td>358</td></tr><tr><td>Cash settlement of share-based compensation</td><td>(1)</td><td>(1)</td><td>(40)</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash used for financing activities</td><td>(6,480)</td><td>(14,288)</td><td>(13,331)</td></tr><tr><td>Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents</td><td>3</td><td>—</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year</td><td>14</td><td>14</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and cash equivalents, end of year</td><td>$ 17</td><td>$ 14</td><td>$ 14</td></tr></table>

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES:

Cash payments for third-party interest, net of capitalized interest, were $2.78 billion, $5.11 billion and $3.83 billion for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Cash payments for income taxes, net of refunds, were $3.21 billion, $1.59 billion and $1.39 billion for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

During 2011, $103 million of common stock was issued in connection with the acquisition of GS Australia.

1. Primarily includes overnight loans, the proceeds of which can be used to satisfy the short-term obligations of Group Inc.

2. Includes $5.83 billion and $4.91 billion at fair value for 2013 and 2012, respectively.

3. Includes $8.67 billion and $8.19 billion at fair value for 2013 and 2012, respectively.

4. Unsecured long-term borrowings with subsidiaries by maturity date are $213 million in 2015, $136 million in 2016, $150 million in 2017, $71 million in 2018, and $1.02 billion in 2019-thereafter.



## Quarterly Results (unaudited)

The following represents the firm’s unaudited quarterly results for 2013 and 2012. These quarterly results were prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and reflect all adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair statement of the results. These adjustments are of a normal, recurring nature.

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions, except per share data</td><td colspan="4">Three Months Ended</td></tr><tr><td>December 2013</td><td>September 2013</td><td>June 2013</td><td>March 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Non-interest revenues</td><td>$7,981</td><td>$5,882</td><td>$7,786</td><td>$ 9,165</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income</td><td>2,391</td><td>2,398</td><td>2,663</td><td>2,608</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense</td><td>1,590</td><td>1,558</td><td>1,837</td><td>1,683</td></tr><tr><td>Net interest income</td><td>801</td><td>840</td><td>826</td><td>925</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues, including net interest income</td><td>8,782</td><td>6,722</td><td>8,612</td><td>10,090</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses 1</td><td>5,230</td><td>4,555</td><td>5,967</td><td>6,717</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>3,552</td><td>2,167</td><td>2,645</td><td>3,373</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for taxes</td><td>1,220</td><td>650</td><td>714</td><td>1,113</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>2,332</td><td>1,517</td><td>1,931</td><td>2,260</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock dividends</td><td>84</td><td>88</td><td>70</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings applicable to common shareholders</td><td>$2,248</td><td>$1,429</td><td>$1,861</td><td>$ 2,188</td></tr><tr><td>Earnings per common share</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basic</td><td>$ 4.80</td><td>$ 3.07</td><td>$ 3.92</td><td>$ 4.53</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted</td><td>4.60</td><td>2.88</td><td>3.70</td><td>4.29</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends declared per common share</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.50</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions, except per share data</td><td colspan="4">Three Months Ended</td></tr><tr><td>December 2012</td><td>September 2012</td><td>June 2012</td><td>March 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Non-interest revenues</td><td>$8,263</td><td>$7,515</td><td>$5,537</td><td>$ 8,968</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income</td><td>2,864</td><td>2,629</td><td>3,055</td><td>2,833</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense</td><td>1,891</td><td>1,793</td><td>1,965</td><td>1,852</td></tr><tr><td>Net interest income</td><td>973</td><td>836</td><td>1,090</td><td>981</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues, including net interest income</td><td>9,236</td><td>8,351</td><td>6,627</td><td>9,949</td></tr><tr><td>Operating expenses 1</td><td>4,923</td><td>6,053</td><td>5,212</td><td>6,768</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>4,313</td><td>2,298</td><td>1,415</td><td>3,181</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for taxes</td><td>1,421</td><td>786</td><td>453</td><td>1,072</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings</td><td>2,892</td><td>1,512</td><td>962</td><td>2,109</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock dividends</td><td>59</td><td>54</td><td>35</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings applicable to common shareholders</td><td>$2,833</td><td>$1,458</td><td>$ 927</td><td>$ 2,074</td></tr><tr><td>Earnings per common share</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basic</td><td>$ 5.87</td><td>$ 2.95</td><td>$ 1.83</td><td>$ 4.05</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted</td><td>5.60</td><td>2.85</td><td>1.78</td><td>3.92</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends declared per common share</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.35</td></tr></table>

1. The timing and magnitude of changes in the firm’s discretionary compensation accruals can have a significant effect on results in a given quarter.



## Common Stock Price Range

The table below presents the high and low sales prices per share of the firm’s common stock.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="6">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2013</td><td colspan="2">2012</td><td colspan="2">2011</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>First quarter</td><td>$159.00</td><td>$129.62</td><td>$128.72</td><td>$ 92.42</td><td>$175.34</td><td>$153.26</td></tr><tr><td>Second quarter</td><td>168.20</td><td>137.29</td><td>125.54</td><td>90.43</td><td>164.40</td><td>128.30</td></tr><tr><td>Third quarter</td><td>170.00</td><td>149.28</td><td>122.60</td><td>91.15</td><td>139.25</td><td>91.40</td></tr><tr><td>Fourth quarter</td><td>177.44</td><td>152.83</td><td>129.72</td><td>113.84</td><td>118.07</td><td>84.27</td></tr></table>

As of February 14, 2014, there were 11,661 holders of record of the firm’s common stock.
On February 14, 2014, the last reported sales price for the firm’s common stock on the New York Stock Exchange was $163.72 per share.



## Common Stock Performance

The following graph compares the performance of an investment in the firm’s common stock from December 26, 2008 (the last trading day before the firm’s 2009 fiscal year) through December 31, 2013, with the S&P 500 Index and the S&P 500 Financials Index. The graph assumes $100 was invested on December 26, 2008 in each of the firm’s common stock, the S&P 500 Index and the S&P 500 Financials Index, and the dividends were reinvested on the date of payment without payment of any commissions. The performance shown in the graph represents past performance and should not be considered an indication of future performance.



The table below shows the cumulative total returns in dollars of the firm’s common stock, the S&P 500 Index and the S&P 500 Financials Index for Goldman Sachs’ last five fiscal year ends, assuming $100 was invested on December 26, 2008 in each of the firm’s common stock, the S&P 500 Index and the S&P 500 Financials Index, and the dividends were reinvested on the date of payment without payment of any commissions. The performance shown in the table represents past performance and should not be considered an indication of future performance.

<table><tr><td></td><td>12/26/08</td><td>12/31/09</td><td>12/31/10</td><td>12/31/11</td><td>12/31/12</td><td>12/31/13</td></tr><tr><td>The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.</td><td>100.00</td><td>224.98</td><td>226.19</td><td>123.05</td><td>176.42</td><td>248.36</td></tr><tr><td>S&amp;P 500 Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>130.93</td><td>150.65</td><td>153.83</td><td>178.42</td><td>236.20</td></tr><tr><td>S&amp;P 500 Financials Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>124.38</td><td>139.47</td><td>115.67</td><td>148.92</td><td>201.92</td></tr></table>



## Selected Financial Data

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="5">For the Year Ended or as of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td>Income statement data (in millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-interest revenues</td><td>$ 30,814</td><td>$ 30,283</td><td>$ 23,619</td><td>$ 33,658</td><td>$ 37,766</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income</td><td>10,060</td><td>11,381</td><td>13,174</td><td>12,309</td><td>13,907</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense</td><td>6,668</td><td>7,501</td><td>7,982</td><td>6,806</td><td>6,500</td></tr><tr><td>Net interest income</td><td>3,392</td><td>3,880</td><td>5,192</td><td>5,503</td><td>7,407</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues, including net interest income</td><td>34,206</td><td>34,163</td><td>28,811</td><td>39,161</td><td>45,173</td></tr><tr><td>Compensation and benefits</td><td>12,613</td><td>12,944</td><td>12,223</td><td>15,376</td><td>16,193</td></tr><tr><td>U.K. bank payroll tax</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>465</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Non-compensation expenses</td><td>9,856</td><td>10,012</td><td>10,419</td><td>10,428</td><td>9,151</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-tax earnings</td><td>$ 11,737</td><td>$ 11,207</td><td>$ 6,169</td><td>$ 12,892</td><td>$ 19,829</td></tr><tr><td>Balance sheet data (in millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$911,507</td><td>$938,555</td><td>$923,225</td><td>$911,332</td><td>$848,942</td></tr><tr><td>Other secured financings (long-term)</td><td>7,524</td><td>8,965</td><td>8,179</td><td>13,848</td><td>11,203</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured long-term borrowings</td><td>160,965</td><td>167,305</td><td>173,545</td><td>174,399</td><td>185,085</td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities</td><td>833,040</td><td>862,839</td><td>852,846</td><td>833,976</td><td>778,228</td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>78,467</td><td>75,716</td><td>70,379</td><td>77,356</td><td>70,714</td></tr><tr><td>Common share data (in millions, except per share amounts)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Earnings per common share</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basic</td><td>$ 16.34</td><td>$ 14.63</td><td>$ 4.71</td><td>$ 14.15</td><td>$ 23.74</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted</td><td>15.46</td><td>14.13</td><td>4.51</td><td>13.18</td><td>22.13</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends declared per common share</td><td>2.05</td><td>1.77</td><td>1.40</td><td>1.40</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>Book value per common share 1</td><td>152.48</td><td>144.67</td><td>130.31</td><td>128.72</td><td>117.48</td></tr><tr><td>Average common shares outstanding</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basic</td><td>471.3</td><td>496.2</td><td>524.6</td><td>542.0</td><td>512.3</td></tr><tr><td>Diluted</td><td>499.6</td><td>516.1</td><td>556.9</td><td>585.3</td><td>550.9</td></tr><tr><td>Selected data (unaudited)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total staff</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Americas</td><td>16,600</td><td>16,400</td><td>17,200</td><td>19,900</td><td>18,900</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Americas</td><td>16,300</td><td>16,000</td><td>16,100</td><td>15,800</td><td>13,600</td></tr><tr><td>Total staff</td><td>32,900</td><td>32,400</td><td>33,300</td><td>35,700</td><td>32,500</td></tr><tr><td>Assets under supervision (in billions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Asset class</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Alternative investments</td><td>$ 142</td><td>$ 151</td><td>$ 148</td><td>$ 150</td><td>$ 148</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>208</td><td>153</td><td>147</td><td>162</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>446</td><td>411</td><td>353</td><td>346</td><td>328</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term assets under supervision</td><td>796</td><td>715</td><td>648</td><td>658</td><td>636</td></tr><tr><td>Liquidity products</td><td>246</td><td>250</td><td>247</td><td>259</td><td>319</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets under supervision</td><td>$ 1,042</td><td>$ 965</td><td>$ 895</td><td>$ 917</td><td>$ 955</td></tr></table>

1. Book value per common share is based on common shares outstanding, including RSUs granted to employees with no future service requirements, of 467.4 million, 480.5 million, 516.3 million, 546.9 million and 542.7 million as of December 2013, December 2012, December 2011, December 2010 and December 2009, respectively.



## Statistical Disclosures

## Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity

The table below presents a summary of consolidated average balances and interest rates.

