State Street 10-K 2016
Documents found in this filing:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015
For the transition period from to
Commission File No. 001-07511
STATE STREET CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ¨ No x
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the per share price ($77.00) at which the common equity was last sold as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter (June 30, 2015) was approximately $31.21 billion
The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of January 31, 2016 was 400,017,186.
Portions of the following documents are incorporated by reference into Parts of this Report on Form 10-K, to the extent noted in such Parts, as indicated below:
(1) The registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A on or before April 29, 2016 (Part III).
STATE STREET CORPORATION
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(1) As defined by the applicable U.S. regulations.
State Street Corporation, referred to as the parent company, is a financial holding company organized in 1969 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Our executive offices are located at One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (telephone (617) 786-3000). For purposes of this Form 10-K, unless the context requires otherwise, references to “State Street,” “we,” “us,” “our” or similar terms mean State Street Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The parent company is a source of financial and managerial strength to our subsidiaries. Through our subsidiaries, including our principal banking subsidiary, State Street Bank and Trust Company, referred to as State Street Bank, we provide a broad range of financial products and services to institutional investors worldwide, with $27.51 trillion of AUCA and $2.25 trillion of AUM as of December 31, 2015.
As of December 31, 2015, we had consolidated total assets of $245.19 billion, consolidated total deposits of $191.63 billion, consolidated total shareholders' equity of $21.10 billion and 32,356 employees. We operate in more than 100 geographic markets worldwide, including in the U.S., Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
On the “Investor Relations” section of our corporate website at www.investors.statestreet.com, we make available, free of charge, all reports we electronically file with, or furnish to, the SEC including our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, as well as any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after those documents have been filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. These documents are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We have included the website addresses of State Street and the SEC in this report as inactive textual references only. Information on those websites is not part of this Form 10-K.
We have Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as written charters for the Examining and Audit Committee, the Executive Committee, the Executive Compensation Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Risk Committee and the Technology Committee of our Board of Directors, or Board, and a Code of Ethics for senior financial officers, a Standard of Conduct for Directors and a Standard of Conduct for our employees. Each of these documents is posted on the "Investor Relations" section of our website under "Corporate Governance."
We provide additional disclosures required by applicable bank regulatory standards, including supplemental qualitative and quantitative information with respect to regulatory capital (including market risk associated with our trading activities), summary results of semi-annual State Street-run stress tests which we conduct under the Dodd-Frank Act and resolution plan disclosures required under the Dodd-Frank Act on the “Investor Relations” section of our website under "Filings and Reports."
We use acronyms and other defined terms for certain business terms and abbreviations, as defined on the acronyms list following the table of contents to this Form 10-K.
We conduct our business primarily through State Street Bank, which traces its beginnings to the founding of the Union Bank in 1792. State Street Bank's current charter was authorized by a special Act of the Massachusetts Legislature in 1891, and its present name was adopted in 1960. State Street Bank operates as a specialized bank, referred to as a trust or custody bank, that services and manages assets on behalf of its institutional clients.
Our clients include mutual funds, collective investment funds and other investment pools, corporate and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations, endowments and investment managers.
Additional information about our business activities is provided in the sections that follow. For information about our management of credit and counterparty risk; liquidity risk; operational risk; market risk associated with our trading activities; market risk associated with our non-trading, or asset-and-liability management, activities, primarily composed of interest-rate risk; and capital, as well as other risks inherent in our businesses, refer to “Risk Factors” included under Item 1A, the “Financial Condition” section of Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, or Management's Discussion and Analysis, included under Item 7, and our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
LINES OF BUSINESS
We have two lines of business: Investment Servicing and Investment Management.
Our Investment Servicing line of business performs core custody and related value-added functions, such as providing institutional investors with clearing, settlement and payment services. Our financial services and products allow our large institutional investor clients to execute financial transactions on a daily basis in markets across the globe. As most institutional investors cannot economically or efficiently build their own technology and operational processes necessary to facilitate their global securities settlement needs, our role as a global trust and custody bank is generally to aid our clients to efficiently perform services associated with the clearing, settlement and execution of securities transactions and related payments.
Our investment servicing products and services include: custody; product- and participant-level accounting; daily pricing and administration; master trust and master custody; record-keeping; cash management; foreign exchange, brokerage and other trading services; securities finance; deposit and short-term investment facilities; loans and lease financing; investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing; and performance, risk and compliance analytics.
We provide mutual fund custody and accounting services in the U.S. We offer clients a broad range of integrated products and services, including accounting, daily pricing and fund administration. We service U.S. tax-exempt assets for corporate and public pension funds, and we provide trust and valuation services for daily-priced portfolios.
We are a service provider outside of the U.S. as well. In Germany, Italy, France and Luxembourg, we provide depotbank services (a fund oversight role created by regulation) for retail and institutional fund assets, as well as custody and other services to pension plans and other institutional clients. In the U.K., we provide custody services for pension fund assets and administration services for mutual fund assets. As of December 31, 2015, we serviced approximately $1.50 trillion of offshore assets in funds located primarily in Luxembourg, Ireland and the Cayman Islands. As of December 31, 2015, we serviced $1.28 trillion of assets under custody and administration in the Asia/Pacific region, and in Japan, we serviced approximately 92% of the trust assets serviced by non-domestic trust banks.
We are an alternative asset servicing provider worldwide, servicing hedge, private equity and real estate funds. As of December 31, 2015, we serviced approximately $1.32 trillion of AUCA in such funds.
We provide our Investment Management services through SSGA. SSGA provides a broad array of investment management, investment research and investment advisory services to corporations, public funds and other sophisticated investors. SSGA offers active and passive asset management strategies across equity, fixed-income and cash asset classes. Products are distributed directly and through intermediaries using a variety of investment vehicles including ETFs such as the SPDR® ETF brand.
Additional information about our lines of business is provided under “Line of Business Information” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and in Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K. Additional information about our non-U.S. activities is provided in Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
We operate in a highly competitive environment and face global competition in all areas of our business. Our competitors include a broad range of financial institutions and servicing companies, including other custodial banks, deposit-taking institutions, investment management firms, insurance companies, mutual funds, broker/dealers, investment banks, benefits consultants, business service and software companies and information services firms. As our businesses grow and markets evolve, we may encounter increasing and new forms of competition around the world.
We believe that many key factors drive competition in the markets for our business. For Investment Servicing, quality of service, economies of scale, technological expertise, quality and scope of sales and marketing, required levels of capital and price drive competition, and are critical to our servicing business. For Investment Management, key competitive factors include expertise, experience, availability of related service offerings, quality of service and performance, and price.
Our competitive success may depend on our ability to develop and market new and innovative services, to adopt or develop new technologies, to bring new services to market in a timely fashion at competitive prices, to continue and expand our relationships with existing clients, and to attract new clients.
SUPERVISION AND REGULATION
State Street is registered with the Federal Reserve as a bank holding company pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The Bank Holding Company Act limits the activities in which we and our non-banking subsidiaries may engage to those that the Federal Reserve considers to be closely related to banking, or to managing or controlling banks. These limits also apply to non-banking entities that we are deemed to “control” for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act, which may include companies of which we own or control more than 5% of a class of voting shares. The Federal Reserve may order a bank holding company to terminate any activity, or its ownership or control of a non-banking subsidiary, if the Federal Reserve finds that the activity, ownership or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of a banking subsidiary or is inconsistent with sound banking principles or statutory purposes. The Bank Holding Company Act also requires a bank holding company to obtain prior approval of the Federal Reserve before it acquires substantially all the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank.
The parent company has elected to be treated as a financial holding company. A financial holding company and the entities under its control are permitted to engage both in activities closely related to banking and in activities considered “financial in nature” as defined by the Bank Holding Company Act and the Federal Reserve’s implementing rules and interpretations. As a financial holding company, State Street may engage in a broader range of activities than permitted for bank holding companies and their subsidiaries that have not elected to become financial holding companies. Financial holding companies may engage directly or indirectly in activities that are defined by the Federal Reserve to be financial in nature, either de novo or by acquisition, provided that the financial holding company gives the Federal Reserve after-the-fact notice of the new activities. Activities defined to be financial in nature include, but are not limited to, the following: providing financial or investment advice; underwriting; dealing in or making markets in securities; making merchant banking investments, subject to significant limitations; and any activities previously found by the Federal Reserve to be closely related to banking. In order to maintain our status as a financial holding company, we and each of our U.S. depository institution subsidiaries must be well capitalized and well managed, as defined in applicable regulations and determined in part by the results of regulatory examinations, and must comply with Community Reinvestment Act obligations. Failure to maintain these standards may ultimately permit the Federal Reserve to take enforcement actions against us and restrict our ability to engage in
activities defined to be financial in nature. Currently, under the Bank Holding Company Act, we may not be able to engage in new activities or acquire shares or control of other businesses.
The Dodd-Frank Act, which became law in July 2010, has had, and will continue to have, a significant effect on the regulatory structure of the financial markets and supervision of bank holding companies, banks and other financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things: established the FSOC to monitor systemic risk posed by financial institutions; enacted new restrictions on proprietary trading and private-fund investment activities by banks and their affiliates, commonly known as the “Volcker rule” (refer to our discussion of the Volcker rule provided below under “Regulatory Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Standards” in this “Supervision and Regulation” section); created a new framework for the regulation of derivatives and the entities that engage in derivatives trading; altered the regulatory capital treatment of trust preferred and other hybrid capital securities; revised the assessment base that is used by the FDIC to calculate deposit insurance premiums; adopted capital planning and stress test requirements for large bank holding companies, including us; and required large financial institutions to develop plans for their resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (or other specifically applicable insolvency regime) in the event of material financial distress or failure.
In addition, regulatory change is being implemented internationally with respect to financial institutions, including, but not limited to, the implementation of the Basel III final rule (refer to “Regulatory Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Standards” below in this “Supervision and Regulation” section and “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of Basel III) and the AIFMD, the EMIR, revisions to the UCITS directive, revisions to the MiFID, and ongoing review of European Union data protection regulation.
Many aspects of our business are subject to regulation by other U.S. federal and state governmental and regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations (including securities exchanges), and by non-U.S. governmental and regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations. Some aspects of our public disclosure, corporate governance principles and internal control systems are subject to SOX, the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations and rules of the SEC and the NYSE.
Regulatory Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Standards
Like other U.S. bank holding companies, we and our depository institution subsidiaries are subject to the current U.S. minimum risk-based capital and
leverage ratio guidelines, referred to as Basel III. As noted above, the status of our parent company as a financial holding company also requires that we and our depository institution subsidiaries maintain specified regulatory capital ratio levels. As of December 31, 2015, our regulatory capital levels on a consolidated basis, and the regulatory capital levels of State Street Bank, our principal banking subsidiary, exceeded the currently applicable minimum capital requirements under Basel III and the requirements we must meet for the parent company to qualify as a financial holding company.
As an “advanced approaches” banking organization, State Street became subject to the U.S. Basel III final rule beginning on January 1, 2014. However, certain aspects of the U.S. Basel III final rule, including the new minimum risk-based and leverage capital ratios, capital buffers, regulatory adjustments and deductions and revisions to the calculation of risk-weighted assets under the so-called “standardized approach,” will commence at a later date or be phased in over several years.
Among other things, the U.S. Basel III final rule introduced a minimum common equity tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5% and raises the minimum tier 1 risk-based capital ratio from 4% to 6%. In addition, for advanced approaches banking organizations such as State Street, the U.S. Basel III final rule imposes a minimum supplementary tier 1 leverage ratio of 3%, the numerator of which is tier 1 capital and the denominator of which includes both on-balance sheet assets and certain off-balance sheet exposures.
The U.S. Basel III final rule also introduced a capital conservation buffer and a countercyclical capital buffer that add to the minimum risk-based capital ratios. Specifically, the final rule limits a banking organization’s ability to make capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments to executive officers if it fails to maintain a common equity tier 1 capital conservation buffer of more than 2.5% of total risk-weighted assets and, if deployed during periods of excessive credit growth, a common equity tier 1 countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5% of total risk-weighted assets, above each of the minimum common equity tier 1, and tier 1 and total risk-based capital ratios. Banking regulators have initially set the countercyclical capital buffer at zero.