For the Year Ended December

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions, except rates</td><td colspan="3">2013</td><td colspan="3">2012</td><td colspan="3">2011</td></tr><tr><td>Average balance</td><td>Interest</td><td>Average rate</td><td>Average balance</td><td>Interest</td><td>Average rate</td><td>Average balance</td><td>Interest</td><td>Interest rate</td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits with banks</td><td>$ 61,921</td><td>$ 186</td><td>0.30%</td><td>$ 52,500</td><td>$ 156</td><td>0.30%</td><td>$ 38,039</td><td>$ 125</td><td>0.33%</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>56,848</td><td>167</td><td>0.29</td><td>49,123</td><td>132</td><td>0.27</td><td>32,770</td><td>95</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>5,073</td><td>19</td><td>0.37</td><td>3,377</td><td>24</td><td>0.71</td><td>5,269</td><td>30</td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed, securities purchased under agreements to resell and federal funds sold</td><td>327,748</td><td>43</td><td>0.01</td><td>331,828</td><td>(77)</td><td>(0.02)</td><td>351,896</td><td>666</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>198,677</td><td>(289)</td><td>(0.15)</td><td>191,166</td><td>(431)</td><td>(0.23)</td><td>219,240</td><td>(249)</td><td>(0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>129,071</td><td>332</td><td>0.26</td><td>140,662</td><td>354</td><td>0.25</td><td>132,656</td><td>915</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value 1, 2</td><td>292,965</td><td>8,159</td><td>2.78</td><td>310,982</td><td>9,817</td><td>3.16</td><td>287,322</td><td>10,718</td><td>3.73</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>182,158</td><td>5,353</td><td>2.94</td><td>190,490</td><td>6,548</td><td>3.44</td><td>183,920</td><td>7,477</td><td>4.07</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>110,807</td><td>2,806</td><td>2.53</td><td>120,492</td><td>3,269</td><td>2.71</td><td>103,402</td><td>3,241</td><td>3.13</td></tr><tr><td>Other interest-earning assets 3</td><td>149,071</td><td>1,672</td><td>1.12</td><td>136,427</td><td>1,485</td><td>1.09</td><td>143,270</td><td>1,665</td><td>1.16</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>91,495</td><td>1,064</td><td>1.16</td><td>90,071</td><td>974</td><td>1.08</td><td>99,042</td><td>915</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>57,576</td><td>608</td><td>1.06</td><td>46,356</td><td>511</td><td>1.10</td><td>44,228</td><td>750</td><td>1.70</td></tr><tr><td>Total interest-earning assets</td><td>831,705</td><td>10,060</td><td>1.21</td><td>831,737</td><td>11,381</td><td>1.37</td><td>820,527</td><td>13,174</td><td>1.61</td></tr><tr><td>Cash and due from banks</td><td>6,212</td><td></td><td></td><td>7,357</td><td></td><td></td><td>4,987</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other non-interest-earning assets 2</td><td>106,095</td><td></td><td></td><td>107,702</td><td></td><td></td><td>118,901</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$944,012</td><td></td><td></td><td>$946,796</td><td></td><td></td><td>$944,415</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest-bearing deposits</td><td>$ 69,707</td><td>$ 387</td><td>0.56%</td><td>$ 56,399</td><td>$ 399</td><td>0.71%</td><td>$ 40,266</td><td>$ 280</td><td>0.70%</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>60,824</td><td>352</td><td>0.58</td><td>48,668</td><td>362</td><td>0.74</td><td>33,234</td><td>243</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>8,883</td><td>35</td><td>0.39</td><td>7,731</td><td>37</td><td>0.48</td><td>7,032</td><td>37</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>Securities loaned and securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>178,686</td><td>576</td><td>0.32</td><td>177,550</td><td>822</td><td>0.46</td><td>171,753</td><td>905</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>114,884</td><td>242</td><td>0.21</td><td>121,145</td><td>380</td><td>0.31</td><td>110,235</td><td>280</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>63,802</td><td>334</td><td>0.52</td><td>56,405</td><td>442</td><td>0.78</td><td>61,518</td><td>625</td><td>1.02</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value 1, 2</td><td>92,913</td><td>2,054</td><td>2.21</td><td>94,740</td><td>2,438</td><td>2.57</td><td>102,282</td><td>2,464</td><td>2.41</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>37,923</td><td>671</td><td>1.77</td><td>41,436</td><td>852</td><td>2.06</td><td>52,065</td><td>984</td><td>1.89</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>54,990</td><td>1,383</td><td>2.52</td><td>53,304</td><td>1,586</td><td>2.98</td><td>50,217</td><td>1,480</td><td>2.95</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term borrowings 4</td><td>60,926</td><td>394</td><td>0.65</td><td>70,359</td><td>581</td><td>0.83</td><td>78,497</td><td>526</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>40,511</td><td>365</td><td>0.90</td><td>47,614</td><td>479</td><td>1.01</td><td>50,659</td><td>431</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>20,415</td><td>29</td><td>0.14</td><td>22,745</td><td>102</td><td>0.45</td><td>27,838</td><td>95</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term borrowings 4</td><td>174,195</td><td>3,752</td><td>2.15</td><td>176,698</td><td>3,736</td><td>2.11</td><td>186,148</td><td>3,439</td><td>1.85</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>168,106</td><td>3,635</td><td>2.16</td><td>170,163</td><td>3,582</td><td>2.11</td><td>179,004</td><td>3,235</td><td>1.81</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>6,089</td><td>117</td><td>1.92</td><td>6,535</td><td>154</td><td>2.36</td><td>7,144</td><td>204</td><td>2.86</td></tr><tr><td>Other interest-bearing liabilities 5</td><td>203,482</td><td>(495)</td><td>(0.24)</td><td>206,790</td><td>(475)</td><td>(0.23)</td><td>203,940</td><td>368</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>144,888</td><td>(904)</td><td>(0.62)</td><td>150,986</td><td>(988)</td><td>(0.65)</td><td>149,958</td><td>(535)</td><td>(0.36)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>58,594</td><td>409</td><td>0.70</td><td>55,804</td><td>513</td><td>0.92</td><td>53,982</td><td>903</td><td>1.67</td></tr><tr><td>Total interest-bearing liabilities</td><td>779,909</td><td>6,668</td><td>0.85</td><td>782,536</td><td>7,501</td><td>0.96</td><td>782,886</td><td>7,982</td><td>1.02</td></tr><tr><td>Non-interest-bearing deposits</td><td>655</td><td></td><td></td><td>324</td><td></td><td></td><td>140</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other non-interest-bearing liabilities 2</td><td>86,095</td><td></td><td></td><td>91,406</td><td></td><td></td><td>88,681</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities</td><td>866,659</td><td></td><td></td><td>874,266</td><td></td><td></td><td>871,707</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock</td><td>6,892</td><td></td><td></td><td>4,392</td><td></td><td></td><td>3,990</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Common stock</td><td>70,461</td><td></td><td></td><td>68,138</td><td></td><td></td><td>68,718</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>77,353</td><td></td><td></td><td>72,530</td><td></td><td></td><td>72,708</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities and shareholders&#x27; equity</td><td>$944,012</td><td></td><td></td><td>$946,796</td><td></td><td></td><td>$944,415</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate spread</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.36%</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.41%</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.59%</td></tr><tr><td>Net interest income and net yield on interest-earning assets</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.41</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.47</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td></td><td>1,934</td><td>0.37</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.49</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td></td><td>1,458</td><td>0.48</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.43</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities attributable to non-U.S. operations 6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td>36.37%</td><td></td><td></td><td>37.38%</td><td></td><td></td><td>34.80%</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td>27.28</td><td></td><td></td><td>25.88</td><td></td><td></td><td>26.53</td></tr></table>



## Supplemental Financial Information

1. Consists of cash financial instruments, including equity securities and convertible debentures.

2. Derivative instruments and commodities are included in other non-interest-earning assets and other non-interest-bearing liabilities.

3. Primarily consists of cash and securities segregated for regulatory and other purposes and certain receivables from customers and counterparties.

4. Interest rates include the effects of interest rate swaps accounted for as hedges.

5. Primarily consists of certain payables to customers and counterparties.

6. Assets, liabilities and interest are attributed to U.S. and non-U.S. based on the location of the legal entity in which the assets and liabilities are held.



## Changes in Net Interest Income, Volume and Rate Analysis

The table below presents an analysis of the effect on net interest income of volume and rate changes. In this analysis, changes due to volume/rate variance have been allocated to volume.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="7">For the Year Ended</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">December 2013 versus December 2012</td><td colspan="3">December 2012 versus December 2011</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Increase (decrease) due to change in:</td><td colspan="3">Increase (decrease) due to change in:</td></tr><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Volume</td><td>Rate</td><td>Net change</td><td>Volume</td><td>Rate</td><td>Net change</td></tr><tr><td>Interest-earning assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits with banks</td><td>$ 29</td><td>$ 1</td><td>$ 30</td><td>$ 32</td><td>$ (1)</td><td>$ 31</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>23</td><td>12</td><td>35</td><td>45</td><td>(8)</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>6</td><td>(11)</td><td>(5)</td><td>(13)</td><td>7</td><td>(6)</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed, securities purchased under agreements to resell and federal funds sold</td><td>(41)</td><td>161</td><td>120</td><td>83</td><td>(826)</td><td>(743)</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>(11)</td><td>153</td><td>142</td><td>63</td><td>(245)</td><td>(182)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>(30)</td><td>8</td><td>(22)</td><td>20</td><td>(581)</td><td>(561)</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments owned, at fair value</td><td>(490)</td><td>(1,168)</td><td>(1,658)</td><td>689</td><td>(1,590)</td><td>(901)</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>(245)</td><td>(950)</td><td>(1,195)</td><td>225</td><td>(1,154)</td><td>(929)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>(245)</td><td>(218)</td><td>(463)</td><td>464</td><td>(436)</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Other interest-earning assets</td><td>135</td><td>52</td><td>187</td><td>(74)</td><td>(106)</td><td>(180)</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>17</td><td>73</td><td>90</td><td>(97)</td><td>156</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>118</td><td>(21)</td><td>97</td><td>23</td><td>(262)</td><td>(239)</td></tr><tr><td>Change in interest income</td><td>(367)</td><td>(954)</td><td>(1,321)</td><td>730</td><td>(2,523)</td><td>(1,793)</td></tr><tr><td>Interest-bearing liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest-bearing deposits</td><td>$ 75</td><td>$ (87)</td><td>$ (12)</td><td>$ 118</td><td>$ 1</td><td>$ 119</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>70</td><td>(80)</td><td>(10)</td><td>115</td><td>4</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>5</td><td>(7)</td><td>(2)</td><td>3</td><td>(3)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Securities loaned and securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>26</td><td>(272)</td><td>(246)</td><td>(6)</td><td>(77)</td><td>(83)</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>(13)</td><td>(125)</td><td>(138)</td><td>34</td><td>66</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>39</td><td>(147)</td><td>(108)</td><td>(40)</td><td>(143)</td><td>(183)</td></tr><tr><td>Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value</td><td>(20)</td><td>(364)</td><td>(384)</td><td>(127)</td><td>101</td><td>(26)</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>(62)</td><td>(119)</td><td>(181)</td><td>(219)</td><td>87</td><td>(132)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>42</td><td>(245)</td><td>(203)</td><td>92</td><td>14</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term borrowings</td><td>(67)</td><td>(120)</td><td>(187)</td><td>(54)</td><td>109</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>(64)</td><td>(50)</td><td>(114)</td><td>(31)</td><td>79</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>(3)</td><td>(70)</td><td>(73)</td><td>(23)</td><td>30</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term borrowings</td><td>(53)</td><td>69</td><td>16</td><td>(200)</td><td>497</td><td>297</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>(44)</td><td>97</td><td>53</td><td>(186)</td><td>533</td><td>347</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>(9)</td><td>(28)</td><td>(37)</td><td>(14)</td><td>(36)</td><td>(50)</td></tr><tr><td>Other interest-bearing liabilities</td><td>57</td><td>(77)</td><td>(20)</td><td>10</td><td>(853)</td><td>(843)</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>38</td><td>46</td><td>84</td><td>(7)</td><td>(446)</td><td>(453)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.</td><td>19</td><td>(123)</td><td>(104)</td><td>17</td><td>(407)</td><td>(390)</td></tr><tr><td>Change in interest expense</td><td>18</td><td>(851)</td><td>(833)</td><td>(259)</td><td>(222)</td><td>(481)</td></tr><tr><td>Change in net interest income</td><td>(385)</td><td>$ (103)</td><td>$ (488)</td><td>$ 989</td><td>$(2,301)</td><td>$ (1,312)</td></tr></table>



## Available-for-sale Securities Portfolio

The table below presents the fair value of available-for-sale securities as of December 2012. Such assets related to the firm’s reinsurance business, in which the firm sold a majority stake in April 2013. See Note 3 for further information about this sale.

<table><tr><td>in millions</td><td>Amortized Cost</td><td>Gross Unrealized Gains</td><td>Gross Unrealized Losses</td><td>Fair Value</td></tr><tr><td>Available-for-sale securities, December 2012</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper, certificates of deposit, time deposits and other money market instruments</td><td>$ 467</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ 467</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>814</td><td>47</td><td>(5)</td><td>856</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>2</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities</td><td>3,049</td><td>341</td><td>(8)</td><td>3,382</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>3,409</td><td>221</td><td>(5)</td><td>3,625</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>539</td><td>91</td><td>(1)</td><td>629</td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations</td><td>112</td><td>3</td><td>(2)</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td>Total available-for-sale securities</td><td>$8,392</td><td>$703</td><td>$(21)</td><td>$9,074</td></tr></table>

The table below presents the fair value, amortized cost and weighted average yields of available-for-sale securities by contractual maturity as of December 2012. Yields are calculated on a weighted average basis.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="10">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Due in One Year or Less</td><td colspan="2">Due After One Year Through Five Years</td><td colspan="2">Due After Five Years Through Ten Years</td><td colspan="2">Due After Ten Years</td><td colspan="2">Total</td></tr><tr><td>Amount</td><td>Yield</td><td>Amount</td><td>Yield</td><td>Amount</td><td>Yield</td><td>Amount</td><td>Yield</td><td>Amou</td><td>n</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value of available-for-sale securities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper, certificates of deposit, time deposits and other money market instruments</td><td>$467</td><td>—%</td><td>$—</td><td>—%</td><td>$—</td><td>—%</td><td>$—</td><td>—%</td><td>$467</td><td>—%</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. government and federal agency obligations</td><td>57</td><td>—</td><td>267</td><td>1</td><td>88</td><td>2</td><td>444</td><td>4</td><td>856</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S. government and agency obligations</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and other asset-backed loans and securities</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>218</td><td>5</td><td>23</td><td>6</td><td>3,137</td><td>6</td><td>3,382</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>74</td><td>2</td><td>804</td><td>3</td><td>1,567</td><td>4</td><td>1,180</td><td>5</td><td>3,625</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>State and municipal obligations</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>619</td><td>6</td><td>629</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Other debt obligations</td><td>18</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>84</td><td>4</td><td>113</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Total available-for-sale securities</td><td>$620</td><td></td><td>$1,305</td><td></td><td>$1,683</td><td></td><td>$5,466</td><td></td><td>$9,074</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amortized cost of available-for-sale securities</td><td>$617</td><td></td><td>$1,267</td><td></td><td>$1,593</td><td></td><td>$4,915</td><td></td><td>$8,392</td><td></td></tr></table>



## Deposits

The table below presents a summary of the firm’s interest-bearing deposits.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3">in millions</td><td colspan="3">Average Balances</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Savings 1</td><td>$39,411</td><td>$32,235</td><td>$25,916</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>21,413</td><td>16,433</td><td>7,318</td></tr><tr><td>Total U.S. deposits</td><td>60,824</td><td>48,668</td><td>33,234</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Demand</td><td>4,613</td><td>5,318</td><td>5,378</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>4,270</td><td>2,413</td><td>1,654</td></tr><tr><td>Total Non-U.S. deposits</td><td>8,883</td><td>7,731</td><td>7,032</td></tr><tr><td>Total deposits</td><td>$69,707</td><td>$56,399</td><td>$40,266</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="3">Average Interest Rates</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Savings 1</td><td>0.30%</td><td>0.42%</td><td>0.42%</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>1.09</td><td>1.38</td><td>1.84</td></tr><tr><td>Total U.S. deposits</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Demand</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.46</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>Total Non-U.S. deposits</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>Total deposits</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.70</td></tr></table>

1. Amounts are available for withdrawal upon short notice, generally within seven days.

## Ratios

The table below presents selected financial ratios.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings to average assets</td><td>0.9%</td><td>0.8%</td><td>0.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Return on average common shareholders&#x27; equity  \( {}^{1} \)</td><td>11.0</td><td>10.7</td><td>3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Return on average total shareholders&#x27; equity  \( {}^{2} \)</td><td>10.4</td><td>10.3</td><td>6.1</td></tr><tr><td>Total average equity to average assets</td><td>8.2</td><td>7.7</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Dividend payout ratio  \( {}^{3} \)</td><td>13.3</td><td>12.5</td><td>31.0</td></tr></table>

1. Based on net earnings applicable to common shareholders divided by average monthly common shareholders' equity.

2. Based on net earnings divided by average monthly total shareholders' equity.

3. Dividends declared per common share as a percentage of diluted earnings per common share.

## Short-term and Other Borrowed Funds

The table below presents a summary of the firm’s securities loaned and securities sold under agreements to repurchase and short-term borrowings. These borrowings generally mature within one year of the financial statement date and include borrowings that are redeemable at the option of the holder within one year of the financial statement date.

<table><tr><td rowspan="3">\( in millions</td><td colspan="3">Securities Loaned and Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Amounts outstanding at year-end</td><td>$183,527</td><td>$185,572</td><td>$171,684</td></tr><tr><td>Average outstanding during the year</td><td>178,686</td><td>177,550</td><td>171,753</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum month-end outstanding</td><td>196,393</td><td>198,456</td><td>190,453</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average interest rate</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>During the year</td><td>0.32%</td><td>0.46%</td><td>0.53%</td></tr><tr><td>At year-end</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.39</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td colspan="3">Short-Term Borrowings 1, 2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">As of December</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>$ in millions</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Amounts outstanding at year-end</td><td>$ 61,982</td><td>$ 67,349</td><td>$ 78,223</td></tr><tr><td>Average outstanding during the year</td><td>60,926</td><td>70,359</td><td>78,497</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum month-end outstanding</td><td>66,978</td><td>75,280</td><td>87,281</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average interest rate</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>During the year</td><td>0.65%</td><td>0.83%</td><td>0.67%</td></tr><tr><td>At year-end</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.92</td></tr></table>

1. Includes short-term secured financings of $17.29 billion, $23.05 billion and $29.19 billion as of December 2013, December 2012 and December 2011, respectively.

2. The weighted average interest rates for these borrowings include the effect of hedging activities.



## Cross-border Outstandings

Cross-border outstandings are based on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) regulatory guidelines for reporting cross-border information and represent the amounts that the firm may not be able to obtain from a foreign country due to country-specific events, including unfavorable economic and political conditions, economic and social instability, and changes in government policies.

Credit exposure represents the potential for loss due to the default or deterioration in credit quality of a counterparty or an issuer of securities or other instruments the firm holds and is measured based on the potential loss in an event of non-payment by a counterparty. Credit exposure is reduced through the effect of risk mitigants, such as netting agreements with counterparties that permit the firm to offset receivables and payables with such counterparties or obtaining collateral from counterparties. The tables below do not include all the effects of such risk mitigants and do not represent the firm’s credit exposure.

in millions

<table><tr><td colspan="6">in millions</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Banks</td><td>Governments</td><td>Other</td><td>Total cross-border outstandings</td><td>Commitments</td></tr><tr><td>Country</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cayman Islands</td><td>$ 12</td><td>$ 1</td><td>$35,969</td><td>$35,982</td><td>$ 1,671</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>23,026</td><td>123</td><td>11,981</td><td>35,130</td><td>5,086</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>12,427</td><td>2,871</td><td>16,567 \( ^{1} \)</td><td>31,865</td><td>12,060</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>5,148</td><td>4,336</td><td>7,793</td><td>17,277</td><td>4,716</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>7,002</td><td>2,281</td><td>2,491</td><td>11,774</td><td>1,069</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>2,688</td><td>217</td><td>7,321</td><td>10,226</td><td>19,014</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>1,785</td><td>540</td><td>5,786</td><td>8,111</td><td>1,962</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="5">As of December 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Banks</td><td>Governments</td><td>Other</td><td>Total cross-border outstandings</td><td>Commitments</td></tr><tr><td>Country</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cayman Islands</td><td>$ —</td><td>$ —</td><td>$39,283</td><td>$39,283</td><td>$ 1,088</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>6,991</td><td>2,370</td><td>23,161 \( ^{1} \)</td><td>32,522</td><td>18,846</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>16,679</td><td>19</td><td>8,908</td><td>25,606</td><td>9,635</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>4,012</td><td>10,976</td><td>7,912</td><td>22,900</td><td>4,887</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>3,790</td><td>4,237</td><td>1,816</td><td>9,843</td><td>473</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>438</td><td>68</td><td>7,057</td><td>7,563 \( ^{2} \)</td><td>176</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>1,422</td><td>237</td><td>5,874</td><td>7,533</td><td>20,327</td></tr><tr><td>China</td><td>2,564</td><td>1,265</td><td>3,564</td><td>7,393</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>1,383</td><td>3,704</td><td>2,280</td><td>7,367</td><td>865</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>3,706</td><td>230</td><td>3,133</td><td>7,069</td><td>1,305</td></tr></table>

1. Primarily comprised of secured lending transactions with a clearing house which are secured by collateral.

2. Primarily comprised of interests in and receivables from funds domiciled in Ireland, but whose underlying investments are primarily located outside of Ireland, and secured lending transactions.



## Supplemental Financial Information

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">in millions</td><td colspan="5">As of December 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Banks</td><td>Governments</td><td>Other</td><td>Total cross-border outstandings</td><td>Commitments</td></tr><tr><td>Country</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>$ 5,343</td><td>$ 2,859</td><td>$32,349 \(</td><td>$40,551</td><td>$14,256</td></tr><tr><td>Cayman Islands</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>33,742</td><td>33,742</td><td>3,434</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>18,745</td><td>31</td><td>6,457</td><td>25,233</td><td>11,874</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>5,458</td><td>16,089</td><td>3,162</td><td>24,709</td><td>4,010</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>2,111</td><td>3,349</td><td>5,243</td><td>10,703</td><td>26,588</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>6,143</td><td>3,054</td><td>841</td><td>10,038 \( ^{3} \)</td><td>435</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>1,148</td><td>63</td><td>8,801 \( ^{2} \)</td><td>10,012</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>China</td><td>6,722</td><td>38</td><td>2,908</td><td>9,668</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>3,836</td><td>40</td><td>5,112</td><td>8,988</td><td>532</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>676</td><td>1,019</td><td>6,841</td><td>8,536</td><td>1,125</td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>1,597</td><td>470</td><td>5,209</td><td>7,276</td><td>397</td></tr></table>

1. Primarily comprised of secured lending transactions with a clearing house which are secured by collateral.

2. Primarily comprised of interests in and receivables from funds domiciled in Ireland, but whose underlying investments are primarily located outside of Ireland, and secured lending transactions.

3. Primarily comprised of secured lending transactions which are primarily secured by German government obligations.



## Board of Directors

Lloyd C. Blankfein
Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer

Gary D. Cohn
President and Chief
Operating Officer

M. Michele Burns
Center Fellow and Strategic
Advisor at Stanford University
Center on Longevity

Claes Dahlbäck
Senior Advisor to
Investor AB and Foundation
Asset Management

William W. George
Professor of Management Practice
at Harvard Business School

James A. Johnson
Chairman of Johnson Capital
Partners

Lakshmi N. Mittal
Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of ArcelorMittal S.A.

Adebayo O. Ogunlesi
Chairman and Managing Partner of
Global Infrastructure Partners

Peter Oppenheimer
Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of Apple, Inc.

James J. Schiro
Former Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of
Zurich Insurance Group Ltd.

Debora L. Spar
President of Barnard College

Mark E. Tucker
Executive Director, Group
Chief Executive and President of
AIA Group Limited

David A. Viniar
Former Chief Financial Officer of
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

John F.W. Rogers
Secretary to the Board

## Management Committee

Lloyd C. Blankfein
Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer

Gary D. Cohn
President and Chief
Operating Officer

John S. Weinberg
Michael S. Sherwood
Mark Schwartz
Vice Chairmen

Craig W. Broderick  
R. Martin Chavez  
Christopher A. Cole  
Edith W. Cooper  
Michael D. Daffey  
Gordon E. Dyal  
Isabelle Ealet  
Richard A. Friedman  
Justin G. Gmelich  
Richard J. Gnodde  
Ken W. Hitchner  
Eric S. Lane  
Gwen R. Libstag  
Masanori Mochida  
Timothy J. O'Neill  
John F.W. Rogers  
Paul M. Russo  
Pablo J. Salame  
Stephen M. Scherr  
Jeffrey W. Schroeder  
Harvey M. Schwartz  
Sarah E. Smith  
David M. Solomon  
Esta E. Stecher  
Steven H. Strongin  
Gene T. Sykes  
Ashok Varadhan

Gregory K. Palm
General Counsel

Alan M. Cohen
Global Head of Compliance

## Managing Directors

Managing Directors are organized by Managing Director class

Lloyd C. Blankfein
John P. Curtin, Jr.
Mark Schwartz
Richard A. Friedman
Timothy J. O'Neill
Gregory K. Palm
Masanori Mochida
Gene T. Sykes
John S. Weinberg
Sharmin Mossavar-Rahmani
Armen A. Avanessians
Gary D. Cohn
Christopher A. Cole
Michael S. Sherwood*
Esta E. Stecher
Thomas C. Brasco
Peter D. Brundage
Andrew A. Chisholm
Abby Joseph Cohen
E. Gerald Corrigan
Charles P. Eve
Christopher G. French
C. Douglas Fuge
Richard J. Gnodde
Jeffrey B. Goldenberg
Timothy J. Ingrassia
Bruce M. Larson
Gwen R. Libstag
Victor M. Lopez-Balboa
Sanjeev K. Mehra
John P. Shaughnessy
Theodore T. Sotir
W. Thomas York, Jr.*
Jonathan A. Beinner
Steven M. Bunson
Matthew S. Darnall
Alexander C. Dibelius
Karlo J. Duvnjak
Isabelle Ealet
Elizabeth C. Fascitelli
Oliver L. Frankel
Celeste A. Guth
Gregory T. Hoogkamp
William L. Jacob, III
Andrew J. Kaiser
Robert C. King, Jr.
John A. Mahoney
J. William McMahon
Stephen R. Pierce
John J. Rafter
John F.W. Rogers
Michael M. Smith
Haruko Watanuki
Paolo Zannoni
Frances R. Bermanzohn*
Robert A. Berry
Craig W. Broderick
Richard M. Campbell-Breeden
Anthony H. Carpet
Michael J. Carr
Kent A. Clark