To maintain the status of our parent company as a financial holding company, we and our insured depository institution subsidiaries are required to be “well-capitalized” by maintaining capital ratios above the minimum requirements. Effective on January 1, 2015, the “well-capitalized” standard for our banking subsidiaries was revised to reflect the higher capital requirements in the U.S. Basel III final rule.
In addition to introducing new capital ratios and buffers, the U.S. Basel III final rule revises the eligibility criteria for regulatory capital instruments and provides for the phase-out of existing capital instruments that do not satisfy the new criteria. For example, existing trust preferred capital securities were phased out from tier 1 capital over a two-year period that ended on January 1, 2016, and subsequently, the qualification of these securities as tier 2 capital will be phased out over a multi-year transition period beginning on January 1, 2016 and ending on January 1, 2022. We had trust preferred capital securities of $237 million and $475 million included in tier 1 regulatory capital as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Under the U.S. Basel III final rule, certain new items are deducted from common equity tier 1 capital and certain regulatory capital deductions were modified as compared to the previously applicable capital regulations. Among other things, the final rule requires significant investments in the common stock of unconsolidated financial institutions, as defined, and certain deferred tax assets that exceed specified individual and aggregate thresholds to be deducted from common equity tier 1 capital. As an advanced approaches banking organization, after-tax unrealized gains and losses on AFS investment securities flow through to and affect State Street’s and State Street Bank's common equity tier 1 capital, subject to a phase-in schedule.
We are required to use the advanced approaches framework as provided in the Basel III final rule to determine our risk-based capital requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act applies a "capital floor" to advanced approaches banking organizations, such as State Street and State Street Bank. Since January 1, 2015, the Basel III standardized approach has acted as that capital floor, and we are subject to the more stringent of the risk-based capital ratios calculated under the standardized approach and those calculated under the advanced approaches in the assessment of our capital adequacy under the PCA framework.
In addition to the U.S. Basel III final rule, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve to establish more stringent capital requirements for large bank holding companies, including State Street. On August 14, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a final rule on the implementation of capital requirements that impose a capital surcharge on U.S. G-SIBs. The surcharge requirements within the final rule began to phase-in on January 1, 2016 and will be fully effective on January 1, 2019. The eight U.S. banks deemed to be G-SIBs, including State Street, are required to calculate the G-SIB surcharge according to two methods, and be bound by the higher of the two:
As part of the final rule, the Federal Reserve published estimated G-SIB surcharges for the eight U.S. G-SIBs based on relevant data from 2012 to 2014. Method 2 is identified as the binding methodology for State Street and the applicable surcharge on January 1, 2016 is calculated to be 1.5%. Assuming completion of the phase-in period for the capital conservation buffer, and a countercyclical buffer of 0%, the minimum capital ratios as of January 1, 2019, including a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% and G-SIB surcharge of 1.5% in 2019, would be 10.0% for tier 1 risk-based capital, 12.0% for total risk-based capital, and 8.5% for common equity tier 1 capital, in order for State Street to make capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments without limitation. Not all of our competitors have similarly been designated as systematically important, and therefore some of our competitors may not be subject to the same additional capital requirements.
In 2014 the FSB published a consultative document with a proposal to enhance the TLAC of G-SIBs in resolution. The proposal calls for G-SIBs to maintain TLAC in excess of prescribed minimum thresholds. TLAC would include regulatory capital and liabilities that can be written down or converted into equity during resolution.
On October 30, 2015, the Federal Reserve released its proposed TLAC and LTD requirements for U.S. domiciled G-SIBs, like State Street, that are intended to improve the resiliency and resolvability of certain U.S. banking organizations through new enhanced prudential standards. The proposed standards impose: (1) TLAC requirements (i.e., combined eligible Tier 1 regulatory capital and eligible LTD); (2) separate eligible LTD requirements; and (3) clean holding company requirements designed to make short-term unsecured debt (including deposits) and most other ineligible liabilities structurally senior to eligible LTD. The proposed rule would also require banking organizations subject to the Federal Reserve’s Basel III capital rules to deduct from regulatory capital any investments in unsecured debt issued by a G-SIB.
If adopted as proposed, the rule would, among other things, subject State Street to minimum requirements for external TLAC and external LTD, plus an external TLAC buffer. Specifically, State Street would be required to hold (1) qualifying equity
and LTD in the amount equal to the greater of 21.5% of total risk-weighted assets (using the capital conservation buffer of 2.5% and an estimated G-SIB method 1 surcharge of 1%) and 9.5% of total leverage exposure, as defined by the SLR final rule and (2) qualifying external LTD equal to the greater of 7.5% of risk weighted assets (using an estimated G-SIB method 2 surcharge of 1.5%) and 4.5% of total leverage exposure, as defined by the SLR final rule. The risk-based requirements, if adopted as proposed, will be phased-in starting in 2019 through 2022. The proposed leverage requirements would be effective in 2019.
On November 9, 2015, the FSB published its final principles on TLAC. The FSB final principles establish minimum levels of loss-absorbing capital that must be held as a percentage of a G-SIBs risk-weighted assets. Subject to certain conditions, the TLAC requirement can be partially met by tier 1 and tier 2 capital that meets the Basel III capital requirements. However, capital held for the following reasons cannot be counted towards a G-SIB’s TLAC requirements: (1) Basel III capital conservation buffer; (2) Basel III countercyclical capital buffer requirements; and (3) supplemental capital conservation buffer requirements. G-SIBs will be required to meet the minimum TLAC requirement of at least 16% of the risk-weighted assets minimum by January 1, 2019 and at least 18% by January 2022. Based on the FSB final principles on TLAC, State Street anticipates having to maintain a TLAC requirement of 21.5% of risk-weighted assets by January 2022.
Supplementary Leverage Ratio Framework
In 2014, U.S. banking regulators issued final rules implementing an SLR, for certain bank holding companies, like State Street, and their insured depository institution subsidiaries, like State Street Bank, which we refer to as the SLR final rule. Upon implementation, the SLR final rule requires that, as of January 1, 2018, (i) State Street Bank maintain an SLR of at least 6% to be well capitalized under the U.S. banking regulators’ PCA framework and (ii) State Street maintain an SLR of at least 5% to avoid limitations on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments. In addition to the SLR, State Street is subject to a minimum tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%, which differs from the SLR primarily in that the denominator of the tier 1 leverage ratio is only a quarterly average of on-balance sheet assets and does not include any off-balance sheet exposures. Beginning with reporting for September 30, 2015, State Street was required to include SLR disclosures, calculated on a transitional basis, with its other Basel disclosures.
Liquidity Coverage Ratio and Net Stable Funding Ratio
In addition to capital standards, the Basel III final rule introduced two quantitative liquidity standards: the LCR and the NSFR.
In 2014, U.S. banking regulators issued a final rule to implement the BCBS' LCR in the United States. The LCR is intended to promote the short-term resilience of internationally active banking organizations, like State Street, to improve the banking industry's ability to absorb shocks arising from market stress over a 30 calendar day period and improve the measurement and management of liquidity risk.
The LCR measures an institution’s HQLA against its net cash outflows. The LCR began being phased in on January 1, 2015, at 80%, with full implementation beginning on January 1, 2017.
In January 2015, State Street was required to begin reporting its LCR to the Federal Reserve on a monthly basis. Daily reporting of the LCR to the Federal Reserve began in July 2015. As of December 31, 2015, our LCR was in excess of 100%.
Compliance with the LCR has required that we maintain an investment portfolio that contains an adequate amount of HQLA. In general, HQLA investments generate a lower investment return than other types of investments, resulting in a negative impact on our net interest revenue and our net interest margin. In addition, the level of HQLA we are required to maintain under the LCR is dependent upon our client relationships and the nature of services we provide, which may change over time. For example, if the percentage of our operational deposits relative to deposits that are not maintained for operational purposes increases, we would expect to require less HQLA in order to maintain our LCR. Conversely, if the percentage of our operational deposits relative to deposits that are not maintained for operational purposes decreases, we would expect to require additional HQLA in order to maintain our LCR.
In October 2014, the Basel Committee issued final guidance with respect to the NSFR. The NSFR will require banking organizations to maintain a stable funding profile relative to the composition of their assets and off-balance sheet activities. The NSFR limits over-reliance on short-term wholesale funding, encourages better assessment of funding risk across all on- and off-balance sheet exposures, and promotes funding stability. The final guidance establishes a one-year liquidity standard representing the proportion of long-term assets funded by long-term stable funding, with the NSFR scheduled to become a minimum standard beginning on January 1, 2018.
U.S. banking regulators have not yet issued a proposal to implement the NSFR. We are reviewing the specifics of the final Basel guidance and will evaluate the U.S. implementation of this standard to analyze the impact and develop strategies for compliance as rules are proposed.
Failure to meet current and future regulatory capital requirements could subject us to a variety of enforcement actions, including the termination of State Street Bank's deposit insurance by the FDIC, and to certain restrictions on our business, including those that are described above in this “Supervision and Regulation” section.
For additional information about our regulatory capital position and our regulatory capital adequacy, as well as current and future regulatory capital requirements, refer to “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
Capital Planning, Stress Tests and Dividends
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve has adopted capital planning and stress test requirements for large bank holding companies, including us, which form part of the Federal Reserve’s annual CCAR framework. CCAR is used by the Federal Reserve to evaluate our management of capital, the adequacy of our regulatory capital and the potential requirement for us to maintain capital levels above regulatory minimums. Under the Federal Reserve’s capital plan final rule, we must conduct periodic stress testing of our business operations and submit an annual capital plan to the Federal Reserve, taking into account the results of separate stress tests designed by us and by the Federal Reserve.
The capital plan must include a description of all of our planned capital actions over a nine-quarter planning horizon, including any issuance of debt or equity capital instruments, any capital distributions, such as payments of dividends on, or purchases of, our stock, and any similar action that the Federal Reserve determines could affect our consolidated capital. The capital plan must include a discussion of how we will maintain capital above the minimum regulatory capital ratios, including the minimum ratios under the U.S. Basel III final rule that are phased in over the planning horizon, and serve as a source of strength to our U.S. depository institution subsidiaries under supervisory stress scenarios. The capital plan requirements mandate that we receive no objection to our plan from the Federal Reserve before making a capital distribution. These requirements could require us to revise our stress-testing or capital management approaches, resubmit our capital plan or postpone, cancel or alter our planned capital actions. In addition, changes in our strategy, merger or
acquisition activity or unanticipated uses of capital could result in a change in our capital plan and its associated capital actions, including capital raises or modifications to planned capital actions, such as purchases of our stock, and may require resubmission of the capital plan to the Federal Reserve for its non-objection if, among other reasons, we would not meet our regulatory capital requirements after making the proposed capital distribution.
For additional information regarding capital planning and stress test requirements and restrictions on dividends, refer to "Capital Planning, Stress Tests and Dividends” in this “Supervision and Regulation” section and Item 5, "Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities” in Part II of this Form 10-K.
In addition to its capital planning requirements, the Federal Reserve has the authority to prohibit or to limit the payment of dividends by the banking organizations it supervises, including us and State Street Bank, if, in the Federal Reserve’s opinion, the payment of a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in light of the financial condition of the banking organization. All of these policies and other requirements could affect our ability to pay dividends and purchase our stock, or require us to provide capital assistance to State Street Bank and any other banking subsidiary.
In March 2015, we received the results of the Federal Reserve’s review of our 2015 capital plan in connection with its 2015 annual CCAR process. The Federal Reserve did not object to the capital actions we proposed in our 2015 capital plan and, in March 2015, our Board approved a new common stock purchase program authorizing the purchase of up to $1.8 billion of our common stock through June 30, 2016. As of December 31, 2015, we purchased approximately 14.2 million shares of our common stock at an average per-share cost of $73.72 and an aggregate cost of approximately $1.05 billion under this program. Our 2015 capital plan included an increase, subject to approval by our Board, to our quarterly stock dividend to $0.34 per share from $0.30 per share, beginning in the second quarter of 2015.
In 2012, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule to implement its capital stress-testing requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act that require us to conduct semi-annual State Street-run stress tests. Under this rule, we are required to publicly disclose the summary results of our State Street-run stress tests under the severely adverse economic scenario. In July 2015, we provided summary results of our 2015 mid-cycle State Street-run stress tests on the “Investor Relations” section of our corporate website. The rule
also subjects us to an annual supervisory stress test conducted by the Federal Reserve.
The Dodd-Frank Act also requires State Street Bank to conduct an annual stress test. State Street Bank must submit its 2016 annual State Street Bank-run stress test to the Federal Reserve by April 5, 2016.
The Volcker Rule
In December 2013, U.S. regulators issued final regulations to implement the Volcker rule. The Volcker rule prohibits banking entities, including us and our affiliates, from engaging in certain prohibited proprietary trading activities, as defined in the final Volcker rule regulations, subject to exemptions for market-making related activities, risk-mitigating hedging, underwriting and certain other activities. The Volcker rule will also require banking entities to either restructure or divest certain ownership interests in, and relationships with, covered funds (as such terms are defined in the final Volcker rule regulations).
The Volcker rule became effective in July 2012, and the final implementing regulations became effective in April 2014. We were required to bring our activities and investments into conformance with the Volcker rule and its final regulations by July 21, 2015. In December 2014, the Federal Reserve issued an order, the 2016 conformance period extension, extending the Volcker rule’s general conformance period until July 21, 2016 for investments in and relationships with covered funds and certain foreign funds that were in place on or prior to December 31, 2013, referred to as legacy covered funds. Under the 2016 conformance period extension, all investments in and relationships with investments in a covered fund made or entered into after December 31, 2013 by a banking entity and its affiliates, and all proprietary trading activities of those entities, were required to be in conformance with the Volcker rule and its final implementing regulations by July 21, 2015. The Federal Reserve stated in the 2016 conformance period extension that it intends to grant a final one-year extension of the general conformance period, to July 21, 2017, for banking entities to conform ownership interests in and relationships with legacy covered funds.
Whether certain types of investment securities or structures such as CLOs constitute covered funds, as defined in the final Volcker rule regulations, and do not benefit from the exemptions provided in the Volcker rule, and whether a banking organization's investments therein constitute ownership interests remain subject to (1) market, and ultimately regulatory, interpretation, and (2) the specific terms and other characteristics relevant to such investment securities and structures.
As of December 31, 2015, we held approximately $2.10 billion of investments in CLOs. As of the same date, these investments had an aggregate pre-tax net unrealized gain of approximately $43 million, composed of gross unrealized gains of $46 million and gross unrealized losses of $3 million. Comparatively, as of December 31, 2014, we held approximately $4.54 billion of investments in CLOs which had an aggregate pre-tax net unrealized gain of approximately $97 million composed of gross unrealized gains of $105 million and gross unrealized losses of $8 million. In the event that we or our banking regulators conclude that such investments in CLOs, or other investments, are covered funds, we may be required to divest such investments. If other banking entities reach similar conclusions with respect to similar investments held by them, the prices of such investments could decline significantly, and we may be required to divest such investments at a significant discount compared to the investments' book value. This could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of income or on our consolidated statement of condition in the period in which such a divestiture occurs.
The final Volcker rule regulations also require banking entities to establish extensive programs designed to ensure compliance with the restrictions of the Volcker rule. We have established a compliance program which we believe complies with the final Volcker rule regulations as currently in effect. Such compliance program restricts our ability in the future to service certain types of funds, in particular covered funds for which SSGA acts as an advisor and certain types of trustee relationships. Consequently, Volcker rule compliance entails both the cost of a compliance program and loss of certain revenue and future opportunities.
Enhanced Prudential Standards
The Dodd-Frank Act established a new regulatory framework to regulate banking organizations designated as SIFIs, and has subjected them to heightened prudential standards, including heightened capital, leverage, liquidity and risk management requirements, single-counterparty credit limits and early remediation requirements. Bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets, which includes us, became automatically subject to the systemic-risk regime in 2010.
The FSOC can recommend prudential standards, reporting and disclosure requirements to the Federal Reserve for SIFIs, and must approve any finding by the Federal Reserve that a financial institution poses a grave threat to financial stability and must undertake mitigating actions. The FSOC is also empowered to designate systemically important
payment, clearing and settlement activities of financial institutions, subjecting them to prudential supervision and regulation, and, assisted by the new Office of Financial Research within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, also established by the Dodd-Frank Act, can gather data and reports from financial institutions, including us.
In February 2014, the Federal Reserve approved a final rule implementing certain of the Dodd-Frank Act’s enhanced prudential standards for large bank holding companies such as State Street. Under the final rule, we will have to comply with various liquidity-related risk management standards and maintain a liquidity buffer of unencumbered highly liquid assets based on the results of internal liquidity stress testing. This liquidity buffer is in addition to other liquidity requirements, such as the LCR and, when implemented, the NSFR. The final rule also establishes requirements and responsibilities for our risk committee and mandates risk management standards. We became subject to these new standards on January 1, 2015. Final rules on single counterparty credit limits and an early termination framework have not yet been promulgated. Refer to the risk factor titled “We assume significant credit risk to counterparties, many of which are major financial institutions. These financial institutions and other counterparties may also have substantial financial dependencies with other financial institutions and sovereign entities. This credit exposure and concentration could expose us to financial loss” included under "Risk Factors" under Item 1A of this Form 10-K. In addition, the final rules create a new early-remediation regime to address financial distress or material management weaknesses determined with reference to four levels of early remediation, including heightened supervisory review, initial remediation, recovery, and resolution assessment, with specific limitations and requirements tied to each level.
The systemic-risk regime also provides that, for institutions deemed to pose a grave threat to U.S. financial stability, the Federal Reserve, upon an FSOC vote, must limit that institution’s ability to merge, restrict its ability to offer financial products, require it to terminate activities, impose conditions on activities or, as a last resort, require it to dispose of assets. Upon a grave-threat determination by the FSOC, the Federal Reserve must issue rules that require financial institutions subject to the systemic-risk regime to maintain a debt-to-equity ratio of no more than 15 to 1 if the FSOC considers it necessary to mitigate the risk of the grave threat. The Federal Reserve also has the ability to establish further standards, including those regarding contingent capital, enhanced public disclosures, and limits on short-term debt, including off-balance sheet exposures.
As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve jointly issued a final rule pursuant to which we are required to submit annually to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC a plan for our rapid and orderly resolution under the Bankruptcy Code (or other specifically applicable insolvency regime) in the event of material financial distress or failure, referred to as a resolution plan. The FDIC also issued a final rule pursuant to which State Street Bank is required to submit annually to the FDIC a plan for resolution in the event of its failure, referred to as an IDI plan. We timely submitted our most recent annual resolution plan to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC on July 1, 2015 and State Street Bank timely submitted its most recent IDI plan to the FDIC on September 1, 2015. Through resolution planning, State Street seeks, in the event of the insolvency of State Street, to maintain State Street Bank’s role as a key infrastructure provider within the financial system, while minimizing risk to the financial system and maximizing value for the benefit of State Street’s stakeholders. State Street has and will continue to focus management attention and resources to meet regulatory expectations with respect to resolution planning. As set out in its 2015 resolution plan, in the event of material financial distress or failure, State Street’s preferred resolution strategy, referred to as the single point of entry strategy, provides for the recapitalization of State Street Bank by the parent company (for example, by forgiving inter-company indebtedness of State Street Bank owed to the parent company) prior to the parent company’s entry into bankruptcy proceedings. The recapitalization is intended to enable State Street Bank and its material subsidiaries to continue operating. Under this single point of entry strategy, State Street Bank and its material entity subsidiaries would not themselves enter into resolution proceedings; they would instead be transferred to a newly organized holding company held by a reorganization trust for the benefit of the parent company’s claimants. In the event that such recapitalization actions occur and were unsuccessful in stabilizing State Street Bank, the parent company's financial condition would be adversely impacted and equity and debt holders of the parent company, may, as a consequence, be in a worse position than if the recapitalization did not occur.
In 2014, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC announced the completion of their reviews of resolution plans submitted in 2013 by 11 large, complex banking organizations, including State Street, under the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, and informed each of these organizations of specific shortcomings with their respective 2013 resolution plans. As of February 19, 2016, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC had not announced the outcomes of their reviews of plans submitted in 2015. If we fail to
meet regulatory expectations to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC in the submission of our 2015 resolution plan, we could be subject to more stringent capital, leverage or liquidity requirements, restrictions on our growth, activities or operations, or be required to divest certain of our assets or operations.
Orderly Liquidation Authority
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, certain financial companies, including bank holding companies such as State Street, and certain covered subsidiaries, can be subjected to a new orderly liquidation authority. The U.S. Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the President, must first make certain extraordinary financial distress and systemic risk determinations, and action must be recommended by two-thirds of the FDIC Board and two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board. Absent such actions, we, as a bank holding company, would remain subject to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The orderly liquidation authority went into effect in July 2010, and rulemaking is proceeding in stages, with some regulations now finalized and others planned but not yet proposed. If we were subject to the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC would be appointed as our receiver, which would give the FDIC considerable powers to resolve us, including: (1) the power to remove officers and directors responsible for our failure and to appoint new directors and officers; (2) the power to assign assets and liabilities to a third party or bridge financial company without the need for creditor consent or prior court review; (3) the ability to differentiate among creditors, including by treating junior creditors better than senior creditors, subject to a minimum recovery right to receive at least what they would have received in bankruptcy liquidation; and (4) broad powers to administer the claims process to determine distributions from the assets of the receivership to creditors not transferred to a third party or bridge financial institution.
In December 2013, the FDIC released its proposed single-point-of-entry strategy for resolution of a SIFI under the orderly liquidation authority. The FDIC’s release outlines how it would use its powers under the orderly liquidation authority to resolve a SIFI by placing its top-tier U.S. holding company in receivership and keeping its operating subsidiaries open and out of insolvency proceedings by transferring the operating subsidiaries to a new bridge holding company, recapitalizing the operating subsidiaries and imposing losses on the shareholders and creditors of the holding company in receivership according to their statutory order of priority.
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act imposes a new regulatory structure on the over-the-counter derivatives market, including requirements for clearing, exchange trading, capital, margin, reporting and record-keeping. In addition, certain derivative activities are required to be pushed out of insured depository institutions and conducted in separately capitalized non-bank affiliates. Title VII also requires certain persons to register as a major swap participant, a swap dealer or a securities-based swap dealer. The CFTC, the SEC, and other U.S. regulators have adopted and are still in the process of adopting regulations to implement Title VII. Through this rulemaking process, these regulators collectively have adopted or proposed, among other things, regulations relating to reporting and record-keeping obligations, margin and capital requirements, the scope of registration and the central clearing and exchange trading requirements for certain over-the-counter derivatives. The CFTC has also issued rules to enhance the oversight of clearing and trading entities. The CFTC, along with other regulators, including the Federal Reserve, are also in the process of proposing and finalizing additional rules, such as with respect to margin requirements for uncleared derivatives transactions.
State Street Bank has registered provisionally with the CFTC as a swap dealer. As a provisionally registered swap dealer, State Street Bank is subject to significant regulatory obligations regarding its swap activity and the supervision, examination and enforcement powers of the CFTC and other regulators. In December 2013, the CFTC granted State Street Bank a limited-purpose swap dealer designation. Under this limited-purpose designation, interest-rate swap activity engaged in by State Street Bank’s Global Treasury group is not subject to certain of the swap regulatory requirements otherwise applicable to swaps entered into by a registered swap dealer, subject to a number of conditions. For all other swap transactions, our swap activities remain subject to all applicable swap dealer regulations.