Edith W. Cooper \( ^{*} \) 

John S. Daly

Gordon E. Dyal

Michael P. Esposito \( ^{*} \) 

Matthew T. Fremont-Smith

Andrew M. Gordon

Walter H. Haydock

James A. Hudis

David J. Kostin

Paulo C. Leme

Kathy M. Matsui

Geraldine F. McManus

Michael J. Poulter

Paul M. Russo

Sarah E. Smith

Steven H. Strongin

John J. Vaske

David M. Solomon

Karen R. Cook

Gregory A. Agran

Raanan A. Agus

Dean C. Backer

Stuart N. Bernstein

Alison L. Bott

Mary D. Byron

Thomas G. Connolly

James Del Favero

Michele I. Docharty

Thomas M. Dowling

Keith L. Hayes

Daniel E. Holland, III

Michael R. Housden

Paul J. Huchro

Andrew J. Jonas

James M. Karp

Matthew Lavicka

Ronald S. Levin

Richard P. McNeil

Michael R. Miele

Suok J. Noh

David B. Philip

Ellen R. Porges

Katsunori Sago

Pablo J. Salame

Jeffrey W. Schroeder

Harvey M. Schwartz

Donald J. Truesdale

John S. Willian

Andrew F. Wilson*

Paul M. Young*

Jack Levy*

Mark F. Dehnert

Michael H. Siegel

Matthew C. Westerman

Jason H. Ekaireb

Seaborn S. Eastland

Alan J. Brazil

W. Reed Chisholm II

Michael D. Daffey

Joseph P. DiSabato

James H. Donovan



Donald J. Duet

Michael L. Dweck

Todd G. Owens

Helen Paleno

Christoph W. Stanger

Helena Koo

Robin A. Vince

Stefan R. Bollinger

Earl S. Enzer

Archie W. Parnell

Andrea A. Vittorelli

Gregory B. Carey

Christopher H. Eoyang

Alan M. Rapfogel

Theodore T. Wang

Paul R. Aaron

Norman Feit

Sara E. Recktenwald

Elisha Wiesel

Andrew W. Alford

Robert K. Frumkes

Thomas S. Riggs, III

Denise A. Wyllie

Fareed T. Ali

Gary T. Giglio

Marcus Schenck

Sheila H. Patel

William D. Anderson, Jr.

Michael J. Graziano

Susan J. Scher

Mark E. Agne

Rachel Ascher

Peter Gross

Stephen M. Scherr

Gareth W. Bater

Dolores S. Bamford

Douglas C. Heidt

Abraham Shua

Sally A. Boyle \( ^{*} \) 

Benjamin C. Barber

Kenneth W. Hitchner

John E. Waldron

Philippe L. Camu

Slim C. Bentami

Philip Holzer

Michael W. Warren

John W. Cembrook

Christoph M. Brand

Walter A. Jackson

David D. Wildermuth

William J. Conley, Jr.

Michael J. Brandmeyer

Roy R. Joseph

Kevin L. Willens

Thomas W. Cornacchia \( ^{*} \) 

Andrew I. Braun

James C. Katzman

Edward R. Wilkinson

David H. Dase

Anne F. Brennan

Shigeki Kiritani

Timothy H. Moe

François-Xavier de Mallmann

Tony M. Briney

Todd W. Leland

Charles Baillie

Elisabeth Fontenelli \( ^{*} \) 

Nancy D. Browne

Bonnie S. Litt

Stacy Bash-Polley \( ^{*} \) 

Elizabeth J. Ford

Elizabeth M. Burban

John V. Mallory

Susan M. Benz

Colleen A. Foster

Anthony Cammarata, Jr.

John J. McCabe

Johannes M. Boomars

Linda M. Fox

David C. Carlebach

James A. McNamara

J. Theodore Borter

Kieu L. Frisby

Donald J. Casturo

Fergal J. O'Driscoll

Timothy J. Bridges

Timur F. Galen

James R. Charnley

Nigel M. O'Sullivan

Colin Coleman

Rachel C. Golder

Jeffrey F. Daly

James R. Paradise \( ^{*} \) 

Kenneth W. Coquillette

Kevin J. Guidotti

Debora J. Daskivich

Philip A. Raper

Michael J. Crinieri

Elizabeth M. Hammack

Michael C. Dawley

Michael J. Richman

Craig W. Crossman

Kenneth L. Hirsch

Ahmad B. Deek

Elizabeth E. Robinson \( ^{*} \) 

Jeffrey R. Currie

James P. Kenney

Aidan P. Dunn

Thomas M. Schwartz

Bradley S. DeFoor

Steven E. Kent

William J. Elliott

Lisa M. Shalett

Alvaro del Castano

Yasuro K. Koizumi

Mark Evans

Ralph J. Silva

Robert K. Ehudin

Robert A. Koort

William J. Fallon

Johannes R. Sulzberger

Kathy G. Elsesser

Brian J. Lahey

Matthew J. Fassler

Eiji Ueda

Peter C. Enns

Hugh J. Lawson

Wolfgang Fink

Ashok Varadhan

Katherine B. Enquist

Ronald Lee

Dino Fusco

Martin M. Werner

James E. Esposito

Deborah R. Leone

James R. Garman

Wassim G. Younan

Douglas L. Feagin

Thomas R. Lynch

Sarah J. Gray

Donald W. Himpele

Timothy T. Furey

Peter J. Lyon

Jan Hatzius

Alison J. Mass \( ^{*} \) 

Gonzalo R. Garcia

James P. McCarthy

Jens D. Hofmann

Ben I. Adler

Justin G. Gmelich

Dermot W. McDonogh

Laura A. Holleman

Philip S. Armstrong

Michael J. Grimaldi

Arjun N. Murti

Dane E. Holmes

William J. Bannon

Simon N. Holden

Craig J. Nosse1

Robyn A. Huffman

Scott B. Barringer

Shin Horie

Anthony J. Noto

Leonid Ioffe

Steven M. Barry

Adrian M. Jones

Peter C. Oppenheimer

Christopher M. Keogh

Jordan M. Bender

Alan S. Kava

Gilberto Pozzi

Peter Kimpel

Valentino D. Carlotti

Andreas Koornlein

Louisa G. Ritter

Eugene H. Leouzon

Linda S. Daines

J. Christopher A. Kojima \( ^{*} \) 

Lisa A. Rotenberg

Iain Lindsay

Stephen Davies

Takahiro Komatsu

Pamela S. Ryan

Hugo P. MacNeill

Daniel L. Dees

Rudolf N. Lang

Clare R. Scherrer

Kenneth M. Ebers, III

Brian J. Lee

Vivian C. Schneck-Last

Avinash Mehrotra

David A. Fishman

George C. Lee, II

John A. Sebastian

Jonathan M. Meltzer

Orit Freedman Weissman

Tim Leissner \( ^{*} \) 

Peter A. Seccia

Christopher Milner

Naosuke Fujita

Brian T. Levine

Peter D. Selman

Christina P. Minnis

Enrico S. Gaglioti

Paula B. Madoff

Heather K. Shemilt

Ted K. Neely, II

Mary L. Harmon

Puneet Malhi

Gavin Simms

Michael L. November

Edward A. Hazel

Bruce H. Mendelsohn

Alec P. Stais

Konstantinos N. Pantazopoulos \( ^{*} \) 

Sean C. Hoover

Michael J. Millette

Laurence Stein

Kenneth L. Josselyn

Milton R. Millman

Thomas D. Teles

Kenneth A. Pontarelli \( ^{*} \) 

Eric S. Lane

Philip J. Moffitt

Frederick Towfigh

Gregg R. Lemkau \( ^{*} \) 

Simon P. Morris

Philip J. Venables

Lora J. Robertson

Ryan D. Limaye

Thomas C. Morrow \( ^{*} \) 

Alejandro Vollbrechthausen

J. Timothy Romer

Robert A. Mass

Marc O. Nachmann

Bileen M. Dillon

John R. Sawtell

J. Ronald Morgan, III

Steven M. Pinkos

Deborah B. Wilkens

Harvey S. Shapiro

Rie Murayama

Richard J. Revell

Shinichi Yokote

Suhail A. Sikhtian

Jeffrey P. Nedelman

Marc A. Rothenberg

Alan M. Cohen

Ying Ying Glenda So

Gavin G. O'Connor

Daniel M. Shefter

Michiel P. Lap

David Z. Solomon



Robert C. Spofford

Joseph J. Struzzier, III

Damian E. Sutcliffe

C. Annette Kelton

John J. Kim

Hideki Kinuhata

Robert J. Sweeney

Michael E. Koester

Pawan Tewari

Geoffrey C. Lee

Paul Walker \( ^{*} \) 

Laurent Lellouche

Dominic A. Wilson

John R. Levene

Steve Windsor

David M. Marcinek

Martin Wiwen-Nilsson

Marvin Markus

Yoshihiko Yano

Thomas F. Matthias

Xing Zhang

F. Scott McDermott

R. Martin Chavez

John J. McGuire, Jr.

Atosa Moini

Sean T. McHugh

Stephen J. O'Flaherty

David R. Mittelbusher

Court E. Golumbic

Bryan P. Mix

Alasdair J. Warren

Junko Mori

Ian Gilday

Takashi Murata

Andy Fisher

Amol S. Naik

Marshall Smith

Nicholas W. Phillips

Charles F. Adams

Farid Pasha

Louis Pilego

Hidehiro Imatsu

Michelle H. Pinggera

Nick S. Advani

M. Louise Pitt

Analisa M. Allen

James F. Radecki

Ichiro Amano

Richard N. Ramsden

Tracey E. Benford

Carl J. Reed

Gaurav Bhandari

Scott A. Romanoff

Marc O. Boheim

Michael J. Rost

V. Bunty Bohra \( ^{*} \) 

David T. Rusoff

Ralane F. Bonn

Ankur A. Sahu

John E. Bowman, III

Guy E. Saidenberg

Oonagh T. Bradley

Julian Salisbury \( ^{*} \) 

Samuel S. Britton

David A. Schwimmer

Torrey J. Browder

Rebecca M. Shaghalian

Derek T. Brown

Julian F. Simon

Samantha R. Brown

Michael L. Simpson

Steve M. Bunkin

Barry Sklar

Charles E. Burrows

Mark R. Sorrell

Shawn P. Byron

John D. Storey

Marguarite A. Carmody

Ram K. Sundaram

Stuart A. Cash

Tatsuya Suzuki

Denis P. Coleman, III

Michael J. Swenson

Richard N. Cormack

Joseph D. Swift

James V. Covello

Teresa Teague

Christian P. de Haaiij

Klaus B. Toft

Olaf Diaz-Pintado

John H. Tribolati

David P. Eisman

Suzette M. Unger

Carl Faker

Leo J. Van Der Linden

Stephan J. Feldgoise

Simone Verri

Patrick J. Fels

Toby C. Watson

Benjamin W. Ferguson

Oliver C. Will

Samuel W. Finkelstein

Andrew E. Wolff \( ^{*} \) 

Peter E. Finn

Jennifer O. Youde

Sean J. Gallagher

Thomas G. Young

Ivan C. Gallegos Rivas

Han Song Zhu

Francesco U. Garzarelli

Steven A. Mayer

Michelle Gill

Michael T. Smith

Jason A. Gottlieb

Thomas G. Fruge

Mark K. Hancock

Clifford D. Schlesinger

Martin Hintze

Krishnamurthy Sudarshan

Todd Hohman

Maziar Minovi

James P. Houghton

Tuan Lam

Christopher E. Hussey

Todd E. Eagle

Etsuko Kanayama

Jess T. Fardella

Robin Rousseau

Adam S. Clayton

Jonathan M. Penkin

Mark R. Etherington

Craig W. Packer

Michael Rimland

Keith Ackerman

Carlos Pertejo

Dojin Kim

Massimo Della Ragione

Iain N. Drayton

Fadi Abuali

David Z. Alter

Vincent L. Amatulli

Ramaz A. Ashurov

Andrew J. Bagley

Susan E. Balogh

Jennifer A. Barbetta

Gerard M. Beatty

Roger S. Begelman

Oliver B. Benkert

Aanish R. Bhavsar

Christopher E. Blume

Shane M. Bolton

William C. Bousquette, Jr.