Money Market Funds
In July 2014, the SEC adopted amendments to the regulations governing money market funds to address potential systemic risks and improve transparency for money market fund investors. Among other things, the amendments require a floating net asset value for institutional prime money market funds (i.e., money market funds that are either not restricted to natural person investors or not restricted to investing primarily in U.S. government securities) and permit (and in some cases require) all money market funds to impose redemption fees and gates under certain circumstances. As a result of these reforms, money market funds may be required
to take certain steps that will affect their structure and/or operations, which could in turn affect the liquidity, marketability and return potential of such funds. Full conformance with these amendments is required by October 14, 2016.
Money market reforms are also being considered in Europe. The timing and content of those regulations remains uncertain. The SEC's July 2014 amended regulations, and the potential reforms in Europe, could alter the business models of money market fund sponsors and asset managers, including many of our servicing clients and SSGA, and may result in reduced levels of investment in money market funds. As a result, these requirements may have an adverse impact on our business, our operations or our consolidated results of operations.
The Federal Reserve is the primary federal banking agency responsible for regulating us and our subsidiaries, including State Street Bank, with respect to both our U.S. and non-U.S. operations.
Our banking subsidiaries are subject to supervision and examination by various regulatory authorities. State Street Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System, its deposits are insured by the FDIC and it is subject to applicable federal and state banking laws and to supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve, as well as by the Massachusetts Commissioner of Banks, the FDIC, and the regulatory authorities of those states and countries in which State Street Bank operates a branch. Our other subsidiary trust companies are subject to supervision and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve or by the appropriate state banking regulatory authorities of the states in which they are organized and operate. Our non-U.S. banking subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the regulatory authorities of the countries in which they operate. As of December 31, 2015, the capital of each of these banking subsidiaries exceeded the minimum legal capital requirements set by those regulatory authorities.
We and our subsidiaries that are not subsidiaries of State Street Bank are affiliates of State Street Bank under federal banking laws, which impose restrictions on various types of transactions, including loans, extensions of credit, investments or asset purchases by or from State Street Bank, on the one hand, to us and those of our subsidiaries, on the other. Transactions of this kind between State Street Bank and its affiliates are limited with respect to each affiliate to 10% of State Street Bank’s capital and surplus, as defined by the aforementioned banking laws, and to 20% in the aggregate for all affiliates, and in some cases are also subject to strict collateral requirements. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, effective in
July 2012, derivatives, securities borrowing and securities lending transactions between State Street Bank and its affiliates became subject to these restrictions. The Dodd-Frank Act also expanded the scope of transactions required to be collateralized. In addition, the Volcker rule generally prohibits similar transactions between the parent company or any of its affiliates and covered funds for which we or any of our affiliates serve as the investment manager, investment adviser, commodity trading advisor or sponsor and other covered funds organized and offered pursuant to specific exemptions in the final Volcker rule regulations.
Federal law also requires that certain transactions with affiliates be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the institution, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions involving other non-affiliated companies. Alternatively, in the absence of comparable transactions, the transactions must be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that in good faith would be offered to, or would apply to, non-affiliated companies.
State Street Bank is also prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit or lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Federal law provides as well for a depositor preference on amounts realized from the liquidation or other resolution of any depository institution insured by the FDIC.
Our subsidiaries, SSGA FM and SSGA Ltd., act as investment advisers to investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. SSGA FM, incorporated in Massachusetts in 2001 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and is registered with the CFTC as a commodity trading adviser and pool operator. SSGA Ltd., incorporated in 1990 as a U.K. limited company and domiciled in the U.K., is also registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. SSGA Ltd. is also authorized and regulated by the U.K. FCA and is an investment firm under the MiFID. SSGA FM and SSGA Ltd. each offer a variety of investment management solutions, including active, enhanced and passive equity, active and passive fixed-income, cash management, multi-asset class solutions and real estate. In addition, a major portion of our investment management activities are conducted by State Street Bank, which is subject to supervision primarily by the Federal Reserve with respect to these activities.
Our U.S. broker/dealer subsidiary is registered as a broker/dealer with the SEC, is subject to
regulation by the SEC (including the SEC’s net capital rule) and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a self-regulatory organization. The U.K. broker/dealer business operates through our subsidiary, State Street Global Markets International Limited, which is registered in the U.K. as a regulated securities broker, is authorized and regulated by the FCA and is an investment firm under the MiFID. It is also a member of the London Stock Exchange. In accordance with the rules of the FCA, the U.K. broker/dealer publishes information on its risk management objectives and on policies associated with its regulatory capital requirements and resources. Many aspects of our investment management activities are subject to federal and state laws and regulations primarily intended to benefit the investment holder, rather than our shareholders.
Our activities as a futures commission merchant are subject to regulation by the CFTC in the U.S. and various regulatory authorities internationally, as well as the membership requirements of the applicable clearinghouses. In addition, we have a subsidiary registered with the CFTC as a swap execution facility, and our U.S. broker/dealer subsidiary also offers a U.S. equities alternative trading system registered with the SEC.
These laws and regulations generally grant supervisory agencies and bodies broad administrative powers, including the power to limit or restrict us from conducting our investment management activities in the event that we fail to comply with such laws and regulations, and examination authority. Our business related to investment management and trusteeship of collective trust funds and separate accounts offered to employee benefit plans is subject to ERISA, and is regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Our businesses, including our investment management and securities and futures businesses, are also regulated extensively by non-U.S. governments, securities exchanges, self-regulatory organizations, central banks and regulatory bodies, especially in those jurisdictions in which we maintain an office. For instance, among others, the FCA, the U.K. PRA and the Bank of England regulate our activities in the U.K.; the Central Bank of Ireland regulates our activities in Ireland; the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority regulates our activities in Germany; the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier regulates our activities in Luxembourg; our German banking group and the Luxembourg banks are also subject to direct supervision by the European Central Bank under the ECB Single Supervisory Mechanism; the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission regulate our activities in Australia; and the Financial Services Agency and the Bank of Japan regulate our activities
in Japan. We have established policies, procedures, and systems designed to comply with the requirements of these organizations. However, as a global financial services institution, we face complexity and costs related to regulation.
The majority of our non-U.S. asset servicing operations are conducted pursuant to the Federal Reserve's Regulation K through State Street Bank’s Edge Act subsidiary or through international branches of State Street Bank. An Edge Act corporation is a corporation organized under federal law that conducts foreign business activities. In general, banks may not make investments in their Edge Act corporations (and similar state law corporations) that exceed 20% of their capital and surplus, as defined, and the investment of any amount in excess of 10% of capital and surplus requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve.
In addition to our non-U.S. operations conducted pursuant to Regulation K, we also make new investments abroad directly (through us or through our non-banking subsidiaries) pursuant to the Federal Reserve's Regulation Y, or through international bank branch expansion, which are not subject to the investment limitations applicable to Edge Act subsidiaries.
Additionally, Massachusetts has its own bank holding company statute, under which State Street, among other things, may be required to obtain prior approval by the Massachusetts Board of Bank Incorporation for an acquisition of more than 5% of any additional bank's voting shares, or for other forms of bank acquisitions.
Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Transparency
We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which contains AML and financial transparency provisions and requires implementation of regulations applicable to financial services companies, including standards for verifying client identification and monitoring client transactions and detecting and reporting suspicious activities. AML laws outside the U.S. contain similar requirements. We have implemented policies, procedures and internal controls that are designed to comply with all applicable AML laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable AML and related requirements is a common area of review for financial regulators, and our level of compliance with these requirements could result in fines, penalties, lawsuits, regulatory sanctions or difficulties in obtaining approvals, restrictions on our business activities or harm to our reputation.
On June 1, 2015, State Street entered into a written agreement with the Federal Reserve and the Massachusetts Division of Banks relating to
deficiencies identified in State Street's compliance programs with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, AML regulations and U.S. economic sanctions regulations promulgated by OFAC. As part of this enforcement action, State Street is required to, among other things, implement improvements to our compliance programs and to retain an independent firm to conduct a review of account and transaction activity covering a prior three-month period to evaluate whether any suspicious activity not previously reported should have been identified and reported in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. If deficiencies in our historical reporting are identified as a result of the transaction review or if we fail to comply with the terms of the written agreement, we may become subject to fines and other regulatory sanctions, which may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
FDIC-insured depository institutions are required to pay deposit insurance assessments to the FDIC. The Dodd-Frank Act made permanent the general $250,000 deposit insurance limit for insured deposits.
The FDIC’s DIF is funded by assessments on insured depository institutions. The FDIC assesses DIF premiums based on an insured depository institution's average consolidated total assets, less the average tangible equity of the insured depository institution during the assessment period. For larger institutions, such as State Street Bank, assessments are determined based on regulatory ratings and forward-looking financial measures to calculate the assessment rate, which is subject to adjustments by the FDIC, and the assessment base.
The Dodd-Frank Act also directed the FDIC to determine whether and to what extent adjustments to the assessment base are appropriate for “custody banks". The FDIC has concluded that certain liquid assets could be excluded from the deposit insurance assessment base of custody banks that satisfy specified institutional eligibility criteria. This has the effect of reducing the amount of DIF insurance premiums due from custody banks. State Street Bank is a custody bank for this purpose. The custody bank assessment adjustment may not exceed total transaction account deposits identified by the institution as being directly linked to a fiduciary or custody and safekeeping asset.
Prompt Corrective Action
The FDIC Improvement Act of 1991 requires the appropriate federal banking regulator to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to a depository institution if that institution does not meet certain capital adequacy standards. While these regulations apply only to banks, such as State Street Bank, the Federal Reserve is authorized to take appropriate
action against a parent bank holding company, such as our parent company, based on the under-capitalized status of any banking subsidiary. In certain instances, we would be required to guarantee the performance of the capital restoration plan for our under-capitalized banking subsidiary.
Support of Subsidiary Banks
Under Federal Reserve regulations, a bank holding company such as our parent company is required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to its banking subsidiaries. This requirement was added to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act by the Dodd-Frank Act and means that we are expected to commit resources to State Street Bank and any other banking subsidiary in circumstances in which we otherwise might not do so absent such a requirement. In the event of bankruptcy, any commitment by us to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a banking subsidiary will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and will be entitled to a priority payment.
Insolvency of an Insured U.S. Subsidiary Depository Institution
If the FDIC is appointed the conservator or receiver of an FDIC-insured U.S. subsidiary depository institution, such as State Street Bank, upon its insolvency or certain other events, the FDIC has the ability to transfer any of the depository institution’s assets and liabilities to a new obligor without the approval of the depository institution’s creditors, enforce the terms of the depository institution’s contracts pursuant to their terms or repudiate or disaffirm contracts or leases to which the depository institution is a party. Additionally, the claims of holders of deposit liabilities and certain claims for administrative expenses against an insured depository institution would be afforded priority over other general unsecured claims against such an institution, including claims of debt holders of the institution and, under current interpretation, depositors in non-U.S. offices, in the liquidation or other resolution of such an institution by any receiver. As a result, such persons would be treated differently from and could receive, if anything, substantially less than the depositors in U.S. offices of the depository institution.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Economic policies of the U.S. government and its agencies influence our operating environment. Monetary policy conducted by the Federal Reserve directly affects the level of interest rates, which may affect overall credit conditions of the economy. Monetary policy is applied by the Federal Reserve through open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in reserve requirements for depository institutions, and changes in the discount
rate and availability of borrowing from the Federal Reserve. Government regulation of banks and bank holding companies is intended primarily for the protection of depositors of the banks, rather than for the shareholders of the institutions and therefore may, in some cases, be adverse to the interests of those shareholders. We are similarly affected by the economic policies of non-U.S. government agencies, such as the ECB.
STATISTICAL DISCLOSURE BY BANK HOLDING COMPANIES
The following information, included under Items 6, 7 and 8 of this Form 10-K, is incorporated by reference herein:
“Selected Financial Data” table (Item 6) - presents return on average common equity, return on average assets, common dividend payout and equity-to-assets ratios.
“Distribution of Average Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity; Interest Rates and Interest Differential” table (Item 8) - presents consolidated average balance sheet amounts, related fully taxable-equivalent interest earned and paid, related average yields and rates paid and changes in fully taxable-equivalent interest revenue and interest expense for each major category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.
“Investment Securities” section included in Management's Discussion and Analysis (Item 7) and Note 3, “Investment Securities,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - disclose information regarding book values, market values, maturities and weighted-average yields of securities (by category).
Note 4, “Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - discloses our policy for placing loans and leases on non-accrual status.
“Loans and Leases” section included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Item 7) and Note 4, “Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - disclose distribution of loans, loan maturities and sensitivities of loans to changes in interest rates.
“Loans and Leases” and “Cross-Border Outstandings” sections of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Item 7) - disclose information regarding cross-border outstandings and other loan concentrations of State Street.
“Credit Risk Management” section included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Item 7) and Note 4, “Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - present the allocation of the allowance for loan losses, and a description of factors which influenced management’s judgment in determining amounts of additions or reductions to the allowance, if any, charged or credited to results of operations.
“Distribution of Average Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity; Interest Rates and Interest Differential” table (Item 8) - discloses deposit information.
Note 8, “Short-Term Borrowings,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - discloses information regarding short-term borrowings of State Street.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
This Form 10-K, as well as other reports submitted by us under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, registration statements filed by us under the Securities Act of 1933, our annual report to shareholders and other public statements we may make, contain statements (including statements in the Management's Discussion and Analysis) that are considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of U.S. securities laws, including statements about our goals and expectations regarding our business, financial and capital condition, results of operations, strategies, financial portfolio performance, dividend and stock purchase programs, expected outcomes of legal proceedings, market growth, acquisitions, joint ventures and divestitures and new technologies, services and opportunities, as well as regarding industry, regulatory, economic and market trends, initiatives and developments, the business environment and other matters that do not relate strictly to historical facts.
Terminology such as “plan,” “expect,” “intend,” “objective,” “forecast,” “outlook,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “seek,” “may,” “will,” “trend,” “target,” “strategy” and “goal,” or similar statements or variations of such terms, are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such terms.
Forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, which change over time, are based on management's expectations and assumptions at the time the statements are made, and are not guarantees of future results. Management's expectations and assumptions, and the continued validity of the forward-looking statements, are subject to change due to a broad range of factors affecting the national and global economies, regulatory environment and the equity, debt, currency and other financial markets, as well as factors specific to State Street and its subsidiaries, including State Street Bank. Factors that could cause changes in the expectations or assumptions on which forward-looking statements are based cannot be foreseen with certainty and include, but are not limited to:
investment, credit or financial exposure, including, for example, the direct and indirect effects on counterparties of the sovereign-debt risks in the U.S., Europe and other regions;
restrictions on banking and financial activities. In addition, our regulatory posture and related expenses have been and will continue to be affected by changes in regulatory expectations for global systemically important financial institutions applicable to, among other things, risk management, liquidity and capital planning and compliance programs, and changes in governmental enforcement approaches to perceived failures to comply with regulatory or legal obligations;
insufficient return on our associated investment;
Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed in our forward-looking statements and from our historical financial results due to the factors discussed in this section and elsewhere in this Form 10-K or disclosed in our other SEC filings. Forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K should not be relied on as representing
our expectations or beliefs as of any date subsequent to the time this Form 10-K is filed with the SEC. We undertake no obligation to revise our forward-looking statements after the time they are made. The factors discussed herein are not intended to be a complete statement of all risks and uncertainties that may affect our businesses. We cannot anticipate all developments that may adversely affect our business or operations or our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Forward-looking statements should not be viewed as predictions, and should not be the primary basis on which investors evaluate State Street. Any investor in State Street should consider all risks and uncertainties disclosed in our SEC filings, including our filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in particular our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and our current reports on Form 8-K, or registration statements filed under the Securities Act of 1933, all of which are accessible on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov or on the “Investor Relations” section of our corporate website at www.statestreet.com.
In the normal course of our business activities, we are exposed to a variety of risks. The following is a discussion of various risk factors applicable to State Street. Additional information about our risk management framework is included under “Risk Management” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K. Additional risks beyond those described in Management's Discussion and Analysis or in the following discussion may be inherent in our activities or operations as currently conducted, or as we may conduct them in the future, or in the markets in which we operate or may in the future operate.
Credit and Counterparty, Liquidity and Market Risks
We assume significant credit risk to counterparties, many of which are major financial institutions. These financial institutions and other counterparties may also have substantial financial dependencies with other financial institutions and sovereign entities. This credit exposure and concentration could expose us to financial loss.
The financial markets are characterized by extensive interdependencies among numerous parties, including banks, central banks, broker/dealers, insurance companies and other financial institutions. These financial institutions also include collective investment funds, such as mutual funds, UCITS and hedge funds that share these interdependencies. Many financial institutions, including collective investment funds also hold, or are exposed to, loans, sovereign debt, fixed-income securities, derivatives, counterparty and other forms of credit risk in amounts that are material to their financial condition. As a result of our own business practices and these interdependencies, we and many of our clients have concentrated counterparty exposure to other financial institutions and collective investment funds, particularly large and complex institutions, sovereign issuers, mutual funds and UCITS and hedge funds. Although we have procedures for monitoring both individual and aggregate counterparty risk, significant individual and aggregate counterparty exposure is inherent in our business, as our focus is on servicing large institutional investors.
In the normal course of our business, we assume concentrated credit risk at the individual obligor, counterparty or group level. Such concentrations may be material and can often exceed 10% of our consolidated total shareholders' equity. Our material counterparty exposures change daily, and the counterparties or groups of related counterparties to which our risk exposure exceeds
10% of our consolidated total shareholders' equity are also variable during any reported period; however, our largest exposures tend to be to other financial institutions.
Concentration of counterparty exposure presents significant risks to us and to our clients because the failure or perceived weakness of our counterparties (or in some cases of our clients' counterparties) has the potential to expose us to risk of financial loss. Changes in market perception of the financial strength of particular financial institutions or sovereign issuers can occur rapidly, are often based on a variety of factors and are difficult to predict.
Since mid-2007, a variety of economic, market and other factors have contributed to the perception of many financial institutions as being less creditworthy, as reflected in the credit downgrades of numerous large U.S. and non-U.S. financial institutions in recent years. Also, credit downgrades to several sovereign issuers (including the U.S., Austria, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain) and other issuers have stressed the perceived creditworthiness of financial institutions, many of which invest in, accept collateral in the form of, or value other transactions based on the debt or other securities issued by sovereign or other issuers. Economic, political or market turmoil or other developments may lead to stress on sovereign issuers, and increase the potential for sovereign defaults or restructurings, additional credit-rating downgrades or the departure of sovereign issuers from common currencies or economic unions. These same factors may contribute to increased risk of default or downgrading for financial and corporate issuers or other market risks associated with reduced levels of liquidity. As a result, we may be exposed to increased counterparty risks, either resulting from our role as principal or because of commitments we make in our capacity as agent for some of our clients.
Additional selected areas where we experience exposure to credit risk include:
us to potential loss if the client experiences investment losses or other credit difficulties.
or default. Moreover, not all of our counterparty exposure is secured, and when our exposure is secured, the realizable value of the collateral may have declined by the time we exercise our rights against that collateral. This risk may be particularly acute if we are required to sell the collateral into an illiquid or temporarily-impaired market.
Under evolving regulatory restrictions on credit exposure, which are anticipated to include broader or more prescriptive measures of credit exposure, we may be required to limit our exposures to specific issuers or groups, including financial institutions and
sovereign issuers, to levels that we may currently exceed. These credit exposure restrictions under such evolving regulations may adversely affect our businesses, may require that we expand our credit exposure to a broader range of issuers, including issuers that represent increased credit risk and may require that we modify our operating models or the policies and practices we use to manage our consolidated statement of condition. The effects of these considerations may increase when evaluated under a stressed environment in stress testing, including CCAR. In addition, we are an adherent to the new ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol and as such are subject to restrictions against the exercise of rights and remedies against fellow adherents, including other major financial institutions, in the event they or an affiliate of theirs enters into resolution. Although our overall business is subject to these interdependencies, several of our business units are particularly sensitive to them, including our Global Treasury group, that, among other responsibilities, manages our investment portfolio, our currency trading business, our securities finance business, and our investment management business. Given the limited number of strong counterparties in the current market, we are not able to mitigate all of our and our clients' counterparty credit risk.
Our investment securities portfolio, consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations could be adversely affected by changes in market factors including interest rates, credit spreads and credit performance.
Our investment securities portfolio represented approximately 41% of our consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2015. The gross interest revenue associated with our investment portfolio represented approximately 18% of our consolidated total gross revenue for the year ended December 31, 2015 and has represented as much as 30% of our consolidated gross revenue in the fiscal years since 2007. As such, our consolidated financial condition and results of operations are materially exposed to the risks associated with our investment portfolio, including, without limitation, changes in interest rates, credit spreads, credit performance, credit ratings, our access to liquidity, foreign exchange markets, mark-to-market valuations, and our ability to profitably reinvest repayments of principal with respect to these securities. Despite recent increases to interest rates in the United States, the continued low interest-rate environment that has persisted since the financial crisis began in mid-2007, and may continue in 2016 and beyond, limits our ability to achieve a net interest margin consistent with our historical averages. In addition, new and proposed regulatory liquidity standards, such as the LCR, require that we maintain
minimum levels of high quality liquid assets in our investment portfolio, which generally generate lower rates of return than other investment assets, resulting in a negative impact on our net interest revenue and our net interest margin. For additional information regarding these liquidity requirements, refer to the “Liquidity Coverage Ratio and Net Stable Funding Ratio” section of “Supervision and Regulation” in Item 1, "Business" in this Form 10-K. We may enter into derivative transactions to hedge or manage our exposure to interest rate risk, as well as other risks, such as foreign currency exchange risk and credit risk. Derivative instruments that we hold for these or other purposes may not achieve their intended results and could result in unexpected losses or stresses on our liquidity or capital resources.
Our investment securities portfolio represents a greater proportion of our consolidated statement of condition and our loan and lease portfolios represent a smaller proportion (approximately 8% of our consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2015), in comparison to many other major financial institutions. In some respects, the accounting and regulatory treatment of our investment securities portfolio may be less favorable to us than a more traditional held-for-investment lending portfolio. For example, under the U.S. Basel III final rule issued in July 2013, after-tax changes in the fair value of AFS investment securities are included in tier 1 capital. Since loans held for investment are not subject to a fair-value accounting framework, changes in the fair value of loans (other than incurred credit losses) are not similarly included in the determination of tier 1 capital under the U.S. Basel III final rule. Due to this differing treatment, we may experience increased variability in our tier 1 capital relative to other major financial institutions whose loan-and-lease portfolios represent a larger proportion of their consolidated total assets than ours.
Additional selected risks associated with our investment portfolio include:
2011 and may continue to experience stress in the future. For further information, refer to the risk factor titled “Our businesses have significant European operations, and disruptions in European economies could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition".
Further, we hold a portfolio of U.S. state and municipal bonds. In view of the budget deficits that a number of states and municipalities currently face, the risks associated with this portfolio are significant.
downward and the U.S. dollar remains strong or strengthens, the negative effects on our net interest revenue likely will continue or increase.
Our business activities expose us to interest-rate risk.
In our business activities, we assume interest-rate risk by investing short-term deposits received from our clients in our investment portfolio of longer- and intermediate-term assets. Our net interest revenue and net interest margin are affected by among other things, the levels of interest rates in global markets, changes in the relationship between short- and long-term interest rates, the direction and speed of interest-rate changes, and the asset and liability spreads relative to the currency and geographic mix of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. These factors are influenced, among other things, by a variety of economic and market forces and expectations, including monetary policy and other activities of central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, that we do not control. Our ability to anticipate changes in these factors or to hedge the related on- and off-balance sheet exposures can significantly influence the success of our asset-and-liability management activities and the resulting level of our net interest revenue and net interest margin. The impact of changes in interest rates and related factors will depend on the relative duration and fixed- or floating-rate nature of our assets and liabilities. Sustained lower interest rates, a flat or inverted yield curve and narrow credit spreads generally have a constraining effect on our net interest revenue. In addition, our ability to change deposit rates in response to changes in interest rates and other market and related factors is limited by client relationship considerations. For additional information about the effects on interest rates on our business, refer to “Financial Condition - Market Risk Management - Asset-and-Liability Management Activities” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K.