Janet A. Broeckel

Richard J. Butland

Jon Butler

Joseph A. Camarda

John H. Chartres

Alex S. Chi

Steven N. Cho

Kasper Christoffersen

Gary W. Chropuvka

Jesse H. Cole

Brian M. Coleman

Cyril Cottu

Vijay B. Calus

Kyle R. Czepiel

Manda J. D'Agata

John F. Daly

Michael J. Daum

Nicola A. Davies

Craig M. Delizia

Stacey Ann DeMatteis

Christina Drews

Steven T. Elia

Harry Eliades

Suzanne Escousse

Steven A. Ferjentsik

Carlos Fernandez-Aller

Gregory C. Ferrero

David A. Friedland

Irwin Goldberg

Juan D. Gomez-Villalba

Philip W. Grovit

Magnus C. Hardeberg

Harold P. Hope, III

Gregory P. Hopper

Ericka T. Horan

Stephanie Hui

Irfan S. Hussain

Tsuyoshi Inoue

Makoto Ito

Kathleen Jack

Matthew A. Jaume

Tanweer Kabir

Afwa D. Kandawire

Herman R. Klein Wassink

Edward C. Knight

Akiko Koda

Ravi G. Krishnan

Jorg H. Kukies

Shiv Kumar

Edwin Wing-Tangk Wook

David W. Lang

Nyrton Z. Latif

Matthew D. Leavitt

David A. Lehman

David B. Ludwig

Raghav Maliah

Matthew F. Mallgrave

Karim H. Manji

Scott D. Marchakitus

Fabio N. Mariani

Ramnek S. Matharu

Shogo Matsuzawa

Thomas C. Mazarakis

Penny A. McSpadden

Celine-Marie G. Mechain

Simon H. Moseley

Jeff Mullen

Edward T. Naylor

Graham H. Officer

Lisa Opoku

Gerald B. Ouderkirk, III

Charles L. Park

Jae Hyuk Park

Francesco Pascuzzi

Jeffrey Rabinowitz

Ante Razmilovic

Lawrence J. Restieri, Jr.

Michael E. Ronen

Adam C. Rosenberg

Ricardo Salaman

Thierry Sancier

David J. Santina

Kara Saxon

Ian M. Schmidek

Steven M. Schwartz

Stephen B. Scobie

Judith L. Shandling

Graham P. Shaw

Hazem A. Shawki

Radford Small

Ramsey D. Smith

Kevin M. Sterling

Robert M. Suss

J. Richard Suth

Daiki Takayama

Tin Hsien Tan

Megan M. Taylor

Richard J. Taylor

Oliver Thym

Ingrid C. Tierens

Joseph K. Todd

Hiroyuki Tomokiyo

Jill L. Toporek

David Townsend



Patrick M. Tribolet

Richard J. Tufft

Christian Channell

Eva Chau

Richard M. Manley

Michael L. Warren

Joseph S. Mauro

Toshihiko Umetani

David Chou

Matthew B. McClure

Simon R. Watson

Thalia Chryssikou

Carolyn E. McGuire

Vivien Webb Wong

John P. Underwood

Michael J. Civitella

Jack Mendelson

Peter A. Weidman

Thomas S. Vandever

Kathleen A. Connolly

Xavier C. Menguy

Karl D. Wianecki
Gavin A. Wills

Kurt J. Von Holzhausen

Cecile Crochu

Jason Moo

Stephen T.C. Wong

Philippa A. Vizzone

Anne Marie B. Darling

Grant R. Moyer

Shunichi Yamada

Fred Waldman

Paul S. Davies

Gersoni A. Munhoz

Kentaro Yamagishi

Daniel S. Weiner

Bruno P. De Kegel

Michael Nachmani

Raymond L. Yin

Owen O. West

Matthew P. DeFusco

Allison F. Nathan

Ka Yan Wilfred Yiu

Alan S. Wilmit

Daniel Deng

Chris Oberoi

Hisaaki Yokoo

David T. Wilson

Jonathan G. Donne

Jun Ohama

Hsin Yue Yong

Edward C. Wilson

William P. Douglas

Gregory G. Olafson

Rafael I. de Fex

Christopher D. Woolley

Alessandro Dusi

Beverly L. O'Toole

Andre Laport Ribeiro

Brendan Wootten

Mark S. Edwards

Edward S. Pallesen

Beatriz Sanchez

Salvatore T. Lentini

Akishige Eguchi

Dave S. Park

Ricardo Mora

Brendan M. McGovern

Halil Emecen

Anthony W. Pasquariello

Joseph A. Stern

Shigemitsu Sugisaki

David P. Ferris

Jignesh Patel

Jeffrey L. Verschleiser

Takashi Yoshimura

Jonathan H. Fine

Nirubhan Pathmanabhan

Jeffrey B. Andreski

Drake Pike

David A. Fox

Richard A. Peacock

Albert J. Cass, III

David K. Cheung

Jay A. Friedman

Antonio R. Pereira

Hidefumi Fukuda

Matthew C. Schwab

Ramani Ganesh

James R. Peters

Rondy Jennings

Julie A. Harris

Huntley Garriott

Luis Puchol-Plaza

Peeyush Misra

Michael S. Swell

Maksim Gelfer

Sumit Rajpal

Neil C. Kearns

John C. Shaffer

Gabe E. Gelman

Peggy D. Rawitt

Jeffrey M. Scruggs

William F. Spoor

Tamilla F. Ghodsi

Donald C. Reed

Antonio F. Esteves

Merich M. Furth

Federico J. Gilly

James H. Reynolds

Cgalayan Cetin

David G. McDonald

Marc C. Gilly

Sean D. Rice

Aya Stark Hamilton

Ezra Nahum

John L. Glover, III

Robert E. Ritchie

Alan Zagury

Dina H. Powell

Richard C. Govers

Scott M. Rofey

Mary Anne Choo

Anthony Gutman \( ^{*} \) 

Bradley J. Gross

Jeroen Rombouts

Daniel J. Rothman

Peter C. Russell

Michael L. Hensch

Douglas L. Sacks

Jami Rubin

Celeste J. Tambaro

Ning Hong

Yann Samuelides

Ajay Sondhi

Michael M. Furth

Pierre Hudry

Laura D. Sanchez

Philippe Challande

Andrew Wilkinson

Jonathan O. Hughes

Luke A. Sarsfield, III

Marc d'Andlau

Gregory P. Lee

Yuji Ito

Richard A. Schafrann

Lancelot M. Braunstein

Alexis Maged

Brian J. Jacoby

Oliver Schiller

Eric L. Hirschfield

Robert M. Pulford

Andrius Jankunas

Martin A. Schneider

Charles A. Irwin

Maximillian C. Justicz

Dominique M. Jooris

Michael T. Seigne

Robert D. Boroujerdi

Patrick Tassin de Nonneville

Rajiv K. Kamilla

Konstantin A. Shakhnovich

Christopher Pilot

David M. Inggs

Brian A. Kane

Richard Shannon

Arthur Ambrose

Edward B. Droesch

Vijay M. Karnani

Daniel A. Sharfman

Graham N. Ambrose

Timothy J. Talkington

Noriro Kawamura

Farvar Shirzad

Gregory A. Asikainen

Daniel J. Bingham

Dirk-Jan J. Keijer

Connie J. Shoemaker

David J. Atkinson

Sergei S. Stankovski

William P. Keirstead

Anna K. Skoglund

Heather L. Beckman

Gerald Messier

Prashant R. Khemka

Andrew J. Smith

Andrea Vella

Vivien Khoo

Bing Song

David C. Bicarregui

Karl J. Robijns

Tammy A. Kiely

Aurora J. Swithenbank

Timothy Callahan

Jisuk Kim

Carl H. Taniguchi

Julian C. Allen

Lee Guan Kelvin Koh

Mark J. Taylor

Joanne L. Alma

Masafumi Koike

Ryan J. Thall

Quentin Andre

Satoshi Kubo

Robert B. Thompson

Sergei Arsenyev

Kim M. Lazaroo

Terence Ting

Aaron M. Arth

Scott L. Lebovitz

Jacquelyn G. Titus

Ian T. Bailey

David A. Levy

Mark C. Toomey

Vivek J. Bantwal

Dirk L. Lievens

Kenneth A. Topping

Michael H. Bartsch

David B. Lischer

Kamela C. Torres

Philip R. Berlinski

Stephen I. Lucas

Padideh N. Trojanow

Brian W. Bolster

Patrick O. Luthi

Kenro Tsutsumi

C. Kane Brenan

Christina Ma

Peter van der Goes, Jr.

Michael A. Cagnassola

Whitney C. Magruder

Damien R. Vanderwilt

Jimmy R. Carlberg

Suneil Mahindru

Sherif J. Wahba

Glen T. Casey

Monica M. Mandelli

Zhixue Josh Wang

*Partnersbip Committee Member

*Partnersbip Committee Member

Richard Cohn

*Partnersbip Committee Member



James M. Conti

David Coulson

Ning Ma

John G. Madsen

John A. Weir

Noah Y. Weisberger

Canute H. Dalmasse

Stephen J. DeAngelis

Robert Crane

Brian M. Margulies

Ellis Whipple

Michele della Vigna

Nicholas T. Cullen, III

Michael C. Marsh

Pansy Piao Wong

Brian R. Doyle

Thomas J. Davis

Robert A. McEvoy

Yat Wai Wu

Orla Dunne

Ann M. Dennison

William T. McIntire

Andrew P. Wyke

Karey D. Dye

Michael J. DesMarais

Christopher G. Mckey

Seigo Yamasaki

Sarel Eldor

Sheetal Dhanuka

Paul J. Miller

Xi Ye

Sanja Erceg

Robert Drake-Brockman

Yutaka Miura

Susan Yung

Alexander E. Evis

Yuichiro Eda

Joseph Montesano

Maoqi Zhang

Robert A. Falzon

Eric Elbaz

Jennifer L. Moyer

Xiaoyin Zhang

Danielle Ferreira

Edward A. Emerson

David J. Mullane

Robert Allard

Allan W. Forrest

Thomas J. Fennimore

Eric D. Muller

Matthew T. Kaiser

Mark Freeman

Andrew B. Fontein

T. Clark Munnell, Jr.

Kenneth Damstrom

Boris Funke

Salvatore Fortunato

Guy A. Nachtomi

Robert M. Dannenberg

Udhay Furtado

Sheara J. Fredman

Jyothsna G. Natauri

Tareq Islam

Jian Mei Gan

Thomas S. Friedberger

Jeffrey R. Nazzaro

Michael Paese

Mark E. Giancola

Jacques Gabillon

Carey Nemeth

Jonathan Ezrow

Cyril J. Goddeeris

Dean M. Galligan

John M. O'Connell

Asad Haider

Brian S. Goldman

Matthew R. Gibson

Kristin A. Olson

Hector Chan

Jennifer E. Gordon

Jeffrey M. Gido

Kevin W. Pamensky

Toshiya Saito

Adam C. Graves

Nick V. Giovanni

Nash Panchal

Una M. Neary

Lars A. Gronning

Boon Leng Goh

Tracey A. Perini

Shantanu Shte

Carey Baker Halio

Alexander S. Golten

Jonathan G. Pierce

Keith Tomao

Thomas V. Hansen

Wade G. Griggs, III

Dmitri Potishko

Steve L. Bossi

Michael J. Hayes

Ralf Hafner

Francois J. Rigou

Bobby Vedral

Edouard Hervey

Jeffrey D. Hamilton

Stuart Riley

Etienne Comon

Timothy S. Hill

Joanne Hannaford

Santiago J. Rubin

Li Hui Suo

Jeffrey J. Huffman

Nicholas M. Harper

Howard H. Russell

Dalinc Aribusu \( ^{*} \) 

Corey M. Jassem

Honora M. Harvey

Natasha P. Sai

John D. Melvin

Ian A. Jensen-Humphreys

Takashi Hatanaka

Christian D. Salomone

Tabassum A. Inamdar

Baoshan Jin

Charles P. Himmelberg

Krishnan P. Sankaran

Benny Adler

Aynesh L. Johnson

Timothy R. Hodge

Timothy K. Saunders, Jr.