If we are unable to effectively manage our liquidity, including by continuously attracting deposits and other short-term funding, our consolidated financial condition, including our regulatory capital ratios, our consolidated results of operations and our business prospects, could be adversely affected.
Liquidity management, including on an intra-day basis, is critical to the management of our consolidated statement of condition and to our ability to service our client base. We generally use our liquidity to:
Because the demand for credit by our clients is difficult to predict and control, and may be at its peak at times of disruption in the securities markets, and because the average maturity of our investment securities portfolio is longer than the contractual maturity of our client deposit base, we need to continuously attract, and are dependent on access to, various sources of short-term funding. During periods of market disruption, the level of client deposits held by us has in recent years tended to increase; however, since such deposits are considered to be transitory, we have historically deposited so-called excess deposits with U.S. and non-U.S. central banks and in other highly liquid but low-yielding instruments. These levels of excess client deposits, as a consequence, have increased our net interest revenue but have adversely affected our net interest margin.
During 2015, we took action to better balance our clients’ cash management needs with our economic and regulatory objectives. These efforts contributed to a reduction of interest and non-interest bearing client deposits. While efforts of this nature may help to decrease the levels of excess deposits in the near-term, we continue to anticipate higher levels of client deposits irrespective of the interest rate environment, particularly during periods of market stress. In addition, our efforts to better balance our clients’ cash management needs with our economic and regulatory objectives could result in some clients altering their cash management strategies over time, which exposes us to the risk that those clients may in the medium or long term reduce their client deposit balances available to fund the pool of assets included in our investment securities portfolio. This could adversely affect our net interest revenue.
In managing our liquidity, our primary source of short-term funding is client deposits, which are predominantly transaction-based deposits by institutional investors. Our ability to continue to attract these deposits, and other short-term funding sources such as certificates of deposit and commercial paper, is subject to variability based on a number of factors, including volume and volatility in global financial markets, the relative interest rates that we are prepared to pay for these deposits, the perception of safety of these deposits or short-term obligations relative to alternative short-term investments available to our clients, including the capital markets, and the classification of certain
deposits for regulatory purposes and related discussions we may have from time to time with clients regarding better balancing our clients' cash management needs with our economic and regulatory objectives.
The parent company is a non-operating holding company. To effectively manage our liquidity we routinely transfer assets among affiliated entities, subsidiaries and branches. Internal or external factors, such as government regulations, influence our liquidity management and may limit our ability to effectively transfer liquidity internally which could, among other things, restrict our ability to fund operations, dividends or stock repurchases, require us to seek external and potentially more costly capital and impact our liquidity position. In addition, we may be exposed to liquidity or other risks in managing asset pools for third parties that are funded on a short-term basis, or for which the clients participating in these products have a right to the return of cash or assets on limited notice. These business activities include, among others, securities finance collateral pools, money market and other short-term investment funds and liquidity facilities utilized in connection with municipal bond programs. If clients demand a return of their cash or assets, particularly on limited notice, and these investment pools do not have the liquidity to support those demands, we could be forced to sell investment securities at unfavorable prices, damaging our reputation as an asset manager and potentially exposing us to claims related to our management of the pools.
The availability and cost of credit in short-term markets are highly dependent on the markets' perception of our liquidity and creditworthiness. Our efforts to monitor and manage our liquidity risk, including on an intra-day basis, may not be successful or sufficient to deal with dramatic or unanticipated changes in the global securities markets or other event-driven reductions in liquidity. As a result of such events, among other things, our cost of funds may increase, thereby reducing our net interest revenue, or we may need to dispose of a portion of our investment securities portfolio, which, depending on market conditions, could result in a loss from such sales of investment securities being recorded in our consolidated statement of income.
Our business and capital-related activities, including our ability to return capital to shareholders and purchase our capital stock, may be adversely affected by our implementation of the revised regulatory capital and liquidity standards that we must meet under the Basel III final rule, the Dodd-Frank Act and other regulatory initiatives, or in the event our capital plan or post-stress capital ratios are determined to be insufficient as a result of regulatory capital stress testing.
Basel III and Dodd-Frank
On January 1, 2015, the U.S. Basel III final rule replaced the existing Basel I-based approach for calculating risk-weighted assets with the U.S. Basel III standardized approach that, among other things, modifies certain existing risk weights and introduces new methods for calculating risk-weighted assets for certain types of assets and exposures. The final rule also revised the Basel II-based advanced approaches capital rules to implement Basel III. As a so-called “advanced approaches” banking organization, State Street became subject to the U.S. Basel III final rule on January 1, 2014.
The U.S. Basel III final rule also implemented certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act applies a “capital floor” to advanced approaches banking organizations, such as State Street and State Street Bank. As of January 1, 2015, the Basel III standardized approach acts as that capital floor. As a result, we are required to calculate our risk-based capital ratios under both the Basel III advanced approaches and the Basel III standardized approach, and we are subject to the more stringent of the risk-based capital ratios calculated under the standardized approach and those calculated under the advanced approaches in the assessment of our capital adequacy, including under the prompt corrective action framework.
In implementing certain aspects of these capital regulations, we are making interpretations of the regulatory intent. The Federal Reserve may determine that we are not in compliance with certain aspects of the advanced approaches capital rules and may require us to take certain actions to come into compliance that could adversely affect our business operations, our regulatory capital structure, our capital ratios or our financial performance, or otherwise restrict our growth plans or strategies. In addition, banking regulators could change the Basel III final rule or their interpretations as they apply to us, including changes to these standards or interpretations made in regulations implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, which could adversely affect us and our ability to comply with the Basel III final rule.
Along with the U.S. Basel III final rule, banking regulators also introduced additional new requirements, such as the SLR and LCR. In addition, further capital and liquidity requirements are under consideration by U.S. and international banking regulators, such as an NSFR, each of which has the potential to have significant effects on our capital and liquidity planning and activities.
For example, the specification of the various elements of the U.S. LCR in the final rule, such as the eligibility of assets as high-quality liquid assets, the calculation of net outflows, including the treatment of operational deposits, and the timing of indeterminate maturities, could have a material effect on our business activities, including the management and composition of our investment securities portfolio and our ability to extend committed contingent credit facilities to our clients. The full effects of the Basel III final rule, and of other regulatory initiatives related to capital or liquidity, on State Street and State Street Bank are subject to further regulatory guidance, action or rule-making.
As a G-SIB, we generally expect to be held to the most stringent provisions under the U.S. Basel III final rule. For example, on August 14, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a final rule on the implementation of capital requirements for U.S. G-SIBs, and on October 30, 2015, the Federal Reserve released its proposed TLAC and LTD requirements for U.S. G-SIBs. For additional information on these requirements, refer to the “Regulatory Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Standards” section under “Supervision and Regulation” in Item 1, "Business" of this Form 10-K.
Not all of our competitors have similarly been designated as systemically important, and therefore some of our competitors are not subject to the same additional capital requirements.
We are required by the Federal Reserve to conduct periodic stress testing of our business operations and to develop an annual capital plan as part of the Federal Reserve's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review process. That process is used by the Federal Reserve to evaluate our management of capital, the adequacy of our regulatory capital and the potential requirement for us to maintain capital levels above regulatory minimums. The planned capital actions in our capital plan, including stock purchases and dividends, may be objected to by the Federal Reserve, potentially requiring us to revise our stress-testing or capital management approaches, resubmit our capital plan or postpone, cancel or alter our planned capital actions. In addition, changes in our business strategy, merger or acquisition activity or
unanticipated uses of capital could result in a change in our capital plan and its associated capital actions, and may require resubmission of the capital plan to the Federal Reserve for its non-objection. We are also subject to asset quality reviews and stress testing by the ECB and may in the future to be subject to similar reviews and testing by other regulators.
Our implementation of the new capital and liquidity requirements, including our capital plan, may not be approved or may be objected to by the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve may impose capital requirements in excess of our expectations or require us to maintain levels of liquidity that are higher than we may expect, and which may adversely affect our consolidated revenues. In the event that our implementation of new capital and liquidity requirements under the Basel III final rule, the Dodd-Frank Act or other regulatory initiatives or our current capital structure are determined not to conform with current and future capital requirements, our ability to deploy capital in the operation of our business or our ability to distribute capital to shareholders or to purchase our capital stock may be constrained, and our business may be adversely affected. In addition, we may choose to forgo business opportunities, due to their impact on our capital plan or stress tests, including CCAR. Likewise, in the event that regulators in other jurisdictions in which we have banking subsidiaries determine that our capital or liquidity levels do not conform with current and future regulatory requirements, our ability to deploy capital, our levels of liquidity or our business operations in those jurisdictions may be adversely affected.
For additional information about the above matters, refer to “Business - Supervision and Regulation - Regulatory Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Standards” included under Item 1, and “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K.
Fee revenue represents a significant majority of our consolidated revenue and is subject to decline, among other things, in the event of a reduction in, or changes to, the level or type of investment activity by our clients.
We rely primarily on fee-based services to derive our revenue. This contrasts with commercial banks that may rely more heavily on interest-based sources of revenue, such as loans. During 2015 total fee revenue represented approximately 80% of our total consolidated revenue. Fee revenue generated by our investment servicing and investment management businesses is augmented by trading services, securities finance and processing fees and other revenue.
The level of these fees is influenced by several factors, including the mix and volume of our assets under custody and administration and our assets under management, the value and type of securities positions held (with respect to assets under custody) and the volume of portfolio transactions, and the types of products and services used by our clients. For example, reductions in the level of economic and capital markets activity tend to have a negative effect on our fee revenue, as these often result in reduced asset valuations and transaction volumes. They may also result in investor preference trends towards asset classes and markets deemed more secure, such as cash or non-emerging markets, with respect to which our fee rates are often lower.
In addition, our clients include institutional investors, such as mutual funds, collective investment funds, hedge funds and other investment pools, corporate and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations, endowments and investment managers. Economic, market or other factors that reduce the level or rates of savings in or with those institutions, either through reductions in financial asset valuations or through changes in investor preferences, could materially reduce our fee revenue and have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations. These clients also, by their nature, are often able to exert considerable market influence, and this, combined with strong competitive forces in the markets for our services, has resulted in, and may continue to result in, significant pressure to reduce the fees we charge for our services in both our asset servicing and asset management business lines.
Our businesses have significant European operations, and disruptions in European economies could have an adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.
Since 2011, several European economies have experienced, and in the future may experience, difficulties in financing their deficits and servicing their outstanding debt. Instability and sovereign debt concerns, and the downgraded credit ratings of associated sovereign debt and European financial institutions, have contributed to volatility in the financial markets. Throughout 2015 the European Central Bank has further reduced interest rates below zero and continued with purchasing European sovereign debt and other quantitative easing measures to support economic growth and employment. The divergence between U.S. and European monetary policy has led to increased uncertainty around the strength of the European economies and strength of the Euro. Numerous European governments, have adopted austerity and other measures in an attempt to contain budget deficits. Current popular and political attitudes
towards economic austerity programs in Europe appear to be diverging, creating the potential for an increasingly complex political environment in which actions to support European economies need to be resolved.
During the last two quarters of 2015 Europe has experienced an unprecedented mass-migration of refugees from the Middle East and Africa. This is placing significant pressures on governments, society and budget across Europe. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has led to increased geopolitical pressure, with governments globally imposing trade restrictions which affect the global and European economy, the Russian currency and Russian financial markets and financial institutions. Finally, terrorist threat has increased significantly in Europe, as demonstrated by the Paris attacks, which adds to economic uncertainty.
The current geo-political and economic uncertainty create ongoing concern regarding deflationary pressures in Europe, persistent high levels of unemployment in certain countries and the stability of the Euro, European financial markets generally and certain institutions in particular. Given the scope of our European operations, clients and counterparties, disruptions in the European financial markets, the failure to resolve fully and contain sovereign-debt concerns, continued recession in significant European economies, the possible attempt of a country to abandon the Euro, independence movements (e.g. Scotland, Catalonia and Britain) the failure of a significant European financial institution, even if not an immediate counterparty to us, or persistent weakness in the Euro and the consequences of prolonged negative interest rates, could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.
Recent geopolitical and economic conditions have adversely affected us, and they have increased the uncertainty and unpredictability we face in managing our businesses.
Global credit and other financial markets have recently suffered from substantial volatility, illiquidity and disruption. The resulting economic pressure and lack of confidence in the financial stability of certain countries, and in the financial markets generally, have adversely affected our business, as well as the businesses of our clients and our significant counterparties. This environment, the potential for continuing or additional disruptions, and the regulatory and enforcement environment that has subsequently arisen have also affected overall confidence in financial institutions, have further exacerbated liquidity and pricing issues within the securities markets, have increased the uncertainty
and unpredictability we face in managing our businesses, and have had an adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
Numerous global financial services firms and the sovereign debt of some nations experienced credit downgrades and recessionary issues in 2015. The occurrence of additional disruptions in global markets, the worsening of economic conditions, continued economic or political uncertainty in Europe or in emerging markets, volatility in the price of oil or prolonged instability in China and other regions, could further adversely affect our businesses and the financial services industry in general, and also increase the difficulty and unpredictability of aligning our business strategies, our infrastructure and our operating costs in light of current and future market and economic conditions.
Market disruptions can adversely affect our consolidated results of operations if the value of assets under custody, administration or management decline, while the costs of providing the related services remain constant. These factors can reduce the profitability of our asset-based fee revenue and could also adversely affect our transaction-based revenue, such as revenues from securities finance and foreign exchange activities, and the volume of transactions that we execute for or with our clients. Further, the degree of volatility in foreign exchange rates can affect our foreign exchange trading revenue. In general, increased currency volatility tends to increase our market risk but also increases our foreign exchange revenue. Conversely, periods of lower currency volatility tend to decrease our market risk but also decrease our foreign exchange revenue.
In addition, as our business grows globally and a significant percentage of our revenue is earned (and of our expenses paid) in currencies other than U.S. dollars, our exposure to foreign currency volatility could affect our levels of consolidated revenue, our consolidated expenses and our consolidated results of operations, as well as the value of our investment in our non-U.S. operations and our investment portfolio holdings. For example, throughout 2015 the effect of a stronger U.S. dollar, particularly relative to the Euro, reduced our servicing fee and management fee revenue and also reduced our expenses. The extent to which changes in the strength of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies affects our consolidated results of operations, including the degree of any offset between increases or decreases to both revenue and expenses, will depend upon the nature and scope of our operations and activities in the relevant jurisdictions during the relevant periods, which may vary from period to period.
As our product offerings expand, in part as we seek to take advantage of perceived opportunities arising under various regulatory reforms and resulting market changes, the degree of our exposure to various market and credit risks will evolve, potentially resulting in greater revenue volatility. We also will need to make additional investments to develop the operational infrastructure and to enhance our compliance and risk management capabilities to support these businesses, which may increase the operating expenses of such businesses or, if our control environment fails to keep pace with product expansion, result in increased risk of loss from such businesses.
We may need to raise additional capital in the future, which may not be available to us or may only be available on unfavorable terms.
We may need to raise additional capital in order to maintain our credit ratings in response to regulatory changes, including capital rules, or for other purposes, including financing acquisitions and joint ventures. However, our ability to access the capital markets, if needed, will depend on a number of factors, including the state of the financial markets. In the event of rising interest rates, disruptions in financial markets, negative perceptions of our business or our financial strength, or other factors that would increase our cost of borrowing, we cannot be sure of our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, on terms acceptable to us. Any diminished ability to raise additional capital, if needed, could adversely affect our business and our ability to implement our business plan, capital plan and strategic goals, including the financing of acquisitions and joint ventures.
Any downgrades in our credit ratings, or an actual or perceived reduction in our financial strength, could adversely affect our borrowing costs, capital costs and liquidity and cause reputational harm.
Major independent rating agencies publish credit ratings for our debt obligations based on their evaluation of a number of factors, some of which relate to our performance and other corporate developments, including financings, acquisitions and joint ventures, and some of which relate to general industry conditions. We anticipate that the rating agencies will review our ratings regularly based on our consolidated results of operations and developments in our businesses. One or more of the major independent credit rating agencies have in the past downgraded, and may in the future downgrade, our credit ratings, or have negatively revised their outlook for our credit ratings. In December 2015, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the senior unsecured
and subordinated debt of State Street Corporation and the subordinated debt of State Street Bank.
The current market environment and our exposure to financial institutions and other counterparties, including sovereign entities, increase the risk that we may not maintain our current ratings, and we cannot provide assurance that we will continue to maintain our current credit ratings. Downgrades in our credit ratings may adversely affect our borrowing costs, our capital costs and our ability to raise capital and, in turn, our liquidity. A failure to maintain an acceptable credit rating may also preclude us from being competitive in various products.
Additionally, our counterparties, as well as our clients, rely on our financial strength and stability and evaluate the risks of doing business with us. If we experience diminished financial strength or stability, actual or perceived, including the effects of market or regulatory developments, our announced or rumored business developments or consolidated results of operations, a decline in our stock price or a reduced credit rating, our counterparties may be less willing to enter into transactions, secured or unsecured, with us; our clients may reduce or place limits on the level of services we provide them or seek other service providers; or our prospective clients may select other service providers, all of which may have other adverse effects on our reputation.
The risk that we may be perceived as less creditworthy relative to other market participants is higher in the current market environment, in which the consolidation, and in some instances failure, of financial institutions, including major global financial institutions, have resulted in a smaller number of much larger counterparties and competitors. If our counterparties perceive us to be a less viable counterparty, our ability to enter into financial transactions on terms acceptable to us or our clients, on our or our clients' behalf, will be materially compromised. If our clients reduce their deposits with us or select other service providers for all or a portion of the services we provide to them, our revenues will decrease accordingly.
Operational, Business and Reputational Risks
We face extensive and changing government regulation in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions in which we operate, which may increase our costs and expose us to risks related to compliance.
Most of our businesses are subject to extensive regulation by multiple regulatory bodies, and many of the clients to which we provide services are themselves subject to a broad range of regulatory requirements. These regulations may affect the scope of, and the manner and terms of delivery of,
our services. As a financial institution with substantial international operations, we are subject to extensive regulation and supervisory oversight, both in and outside of the U.S. This regulation and supervisory oversight affects, among other things, the scope of our activities and client services, our capital and organizational structure, our ability to fund the operations of our subsidiaries, our lending practices, our dividend policy, our common stock purchase actions, the manner in which we market our services, and our interactions with foreign regulatory agencies and officials.
In particular, State Street is registered with the Federal Reserve as a bank holding company pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The Bank Holding Company Act limits the activities in which we (and non-banking entities that we are deemed to control under that Act) may engage in activities the Federal Reserve considers to be closely related to banking or to managing or controlling banks. Financial holding company status expands the activities permissible for a bank holding company to those that are deemed to be “financial in nature” by the Federal Reserve. State Street elected to become a financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act. Financial holding company status requires State Street and its banking subsidiaries to remain well capitalized and well managed and to comply with Community Reinvestment Act obligations. Currently, under the Bank Holding Company Act, we may not be able to engage in new activities or acquire shares or control of other businesses.
Several other aspects of the regulatory environment in which we operate, and related risks, are discussed below. Additional information is provided in “Business - Supervision and Regulation” included under Item 1 of this Form 10-K.
The Dodd-Frank Act, which became law in July 2010, has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the regulatory structure of the global financial markets and has imposed, and is expected to continue to impose, significant additional costs on us. Several elements of the Dodd-Frank Act, such as the Volcker rule and enhanced prudential standards for financial institutions designated as SIFIs, impose or are expected to impose significant additional operational, compliance and risk management costs both in the near-term, as we develop and integrate appropriate systems and procedures, and on a recurring basis thereafter, as we monitor, support and refine those systems and procedures.
A number of regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act that are not yet final are anticipated to be finalized in 2016 or 2017, with compliance dates soon
thereafter, and, as a result of and together with regulatory change in Europe, the costs and impact on our operations of the post-financial crisis regulatory reform are accelerating. We may not anticipate completely all areas in which the Dodd-Frank Act or other regulatory initiatives could affect our business or influence our future activities or the full effects or extent of related operational, compliance, risk management or other costs.
Other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations, such as new rules for swap market participants, additional regulation of financial system utilities, the designation of non-bank institutions as SIFIs, and further requirements to facilitate orderly liquidation of large institutions, could adversely affect our business operations and our competitive position, and could also negatively affect the operational and competitive positions of our clients. The final effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on our business will depend largely on the scope and timing of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act by regulatory bodies, which in many cases have been delayed, and the exercise of discretion by these regulatory bodies.
State Street Corporation, like other bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, periodically submits a plan for rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure--commonly referred to as a resolution plan or a living will--to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC under Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. We submitted our 2015 resolution plan to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC on July 1, 2015. Through resolution planning, we seek, in the event of the insolvency, to maintain State Street Bank’s role as a key infrastructure provider within the financial system, while minimizing risk to the financial system and maximizing value for the benefit of our stakeholders. We have and will continue to focus management attention and resources to meet regulatory expectations with respect to resolution planning. As set out in its 2015 resolution plan, in the event of material financial distress or failure, our preferred resolution strategy, referred to as the single point of entry strategy, provides for the recapitalization of State Street Bank by the parent company (for example, by forgiving inter-company indebtedness of State Street Bank owed to the parent company) prior to the parent company’s entry into bankruptcy proceedings. The recapitalization is intended to enable State Street Bank and its material subsidiaries to continue operating. Under this single point of entry strategy, State Street Bank and its material entity subsidiaries would not themselves enter into resolution proceedings; they would instead be transferred to a newly organized holding company
held by a reorganization trust for the benefit of the parent company’s claimants. In the event that such recapitalization actions occur, the parent company's financial condition would be adversely impacted and equity and debt holders of the parent company, may, as a consequence, be in a worse position than if the recapitalization did not occur.
In 2014, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC announced the completion of their reviews of the resolution plans submitted in 2013 by 11 large, complex banking organizations, including State Street, under the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, and informed each of these organizations of specific shortcomings with their respective 2013 resolution plans. If the FDIC and the Federal Reserve should determine that one or more of our 2015 or any subsequent resolution plan is not credible or would not facilitate an orderly resolution under the Bankruptcy Code, or we otherwise fail to meet regulatory expectations to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC with respect to one or more of such resolution plans, we could be subject to more stringent capital, leverage or liquidity requirements, restrictions on our growth, activities or operations, or be required to divest certain of our assets or operations.
U.S. banking regulators have issued final regulations to implement the Volcker rule. The Volcker rule will, over time, prohibit banking entities, including us and our affiliates, from engaging in specified prohibited proprietary trading activities, subject to exemptions, including for market-making-related activities and risk-mitigating hedging. The Volcker rule will also require banking entities to either restructure or divest specified ownership interests in, and relationships with, covered funds, within the meaning of the final Volcker rule regulations.
Whether various investment securities or structures, such as CLOs constitute covered funds, as defined in the final Volcker rule regulations, and do not benefit from the exemptions provided in the Volcker rule, and whether a banking organization's investments therein constitute ownership interests remain subject to (1) market, and ultimately regulatory, interpretation, and (2) the specific terms and other characteristics relevant to such investment securities and structures. We hold significant investments in CLOs. In the event that we or our banking regulators conclude that such investments in CLOs, or other investments, are covered funds, we may be required to divest of such investments. If other banking entities reach similar conclusions with respect to similar investments held by them, the prices of such investments could decline significantly, and we may be required to divest of such investments
at a significant discount compared to the investments' book value. This could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or on our consolidated financial condition in the period in which such a divestiture occurs.