Bruce A. Albert

Eri Kakuta

Russell W. Horwitz

Peter Scheman

Umit Alptuna

John D. Kast

Russell E. Hutchinson

Pedro E. Scherer

Matthew T. Arnold

Kevin G. Kelly

Tetsuji Ichimori

Stephanie R. Schueppert

Divyata Ashiya

Jane M. Kelsey

Elena Ivanova

Hugo P. Scott-Gall

Taraneh Azad

Anita K. Kerr

Maria S. Jelescu

Gaurav Seth

Vishal Bakshi

Michael Kirch

Steve Jeneste

Kiran V. Shah

David C. Bear

Marie Louise Kirk

Thomas F. Jessop

Raj Shah

Deborah Beckmann

Katharina Koenig

Kara R. Johnston

Roopesh K. Shah

Gary K. Beggerow

Tatiana A. Kotchoubye

Denis Joly

Takehisa Shimada

Andrea Berni

Dennis M. Lafferty

Eric S. Jordan

Tomoya Shimizu

Roop Bhullar

Raymond Lam

Anil C. Karpal

Nameer A. Siddiqui

John D. Blondel

John V. Lanza

Asem G. Khalil

David A. Sievers

Jill A. Borst

Craig A. Lee

Donough Kilmurray

Brigit L. Simler

Peter Bradley

Rose S. Lee

Tobias Koester

Jason E. Singer

James W. Briggs

José Pedro Leite da Costa

Adam M. Korn

David R. Spurr

Heather L. Brownlie

Luca M. Lombardi

Paul Kornfeld

Michael H. Stanley

Richard M. Buckingham

Joseph W. Long

Ulrich R. Kratz

Matthew F. Stanton

Robert Buff

Todd D. Lopez

Florence Kui

Umesh Subramanian

Maxwell S. Bulk

Galia V. Loya

Glen M. Kujawski

Kathryn E. Sweeney

Paul J. Burgess

Peter R. Lyneham

Michael E. Kurlander

Teppei Takanabe

Jonathan P. Bury

Gregory P. Lyons

Cory H. Laing

Troy S. Thornton

Kevin G. Byrne

Paqet R. MacColl

Meena K. Lakdawala

Ben W. Thorpe

Thomas J. Carella

Richard N. Lamming

Matthew E. Tropp

Doris Cheung

Clifton C. Marriott

Sarah C. Lawlor

Charles-Eduard van Rossum

Alina Chiew

Daniel G. Martin

Benjamin Leahy

Mark A. Van Wyk

Getty Chin

Elizabeth G. Martin

Timothy M. Leahy

Jonathan R. Vanica

Paul Christensen

Jason L. Mathews

Dominic J. Lee

Rajesh Venkataramani

Andrew Chung

Masaaki Matsuzawa

Lakith R. Leelasena

John R. Vitha, II

Alberto Cirillo

Alexander M. Mayer

Edward K. Leh

Katherine M. Walker

Nigel C. Cobb

John P. McLaughlin

Philippe H. Lenoble

Brent D. Watson

Martin A. Cosgrove

Eugeny Levinson

Nicole A. Weeldreyer

Patrick C. Cunningham

Arthur M. Miller



Heather K. Miner

Nick Yim

Charles P. Bouckaert

Ruth Gao

Gregory P. Minson

Albert E. Youssef

Marco Branca

David M. Garofalo

Hironobu Moriyama

Alexei Zabudkin

Didier Breant

Luke F. Gillam

Edward G. Morse

Adam J. Zotkow

Kelly Reed Brennan

Lisa M. Giuffra de Diaz

Teodoro Moscoso

Robert J. Liberty

Craig T. Bricker

Matthew J. Glickman

Robert T. Naccarella

Atanas Djumaliev

Nellie A. Bronner

Parameswaran Gopikrishnan

Olga A. Naumovich

Sonjoy Chatterjee

Sara Burigo

Luke G. Gordon

Brett J. Nelson

Yun Liu

James M. Busby

Pooja Grover

Roger Ng

Asita Anche

Elizabeth A. Byrnes

Patricia R. Hall

Victor K. Ng

Bernard Thye Peng Teo

Alvaro Camara

Anna Hardwick

Stephen J. Nundy

Shannon E. Young, III

Ramon Camina Mendizabal

Caroline Heller

Jernej Omahen

Boris M. Baroudel

Tavis C. Cannell

Richard I. Hemp sell

Daniel S. Oneglia

Johan M.D. Den Hoedt

Michael J. Casabianca

Isabelle Hennebelle-Warner

Anna Ostrovsky

Johannes P. Fritze

Jacqueline M. Cassidy

Jeremy P. Herman

Marco Pagliara

Richard Gostling

Peter Ceder

Matthias Hieber

Gena Palumbo

Jeffrey S. Isaacs

Eli W. Chamberlain

Amanda S. Hindlian

Jonathan E. Perry

William Shope, Jr.

Gilbert Chan

Darren S. Hodges

Gerald J. Peterson

Steven K. Barg

Kevin M. Chan

Simon Hurst

Julien D. Petit

Guido Filippa

Francis S. Chlapowski

Edward McKay Hyde

Charlotte L. Pisaridou

Dongsuk Choi

Nagisa Inoue

David S. Pluzter

Kathleen Hughes

Ian E. Pollington

Stephen L. Christian

Alexander E. Potter

David Wells

Alberto Ramos

Peter I. Chu

Marko J. Ratesic

Philip A. May

Sunder K. Reddy

Vania H. Chu

Joanna Redgrave

Alastair Maxwell

Ryan E. Roderick

Emmanuel D. Clair

Philip J. Salem

Jiming Ha

Hana Thalova

Bracha Cohen

Jason M. Savarese

Sara Strang

Joshua S. Schiffrin

Rick Schonberg

Johan F. Schulten

Julian Zhu

Gaik Khin Nancy Seah

Oliver R.C. Sedgwick

Michael Wise

David Sismey

Bryan Slotkin

Pierre-Emmanuel Y. Juillard

Timothy A. Smith

Warren E. Smith

Clemens Grafe

Thomas E. Speight

Russell W. Stern

Joseph Stivaletti

Chandra K. Sunkara

Kengo Taguchi

Kristi A. Tange

Jonathan E.A. ten Oever

David S. Thomas

Jonathan S. Thomas

Andrew Tilton

Frank T. Tota

Hiroshi Ueki

Naohide Une

Fernando P. Vallada

Samuel Villegas

Christian von Schimmelmann

Martin Weber

Gregory F. Werd

Ronnie A. Wexler

David A. Whitehead

David Whitmore

David Williams

Julian Wills

William Wong

Clegs Schoening

David K. Gallagher

Frederique Gilain-Huneeus

Philip J. Shelley

Theodore Lubke

Patrick J. Moran

Ronald Arons

Michael S. Goldstein

John P. Killian

Brett A. Olsher

James B. Adams

Geoffrey P. Adamson

Yashar Aghababaei

Nicole Agnew

Ahmet Akarli

Ali A. Al-Ali

Jorge Alcover

Moazzam Ali

Shawn M. Anderson

Gina M. Angelico

John J. Aregge

Paula G. Arrojo

Richard J. Asbery

Naohiko Baba

Gargi Banerjee

Amit Bansal

Thomas J. Barrett, III

Roger K. Bartlett

Stephen E. Becker

Ron Bezoza

David R. Binnion

James Black

Michael Bogdan

Matherine W. Curtis

Jason S. Cutler

Serling D. Daines

Kevin J. Daly

Rajasheera Datta

Samantha S. Davidson

Adam E. Davis

Sally Pope Davis

Raymond E. de Castro

George J. Dennis

Sara V. Devereux

Diana R. Dieckman

Avi Dimor

Mis a O. Donnelly

Mark T. Drabkin

Tilo A. Dresig

Thomas K. Dunlap

Steven M. Durham

Michael S. DuVally

Masahiro Ehara

Grant M. Eldred

Manal I. Eldumiati

Charles W. Evans

Anne M. Fairchild

Craig R. Farber

John W. Fathers

Lev Finkelstein

Warren P. Finnerty

Elizabeth O. Fischer

John J. Flynn

Veronica Foo

Francesca Fornasari

Christian L. Fritsch

Andrew J. Fry

Charles M. Fuller

Benjamin R. Johnson

Mariam Kamshad

Makiko Kawamura

Christina Kelercherian

Andre H. Kelleners

Sven H. Khatri

Sandip S. Khosla

David A. Killian

Melinda Kleehamer

Maxim B. Klimov

Goohoon Kwon

Laurent-Olivier Labeis

Lambert M. Lau

Sandra G. Lawson

David H. Leach

Deborah A. Lento

Gavin J. Leo-Rhynie

Leon Leung

Ke Li

Xing Li

Sabrina Y. Liak

Jason R. Lilien

Amy M. Liu

Bernard C. Liu

Nelson Lo

Kyri Loupis

Yvonne Low

Joshua Lu

Yvonne Lung

Marcello Magaletti

Uday Malhotra

Upacala Mapatuna

Kristerfor T. Mastronardi

Ikuo Matsuhashi

Francois Mauran

Brendan M. McCarthy

Patrick E. McCarthy

Michael J. McCarthy

Mathew R. McDermott



Charles M. McGarraugh

Vahagn Minasian

Robert A. Spencer

Thomas G. Stelmach

Matthew R. Mitchell

Thomas A. Stokes

Ryan C. Mitchell

Sinead M. Strain

Christine Miyagishima

Phillip B. Suh

Igor Modlin

Jamie Sutherland

Michael Moizant

Anton Sychev

Petra Monteiro

Hideaki Takada

Heather L. Mulahasani

Konnin Tam

Eric Murciano

Bong Loo Tan

Colin D. Murphy

Yasuko Taniguchi

Paul M. Mutter

Daniel W. Tapson

Arvind Narayanan

Richard M. Thomas

Mani Natarajan

Francis S. Todd

Antti K. Niini

Christos Tomaras

Daniel Nissenbaum

Lale Topcuoglu

Kevin Ohn

Thomas A. Tormey

Thomas A. Osmond

Chi Keung Tse

James Park

Weidong Tu

Katherine J. Park

Reha Tutuncu

Kyung-Ah Park

Mei Ling Tye

Ian L. Parker

Nicholas A. Valtz

Benjamin R. Payne

Nicholas J. van den Arend

Thomas G. Pease

Alexandra S. Vargas

Andrew J. Pena

Peter G. Vermette

Stuart R. Pendell

Matthew P. Verrochi

Ricardo H. Penfold

Sindy Wan

Andrew Philipp

Freda Wang

Sasa Pilipovic

Yi Wang

Asahi M. Pompey

Mitchell S. Weiss

Ling C. Pong

Greg R. Wilson

Raya Prabhu

Mark J. Wilson

Macario Prieto

Gudrun Wolff

Joshua Purvis

Isaac W. Wong

Xiao Qin

David J. Woodhouse

Philippe Quix

Stuart J. Wrigley

J Ram

Jerry Wu

Rajiv Ramachandran

Jihong Xiang

Maximillian Roman

Ying Xu

Gary M. Rapp

Lan Xue

Felicia J. Rector

Angel Young

Christopher C. Rollins

Daniel M. Young

Colin J. Ryan

Raheel Zia

Maheshwar R. Saireedy

David A. Markowitz

Ian P. Savage

Kent Wosepka

Bennett J. Schachter

Joseph Jiampietro

Martin L. Schmeldkin

China D. Onyemeluke

Laurie E. Schmidt

Terri M. Messina

Dirk Schumacher

Michele Cortese

Carsten Schwarting

Kamal S. Hamdan

Thomas Schweppe

Max I. Coreth

Dmitri Sedov

Sanjiv Nathwani

Stacy D. Selig

Ramez Atieh

Kunal Shah

Joe Raia

Tejas A. Shah

Erwin W. Shilling

Alasdair G. Share

Brad Brown

William Q. Shelton

Soares R. Rodolfo

Jason E. Silvers

Julian M. Trott

Ales Sladic

Aaron J. Peyton

Howard D. Sloan

Jayne Lerman

Michelle D. Smith

Ross Levinsky

Stephanie P. Smith

Eduard E. van Wyk

Thomas J. Smith

Keshav K. Sanghi

Sangam Sogani

David A. Youngberg

Johan G. van Jaarsveld

Heather Bellini

Royal I. Hansen

Dan P. Petrozzo

Andrew Armstrong

David John Acton

Kate A. Aitken

Chris Baohm

Andrew Barclay

George Batsakis

Ruben K. Bhagobati

Timothy M. Burroughs

Chris D. Champion

Nicholas J. Fay

Joseph A. Fayyad

Ryan S. Fisher

Zac Fletcher

David Goatley

Christian J. Guerra

Dion Hershan

Andrew J. Hinchliff

Nell C. Hutton

Nick S. Jacobson

Christian W. Johnston

Gordon Livingstone

Brendan R. Lyons

Steven Maartensz

Matthew J. McNee

Anthony I. J. Miller

Craig R. Murray

Andrew K. Rennie

Matthew G. Ross

Simon A. Rothery

Duncan Rutherford

Nick D. Sims

Conor J. Smyth

Ashley K. Spencer

Andrew R. A. Sutherland

Andrew R. Tanner

Kate A. Temby

Tim F. Toohey

Paul S. J. Uren

Sean Walsh

David Watts

Dion Werbelfoff

Jeremy Williams

Vaishali Kasture

Robert G. Burke

Charles Cheng

Jia Ming Hu

Sanjiv Shah

John Clappier

Huw R. Pill

Alan P. Konevsky

PV Krishna

Suk Yoon Choi

Richard J. Quigley

Alex Andrew A. von Moll

Antoine de Guillenchmidt

Carl Stern

Tunde J. Reddy

Paul Ockene

Andrew Robin

Ronald Hua

Darrick Geant

Houston Huang

Felipe F. Mattar

Heath Terry

Jonathan H. Xiong

Jeremy W. Cave

Jose C. Labate

Michael Clarke

Ryad Yousuf

Jeff A. Paski

Hiroko Adachi

Sajid Ahmed

Flavio Aidar

Lee M. Alexander

Osman Ali

Ilana D. Ash

Dominic Ashcroft

Farshid M. Asl

Vladislav E. Avsievich

Lucy Baldwin

Jonathan K. Barry

Yasmine Bassili

Jonathan Bayliss

Omar L. Beer

Mark W. Bigley

Timothy C. Bishop

Jaksa Blackham

Jacki Bond

Jonathan E. Breckenridge

John Brennan

Brian R. Broadbent

Jerome Brochard

Jason R. Broder

Robin Brooks

Amy C. Brown

Stefan Burgstaller

Christopher Henry Bush

Michael J. Butkiewicz

Eoghainn L. Calder

Scott S. Calidas

Katrien Carbonez

Sean V. Carroll

John B. Carron

David E. Casner

Kenneth G. Castelino

Vincent Catherine

Winston Chan

Gary A. Chandler

Christopher H. Chattaway

Jonathan L. Chealte

Simon Cheung

Pierre Chu

Jean-Paul Churchouse

Gregory Chwarko

Massimiliano Ciardi

Simon M. Collier

Kenneth Connolly

Frederic J.F. Crosnier

Alistair K. Cross

Robert G. Crosby

David J. Curtis

Keith L. Cynar

Simon Dangoor

Jennifer L. Davis



Thomas Degn-Petersen

Kevin M. Dommeng

Peter B. Lardner

Alison W. Lau

Peter Sheridan

Seung Shin

Chris Nelson

Barry Olson

Benjamin J. Dyer

Andrea Skarbek

Mike Schaffer

Christopher M. Dyer

Hung Ke Lee

Spencer Sloan

Ken Sugimoto

Mariano Echeguren

Sang-Jun Lee

William Smiley

Scott Toornburg

Charles P. Edwards

Howard Russell Leiner

Taylor Smisson

Berthold von Thermann

Katherine A. El-Hillow

Rainer Lenhard

Gary Smolyanskiy

Michelle Khalili

Jennifer Emanuel

Stephen L. Lessar

Nishi Somaiya

Li Cui

Hafize Gaye Erkan

Daphne Leung

Michael R. Sottile, Jr.

Jasdeep Maghera

Sean Fan

Chad J. Levant

Andre Souza

Yongzhi Jiang

Richard M. Fearn

Weigang Li

Oliver Stewart-Malir

Rafael Borja

Michael A. Fisher

Gloria W. Lio

Christopher W. Taendler

Craig Sainsbury

Nick Forster

Chang Lee Liow

Winnie Tam

Andrew Donohue

Jennifer A. Fortner

Matthew Liste

Trevor Tam

Nicholas T. Pappas

Nanssia Fragoudaki

Edmund Lo

Luke D. Taylor

Zachary T. Ablon

Grady C. Frank

Justin Lomheim

Vipul Thakore

Reyhaan Aboo

Michael C. Freedman

David A. Mackenzie

Michael D. Thompson

Jeff Albee

Thomas Gasson

Regis Maignan

Artur Tomala

Carlos Albertotti

Antonio Gatti

Sameer R. Maru

John B. Tousley

Shahzad Ali

Frank S. Ghali

Miyuki I. Matsumoto

Alexandre Traub

David E. Avillar

Jason A. Ginsburg

Antonino Mattarella

Eddie Tse

Timothy Amman

Joshua Glassman

Jack McFerran

Hidetoshi Uriu

Lucia Arienti

Gary M. Godshaw

Aziz McMahon

Dirk Urmoneit

Jacqueline Arthur

Albert Goh

Jans Meckel

Michael Voris

Willem Baars

Ernest Gong

Ali Meli

Thomas W. Waite

Nilesh Banerjee

Jonathan J. Goodfellow

Virinda Menon

Steve Weddell

Michael Bang

Michael Goosay

Raluca Ragab

Paul Weitzkorn

Marc Banziger

Poppy Gozal

Milko Milkov

Andrew M. Whyte

Yibo Bao

Genevieve Gregor

Shinsuke Miyaji

Ed Wittig

Vlad Y. Barbalat

Krag (Buzz) Gregory

Gabriel Mollerberg

Jon J. Wandrack

Tanya Barnes

Nick E. Guano

Matthew L. Moore

Yvonne Y. Woo

Melissa Barrett

Nicholas Halaby

Robert Mullane

XueYing Shel Xu

Alyssa Benza

Eric S. Neveux

Takahi Yamada

Bruce Berg

Corey R. Harris

Dale Nolan

Xiaohong Lilly Yang

Dinkar Bhatia

Thomas J. Harrop

Asim H. Nurmohamed

Wai Yip

Meera Bhutta

Brian M. Haufrect

Simon G. Osborn

Yusuke Yoshizawa

Matthew G. Bieber

Adam T. Hayes

Hilary Packer

Kota Yuzawa

Keith Birch

Robert Hinch

Daniel M. J. Parker

Richard Zhu

Kerry Blum

Ida Hoghooghi

Srivathsan Parthasarathy

Mikhail Zlotnik

Tim Boddy

Michael P. Huber

Giles R. Pascoe

Richard Phillips

Matteo Botto Poala

Jonathan S. Hunt

Rahul Patkar

Jake Siewert

Ryan Boucher

Ahmed Husain

Robert D. Patton

Tom Ferguson

Joseph Braik

Aytec Ilhan

Deepan Pavendranathan

Jeffrey Burch

Fernando Bravo

Omar Iqbal

Alejandro E. Perez

Daniel Zarkowsky

Chris Buddin

Gurjit S. Jagpal

Jan M. Petzel

Masaki Taniguchi

Paul H. Burchard

Simona Jankowski

Tushar Poddar

Matthew Gleason

Caroline Carr

Arbind K. Jha

Jeff Pollard

Joshua Kruk

Marie-Ange Causse

Xiangrong Jin

Nicole Pullen-Ross

Robert L. Goodman

Daniel Cepeda

Danielle G. Johnson

Steven J. Purdy

Claude Schmidt

Jean-Baptiste Champon

Michael G. Johnson

Ali Raissi

Paul V. Jensen

Raymond Chan

Jean Joseph

Rosanne Reneo

Scott Ackerman

Rita Chan

Edina Jung

Paul Rhodes

Sven Dahlmeyer

Pierre Chavenon

Philipp O. Kahre

Jill Rosenberg Jones

Michael Dalton

Gigi Chavez de Arnavat

Abhishek Kapur

Jason T. Rowe

John Gajdica

Angus Cheng

Sho Kawano

Matthew Rubens

Dodd Giannoble

Nikhil Choraria

Jeremiah E. Keefe

Joshua A. Rubinson

John Gibson

Adam Clark

Ryan J. Kelly

Owi Ruivivar

Brenda Grubbs

Hugo Clark

Brian J. Kennedy

Jennifer A. Ryan

Stephen Hipp

Colin Convey

Nimesh Khiroya

Andrew S. Rymer

Tim Johnson

Piers Cox

Jeff Kim

Hiroyoshi Sandaya

Hiroyasu Kaizuka

Chris Crampton

Phillip Kimber

Eduardo Sayto

Klaus Kraegel

Fredrik Creutz

Kathryn A. Koch

Michael Schmitz

Francesco Magliocchetti

Heidi Cruz

Fiona Laffan

Mike Schmitz

David Miller

Angelo Curreli

Kerry C. Landreth

Michael Schramm

Wes Moffett

Laurianne Curtil

Chance Monroe

Pol De Win



Anthony Dewell

Joshua A. Dickstein

John H. Knorring

Marina Koupeeva

Andrea Raphael

Neil Woltizer

Kuniaki Doi

Kareem Raymond

Willie W. Wong

Jane Lah

Neil Reeve

Nicola Wright

Jessica Douieb

Pierre Lamy

Claudia Reim

Makoto Yamada

Martine Doyon

Arthur Leiz

Grant Richard

Wendy Yun

Dexter D'Souza

Alex Levy

Valentina Riva

Genya Zemlyakova

David Dubner

Alexander S. Lewis

Fernando Rivera

Jing Zhang

Amy Elliott

Tim Li

Brian Robinson

Allen Zhao

Theodore Enders

Zheng Li

Tom Robinson

Anthony Davis

Aidan Farrell

Stephane Lintner

Javier Rodriguez

Sarah Rennie

Raymond Filocoma

Ilya Lisansky

David Roman

Steve Kron

Andrea Finan

Darren Littlejohn

Katya Rosenblatt

Chin Thean Quek

Jeffrey Fine

Jean Liu

Richard J. Rosenblum

Saleh Romeih

James A. Fitzsimmons

John Liu

Amanda Rubin

John G. Childers

Matthew Flett

Wanlin Liu

Bryan Rukin

Nicholas Jordan

Robert G. Frahm III

Wendy Mahmouzian

Akshay Sahni

Caroline L. Arnold

Alisdair Fraser

Mazen Makarem

Gunjan Samtani

Matteo Lorenzini

Barry Friedeman

Daniel R. Mallinson

Lucas W. Sandral

Douglas R. De Filippi

Charlie Gailliot

Thomas Manetta

Philip Saunders

Kate G. Richdale \( ^{*} \) 

Renyuan Gao

Robert C. Mara III

Monika Schaller

Frank Niehage

Manuel A. Garcia

Stephen Markman

Michael Schlee

Thomas H. Veit

Suzanne Gauron

Dunstan Marris

Jonathan Schorr

Simon M. Robertson

Darren T. Gilbert

Jon May

Anton Schreider

Torben Nielsen

Jason Gilbert

Krister McDuffy

Peter Schwab

Thomas C. Ernst

Eric Goldstein

Victoria McLean

Roy A. Schwartz

Qi Li

Jamie Goodman

Sean McWeeney, Jr.

Joshua Schwimmer

Ashley R. Woodruff

Betsy Gorton

Benoit Mercereau

Stuart Sclater-Booth

Stephanie J. Goldstein

Pooja Goyal

Edouard Metrailler

Kunal Shah

Marc O. Getman

Jason Granet

Samantha Migdal

Martin Sharpe

Cornelia S. Spiegel

David Granson

Jeffrey Miller

Hao Shen

Dimitrios Nikolakopoulos

David Grant

Marko Milos

Mark Siconolfi

Henry P. Hilliard

Tim Grayson

Teruko Miyoshi

Vanessa Simonetti

Jack O. Johnston

Brian Greeff

Amit Sinha

Amit Sinha

David Adelman

Marci Green

Sarah Mook

Matthew Slater

Yiqian Sun

Stephen Griffin

Hari Moorthy

Ian Spaulding

Jason M. Wingard

Kristen Grippi

Michael Moran

Richard Spencer

John P. Hardt

Dinesh Gupta

Paula P. Moreira

Lesley Steele

Tyler L. Schiff

Manav Gupta

Alister A. Morrison

Heiko Steinmetz

John D. Axtell

Yuhei Hara

Peter Mortimer

Michael Strafuss

Chris Hsieh

Toshiya Hari

Chukri Moubarak

Takashi Suwabe

Ian Smith

Todd Haskins

Sara Naison-Tarajano

Linda Tai

Kevin A. Zerrusen

Aime Hendricks

Anthony J. Nardi

Laura Takacs

Katherine A. Abrat

Michael Henry

Gleb Naumovich

Maurice Tamman

Afsheen Afshar

Peter U. Hermann

Sean Naylen

Eng Guan Tan

Puneet Agarwal

Alejandro Hernandez

Olaf Nordmeyer

Katsunori Tanaka

Sergio Akselrad

James Herring

Barry O'Brien

Bob Tankoos

Philip J. Aldis

Jamie Higgins

Patrick O'Connell

Belina Thiagarajah

Margaret C. Anadu

Peter J. Hirst

Zahabiya Officewala

John R. Thomas

Vishweshwar Anantharam

Christopher Hogan

Keisuke Okuda

Cullen Thomason

Silvia Ardagna

Mike Holmes

Elizabeth Overbay

Glenn Thorpe

Matthew J. Armas

Jonathan P. Horner

Robert A. Palazzi

Michele Titi-Cappelli

Anthony M. Arnold

Katie Hudson

Philip Pallone

Timothy G. Tomalin-Reeves

Yacov Arnopolin

Kenneth Hui

Mitesh J. Parikh

Carrie Van Syckel

Celine Assouline

Lars Humble

Brian A. Pasquinelli

Tammy VanArsdalen

Amer Ikanovic

Nita Patel

Carmine Venezia

Amin Azmoudeh

Stephanie Ivy

Manolo Pedrini

Frank Viola

Davie M. Baccio

Antoine Izard

Douglas Penick

Heather von Zuben

Eric Bai

Gunnar Jakobsson

David Perdue

Monali Vora

Taran Bakker

James M. Joyce

Michael Perloff

Martin Walsh

Padmanabhan Balasubramanian

Benjam in D. Kass

Patrick Perreault

Ward Waltemath

Kevin S. Barker

Christopher Keller

Alec Phillips

Stephen Warren

Lindsay D. Basloe

Simon J. Kingsbury

Marc Pillemer

Luke Wei

Peter G. Beckman

Judge Kirby

Noah Poonak

Matthew Weir

Collin E. Bell

Jeffrey Klein

Kim-Thu Posnett

Chris Wells

Navtej S. Bhullar

Sameer Ralhan

Geoffrey M. Williams

Jean Altier Bohm



Francois-Xavier T. Bouillet

Douglas J. Bouquard

James A. Fulton

Roger Gardiner

Matthew J. Leisen

Vincenzo Lento

Jonathan Rousse

John B. Ryan

David J. Bowen

Wesley M. LePatner

Yassaman A. Salas

Elizabeth C. Bowyer

Grace Ge

Xufa Liao

Thomas V. Scarpati

Sarah J. Brungs

Matija Gergolet

Brian Lilioia

Joao H. Schmidt

Michael S. Bruun

Philip V. Giuca Jr.
Brian D. Glass

Reginaldo Lima

Rachel C. Schnoll

Beat M. Cabiallavetta

Marcel K. Lipijn

Marc H. Schreiber

Niharika Cabiallavetta

Edward M. Glassmeyer

Malcolm M. MacDonald

Bruce E. Schwartz

John R. Cahill

Craig I. Glassner

John L. Marshall

Lyle M. Schwartz

Gregory D. Calnon

Nicholas P. Godfrey

Jonathan D. Matz

Anshul Sehgal

Robert A. Camacho

Lawrence Grassi

Patricia M. McCarthy

John R. Semczuk

David Campbell

Jett G. Greenberg

Michael McGinn

Hideyuki Seo

Thomas J. Campbell

David Gribble

Alan S. Mclean

Jonathan I. Shapiro

Michael Casey

Benjamin D. Grizzle

Olympia S. McNerney

Johann W. Shudlick

John T. Cassidy

Anil Grover

Scott R. Mehling

Andrew R. Silverman

Pascal A. Cerf

Fredrik Grunberger
Michael D. Gurney

Noa A. Meyer

Brian A. Singer

Tiffani L. Chambers

David Ha

Alexandra Miani

Jeremie Sokolowsky

Sharmini Chetwode

Jung Min

Patricia Chew

Kirsten Hagen

Jerry Minier

Travis J. Chmelka

William Stamatakis

Philip J. Han

Anthony F. Mirabile

Lisa M. Coar

Sarah J. Harper

Anindya Mohinta

Jeremy G. Stent

Charles A. Cognata

Hunter L. Henry

Michael H. Mooney

Alan D. Stewart

Dahlia Cohen

Debra Herschmann

Sam A. Morgan

Daniel R. Strack

Larry R. Colburn

Michael B. Hickey

William I. Morgan

Alexandra J. Stubbings

Peter R. Colven

Michael F. Higgins

Peter C. Morreale

Stuart P. Connolly

Axel K. Hoefer

Frederick D. Morris

Stephen T. Considine

Piyush Mubayi

Damien R. Courvalin

Timothy Hooley

Kaushik Murali

Nora Creedon

Erdit F. Hoxha

Mark A. Najarian

Alicia A. Crighton

James W. Huckaby

Joshua P. Newsome

Adam M. Crook

Michael J. Husson

Logan J. Nicholson

Piers N. Curle

Maximos M. Iakovlev

Michael A. Nickols

Michael L. D'Addario

Inci Isikli

Sergei Y. Nodelman

Aneesh K. Daga

Omer Ismail

Joie A. Norris

John M. Dailey

Glade A. Jacobsen

Edward J. Oakley

Viktor C. Danielson

Sumedh Jaiswal

Timothy A. O'Donovan

Eric R. Dann

Michael T. Jalkut

Brian D. O'Keeffe

Suzanne N. de Verdelon

Channa W. Jayaweera

Michael Deninno

Mark D. Olivier

Derek V. Jean-Baptiste

J. Stratford R. Dennis

Bartosz J. Ostenda

Anthony DeRose

Chitranjani Jeyarajah

Arun Dhar

Enrico Ottavian

Scott K. Diamond

Sami N. Kamhawi

Hiroshi Ozawa

Rachel Diller

Geraldine P. Keefe

Matthew C. Papas

Lin Ding

Zaid M. Khaldi

Douglas M. Paterson

Rohan N. Doctor

Talat Khan

Cyrille Perard

Anthony J. Duggan

Gautam R. Khanna

Christopher A. Perez

Sinead Dunphy

Robert B. Kimmel

Amit Pilowsky

Michael Durso

Hiroki Kimoto

Dominic M. Pomponi

Michael J. Eakins

Banu Kisakurek

Brandon T. Press

Mike E. Ebeling

Gilbert H. Klemann

Kenneth S. Prince

Kene Eijkeme

Victor Klimchenko

Elizabeth R. Pritchard

Simeon B. Ennis

Gordon G. Kluzak

Kenneth G. Purtell

Ashley J. Everett

Heidi K. Kniesel

Donald E. Raab

Amir Fais

Kimiyasu Kono

Radovan Radman

Joseph Femenia

Paul J. Konzelmann

Mohan Rajagopal

Ivan A. Fillon

Eric J. Krasmer

Neema M. Raphael

Andrew H. Fisher

Pavel Krotkov

Michael T. Rendel

Andrew F. Flisher

Rohit Kumar

Osmin Rivera

Brian K. Fortson

Yojiro Kunitomo

Ludovic Rodhain

Bridget L. Fraser

David D. LaBianca

Javier Rodriguez-Alarcon

Olivier Frendo

Jonathan M. Lamm

Cosmo Roe

Gedaliah Friedenberg

Adam S. Lane

Andrew L. Rosivach

Nicolas B. Friedman

Risa Lederhandler

Jennifer K. Roth

Andrei Legostaev

Armin D. Rothauser

Masato Sunaga

Takaaki Suzuki

Chia Min Tan

Robert Tau

Sujay H. Telang

Baris Temelkuran

Rene J. Theriault

Bart Thomson

Cassandra S. Tok

Alexandros Tomas

Karen T. Trapani

Kamakshya Tivedi

Emma Tsui

Ervin H. Tu

John M. Tully

Thomas Turner

Michael Ungari

Krishnamurthy Vaidyanathan

Ana L. Vazquez-Ubarri

Sofie Wacha

Scott H. Walter

Bryce K. Wan

James Wang

Kent J. Wasson

Michael M. Watts

Stephen M. Waxman

Connie Wen

Colin M. White

Kyle R. Williams

Stephen E. Withnell

Audrey Woon

Chiharu Yamagami

Suzzanne Yao

Rana Yared

Bervan Y. Yeh

Tony Yip

Emi Yoshibe

Vladimir M. Zakharov

Kalyana Kommineni



## Directors, Advisors and Offices
as of March 20, 2014

## Advisory
Directors

Eric S. Dobkin
Jonathan L. Cohen
Alan A. Shuch
Robert E. Higgins
Carlos A. Cordeiro
Timothy G. Freshwater
Paul S. Efron
John J. Powers
Robert J. Markwick
Maykin Ho
Silverio Foresi
Terrence Campbell
Susan A. Willetts
Joseph H. Gleberman
Charles G.R. Manby
Linnea Roberts
Lindsay P. LoBue
Philippe J. Altuarara
Timothy M. Kingston
Jon A. Woodruff
Paul G. Sundberg
H. John Gilbertson, Jr.
Kaysie P. Uniacke
Oliver Bolitho
Jonathan Hall
Chang-Po Yang

Peter D. Sutherland KCMG
Chairman of Goldman Sachs
International

## Senior
Directors

John C. Whitehead
Donald R. Gant
James P. Gorter
Robert B. Menschenl
Robert E. Mnuchin
Thomas B. Walker, Jr.
Richard L. Menschenl
Eugene Mercy, Jr.
Stephen B. Kay
Robert N. Downey
Roy J. Zuckerberg
Robert M. Conway
David M. Silfen
Eugene V. Fife
Peter G. Sachs
Willard J. Overlock, Jr.
Mark O. Winkelman
John R. Farmer
Robert J. Katz
Robin Neustein
Robert Hurst
Robert S. Kaplan
William C. Landreth
David Ryan
J. Michael Evans

## Board of
International Advisors

Robert B. Zoellick
Chairman, International Advisors

Claudio Aguirre
José Luís Arnaut
Erik Åsbrink
Efthymios Christodoulou
Juan Claro González
Charles de Croisset
Charles Curran, A.C.
Guillermo de la Dehesa
Vladimir Dlouhý
Walter W. Driver, Jr.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach
Professor Victor Halberstadt
Professor Otmar Issing
Roberto Junguito
Mario Laborín Gómez
Ian Macfarlane, A.C.
Dr. Axel May
Tito T. Mboweni
Enrico Vitali

## Offices

Amsterdam
Atlanta
Auckland
Bangalore
Bangkok
Beijing
Boston
Buenos Aires
Calgary
Chicago
Dallas
Doha
Dubai
Dublin
Frankfurt
Geneva
Hong Kong
Houston
Jersey City
Johannesburg
Kuala Lumpur
London
Los Angeles
Madrid
Melbourne
Mexico City
Miami
Milan
Monte Carlo
Moscow
Mumbai
New York
Paris
Philadelphia
Princeton
Riyadh
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
Santiago
São Paulo
Seattle
Seoul
Shanghai
Singapore
Stockholm
Sydney
Taipei
Tampa
Tel Aviv
Tokyo
Toronto
Warsaw
Washington, D.C.
West Palm Beach
Zurich



In Memoriam

ALFRED FELD
1915–2013

LONGEST-SERVING EMPLOYEE OF
GOLDMAN SACHS
1933–1942, 1948–2013



Al Feld joined Goldman Sachs on July 10, 1933 as an office boy; he was 18 years old. At the time, our firm was located at 30 Pine Street and numbered 200 people, including five partners. Al attended night school and earned a BS in accounting in 1936 and an MBA in 1939 from New York University. He joined our Research Department, initially covering the mining industry and later the railroad industry.

In 1942, Al was called to serve in the U.S. Army in World War II. He returned to the firm in 1948 to join our first retail securities sales group, selling stocks and bonds to individual and institutional clients. In the mid-1950s, when Goldman Sachs became the first firm on Wall Street to set up a sales group dedicated to institutional investors, Al continued to focus on individual clients, becoming part of what is now Private Wealth Management.

In 2013, Al celebrated 74 years with Goldman Sachs.

During the course of almost three quarters of a century, Al witnessed some of the most significant developments in our firm’s history, including the codification of our Business Principles in 1979 and our IPO in 1999. He was known as a Goldman Sachs culture carrier who embodied the core values of our firm. He had a reputation for sound client coverage, advising some of the firm’s most important clients. Al loved Goldman Sachs and gave tirelessly to supporting our people. He mentored new generations reminding them of the great leaders who built this firm and the responsibility of all of us who walk in their shadows to continue to work with integrity, in a spirit of teamwork for the good of our clients and shareholders.

We are deeply grateful to this gentle man who gave so much to Goldman Sachs.

He will be missed.



## Executive Offices

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
200 West Street
New York, New York 10282
1-212-902-1000
www.goldmansachs.com

## Common Stock

The common stock of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and trades under the ticker symbol "GS."

## Shareholder Inquiries

Information about the firm, including all quarterly earnings releases and financial filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, can be accessed via our Web site at www.goldmansachs.com.

Shareholder inquiries can also be directed to Investor Relations via email at gs-investor-relations@goldmansachs.com or by calling 1-212-902-0300.



The papers used in the printing of this Annual Report are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council \( ^{®} \) , which promotes environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world’s forests. These papers contain a mix of pulp that is derived from FSC \( ^{®} \)  certified well-managed forests; post-consumer recycled paper fibers and other controlled sources. Sandy Alexander Inc FSC \( ^{®} \)  “Chain of Custody” certification is BVQI-C020268.

## 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K

Copies of the firm’s 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission can be accessed via our Web site at www.goldmansachs.com/shareholders/.

Copies can also be obtained by contacting Investor Relations via email at gs-investor-relations@goldmansachs.com or by calling 1-212-902-0300.

## Transfer Agent and Registrar for Common Stock

Questions from registered shareholders of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. regarding lost or stolen stock certificates, dividends, changes of address and other issues related to registered share ownership should be addressed to:

Computershare
480 Washington Boulevard
Jersey City, New Jersey 07310
U.S. and Canada: 1-800-419-2595
International: 1-201-680-6541
www.computershare.com

## Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers Center
300 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017

© 2014 The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Except where specifically defined, the terms “Goldman Sachs,” “firm,” “we,” “us” and “our” in this document may refer to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates worldwide, or to one or more of them, depending on the context in each instance. Except where otherwise noted, all marks indicated by ©, TM, or SM are trademarks or service marks of Goldman, Sachs & Co. or its affiliates.
4350-13-102