The final Volcker rule regulations also require banking entities to establish extensive programs designed to ensure compliance with the restrictions of the Volcker rule. We have established a compliance program which complies with the final Volcker rule regulations as currently in effect. Such compliance program restricts our ability in the future to service various types of funds, in particular covered funds for which SSGA acts as an advisor and specified types of trustee relationships. Consequently, Volcker rule compliance entails both the cost of a compliance program and loss of certain revenue and future opportunities.
Our qualification under the Dodd-Frank Act in the U.S. as a SIFI, and our designation by the FSB as a G-SIB, to which certain regulatory capital surcharges may apply, will subject us to incrementally higher capital and prudential requirements, increased scrutiny of our activities and potential further regulatory requirements or increased regulatory expectations than those applicable to some of the financial institutions with which we compete as a custodian or asset manager. This qualification and designation also has significantly increased, and may continue to increase, our expenses associated with regulatory compliance, including personnel and systems, as well as implementation and related costs to enhance our programs.
Non-U.S. Regulatory Requirements
The breadth of our business activities, together with the scope of our global operations and varying business practices in relevant jurisdictions, increase the complexity and costs of meeting our regulatory compliance obligations, including in areas that are receiving significant regulatory scrutiny. We are, therefore, subject to related risks of non-compliance, including fines, penalties, lawsuits, regulatory sanctions or difficulties in obtaining approvals, limitations on our business activities, or reputational harm, any of which may be significant. For example, the global nature of our client base requires us to comply with complex regulations relating to money laundering and anti-terrorist monitoring of our clients. The same applies with respect to anti-corruption laws and related requirements. Regulatory scrutiny of compliance with these and other regulations is increasing and our operations are subject to regulations from multiple jurisdictions. The overall evolving regulatory landscape in each jurisdiction in which we operate, including requirements or
restrictions on our service offerings or opportunities for new service offerings, particularly when applied on a cross-border basis, is not necessarily consistent with the requirements or regulatory objectives of other jurisdictions in which we have clients or operations. This evolving regulatory landscape may interfere with our ability to conduct our operations, with our pursuit of a common global operating model or with our ability to compete effectively with other financial institutions operating in those jurisdictions or which may be subject to different regulatory requirements than apply to us. In particular, non-U.S. regulation and initiatives may be inconsistent or conflict with current or proposed regulations in the U.S., which could create increased compliance and other costs that would adversely affect business, operations or profitability.
In addition to U.S. regulatory initiatives such as the Dodd-Frank Act and implementation of the Basel III final rule, including the Basel III SLR and the proposed NSFR, we are further affected by non-U.S. regulatory initiatives, including, but not limited to, the implemented AIFMD, the European Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, the EMIR which is currently in an implementation phase, proposed revisions to the European Undertakings for the Collective Investment Fund in Transferable Securities Directive, or UCITS, proposed revisions to the MiFID and revisions to the European Union Data Protection Directive. Recent, proposed or potential regulations in the U.S. and Europe with respect to money market funds, short-term wholesale funding, such as repurchase agreements or securities lending, or other “shadow banking” activities, could also adversely affect not only our own operations but also the operations of the clients to which we provide services. In Europe, the AIFMD increases the responsibilities and potential liabilities of custodians to certain of their clients for asset losses, and proposed revisions to the regulations affecting UCITS are anticipated to incorporate similar, potentially more strict, standards.
EMIR requires the reporting of all derivatives to a trade repository, the mandatory clearing of certain derivatives trades via a central counterparty and risk mitigation techniques for derivatives not cleared via a central counterparty. EMIR will continue to impact our business activities, and increase costs, in various ways, some of which may be adverse. Further, the European Commission's proposal to introduce a proposed financial transaction tax or similar proposals elsewhere, if adopted, could materially affect the location and volume of financial transactions or otherwise alter the conduct of financial activities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.
Consequences of Regulatory Environment and Compliance Risks
The Dodd-Frank Act and these other international regulatory changes could limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, increase our regulatory capital requirements, alter the risk profile of certain of our core activities and impose additional costs on us, otherwise adversely affect our business, our consolidated results of operations or financial condition and have other negative consequences, including a reduction of our credit ratings. Different countries may respond to the market and economic environment in different and potentially conflicting manners, which could increase the cost of compliance for us.
The evolving regulatory environment, including changes to existing regulations and the introduction of new regulations, may also contribute to decisions we may make to suspend, reduce or withdraw from existing businesses, activities or initiatives. In addition to potential lost revenue associated with any such suspensions, reductions or withdrawals, any such suspensions, reductions or withdrawals may result in significant restructuring or related costs or exposures.
If we do not comply with governmental regulations, we may be subject to fines, penalties, lawsuits, delays, or difficulties in obtaining regulatory approvals or restrictions on our business activities or harm to our reputation, which may significantly and adversely affect our business operations and, in turn, our consolidated results of operations. The willingness of regulatory authorities to impose meaningful sanctions, and the level of fines and penalties imposed in connection with regulatory violations, have increased substantially since the financial crisis. Regulatory agencies may, at times, limit our ability to disclose their findings, related actions or remedial measures. Similarly, many of our clients are subject to significant regulatory requirements and retain our services in order for us to assist them in complying with those legal requirements. Changes in these regulations can significantly affect the services that we are asked to provide, as well as our costs.
Adverse publicity and damage to our reputation arising from the failure or perceived failure to comply with legal, regulatory or contractual requirements could affect our ability to attract and retain clients. If we cause clients to fail to comply with these regulatory requirements, we may be liable to them for losses and expenses that they incur. In recent years, regulatory oversight and enforcement have increased substantially, imposing additional costs and increasing the potential risks associated with our operations. If this regulatory trend continues, it could
adversely affect our operations and, in turn, our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
For additional information, see the risk factor below, “Our businesses may be adversely affected by regulatory enforcement and litigation.”
Our calculations of credit, market and operational risk exposures, total risk-weighted assets and capital ratios for regulatory purposes depend on data inputs, formulae, models, correlations, and assumptions that are subject to changes over time, which changes, in addition to our consolidated financial results, could materially change our risk exposures, our total risk-weighted assets and our capital ratios from period to period.
To calculate our credit, market and operational risk exposures, our total risk-weighted assets and our capital ratios for regulatory purposes, the Basel III final rule involves the use of current and historical data, including our own loss data and claims experience and similar information from other industry participants, market volatility measures, interest rates and spreads, asset valuations, credit exposures, and the creditworthiness of our counterparties. These calculations also involve the use of quantitative formulae, statistical models, historical correlations and significant assumptions. We refer to the data, formulae, models, correlations, and assumptions, as well as our related internal processes, as our “advanced systems.” While our advanced systems are generally quantitative in nature, significant components involve the exercise of judgment based, among other factors, on our and the financial services industry's evolving experience. Any of these judgments or other elements of our advanced systems may not, individually or collectively, precisely represent or calculate the scenarios, circumstances, outputs or other results for which they are designed or intended.
In addition, our advanced systems are subject to update and periodic revalidation in response to changes in our business activities and our historical experiences, forces and events experienced by the market broadly or by individual financial institutions, changes in regulations and regulatory interpretations and other factors, and are also subject to continuing regulatory review and approval. For example, a significant operational loss experienced by another financial institution, even if we do not experience a related loss, could result in a material change in our advanced systems and a corresponding material change in our risk exposures, our total risk-weighted assets and our capital ratios compared to prior periods. Due to the influence of changes in our advanced systems, whether resulting from changes in
data inputs, regulation or regulatory supervision or interpretation, State Street-specific or more general market, or individual financial institution-specific, activities or experiences, or other updates or factors, we expect that our advanced systems and our credit, market and operational risk exposures, our total risk-weighted assets and our capital ratios calculated under the Basel III final rule will change, and may be volatile, over time, and that those latter changes or volatility could be material as calculated and measured from period to period.
Our businesses may be adversely affected by regulatory enforcement and litigation.
In the ordinary course of our business, we are subject to various regulatory, governmental and law enforcement inquiries, investigations and subpoenas. These may be directed generally to participants in the businesses or markets in which we are involved or may be specifically directed at us. In regulatory enforcement matters, claims for disgorgement, the imposition of penalties and the imposition of other remedial sanctions are possible.
From time to time, our clients, or the government on their or its own behalf, make claims and take legal action relating to, among other things, our performance of our fiduciary or contractual responsibilities. Often, the announcement or other publication of such a claim or action, or of any related settlement, may spur the initiation of similar claims by other clients or governmental parties. In any such claims or actions, demands for substantial monetary damages may be asserted against us and may result in financial liability, changes in our business practices or an adverse effect on our reputation or on client demand for our products and services. The exposure associated with any proceedings that may be threatened, commenced or filed against us could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations for the period in which we establish a reserve with respect to such potential liability or upon our reputation. In regulatory settlements since the financial crisis, the fines imposed by regulators have increased substantially and may exceed in some cases the profit earned or harm caused by the regulatory or other breach
In December 2015, we announced a review into the manner in which we invoiced certain expenses to certain of our asset servicing clients, primarily in the United States, during an 18-year period going back to 1998. As a result of this review, we determined that we had incorrectly invoiced clients in the aggregate amount of approximately $240 million for expenses within the specific categories under review. In addition to this amount, we will compensate clients for an aggregate of approximately $17 million in interest associated with the incorrect invoicing. There is the
potential that as our review continues, our estimates of the amounts reimbursable to clients may increase or that clients or regulators may assert other legal theories of liability. Our billing arrangements capture multiple asset classes and transactions executed by our clients and therefore may be subject to operational error or disagreements with clients. We have notified certain governmental authorities about this review. We may become subject to regulatory proceedings and litigation in connection with this matter, and there can be no assurance as to the outcome of any proceedings that may be commenced against us.
In many cases, we are required to self-report inappropriate or non-compliant conduct to the authorities, and our failure to do so may represent an independent regulatory violation. Even when we promptly bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities, we may nonetheless experience regulatory fines, liabilities to clients, harm to our reputation or other adverse effects in connection with self-reported matters. Moreover, our settlement or other resolution of any matter with any one or more regulators or other applicable party may not forestall other regulators or parties in the same or other jurisdictions from pursuing a claim or other action against us with respect to the same or a similar matter.
Our operations are subject to regular and ongoing inspection by our bank and other financial market regulators in the U.S. and internationally. As a result of such inspections, regulators may identify areas in which we may need to take actions, which may be significant, to enhance our regulatory compliance or risk management practices. Such remedial actions may entail significant cost, management attention, and systems development and such efforts may affect our ability to expand our business until such remedial actions are completed. Our failure to implement enhanced compliance and risk management procedures in a manner and in a timeframe deemed to be responsive by the applicable regulatory authority could adversely impact our relationship with such regulatory authority and could lead to restrictions on our activities or other sanctions.
On June 1, 2015, we entered into a written agreement with the Federal Reserve and the Massachusetts Division of Banks relating to deficiencies identified in our compliance programs with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money laundering (AML) regulations and U.S. economic sanctions regulations promulgated by OFAC. As part of this enforcement action, we are required to, among other things, implement improvements to our compliance programs and to retain an independent firm to conduct a review of account and transaction activity covering a prior
three-month period to evaluate whether any suspicious activity not previously reported should have been identified and reported in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. If deficiencies in our historical reporting are identified as a result of the transaction review or if we fail to comply with the terms of the written agreement, we may become subject to fines and other regulatory sanctions, which may have a material adverse effect on us.
Further, we may become subject to regulatory scrutiny, inquiries or investigations associated with broad, industry-wide concerns, and potentially client-related inquiries or claims, whether or not we engaged in the relevant activities, and could experience associated increased costs or harm to our reputation.
In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal and regulatory matters, we cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of any pending or potential matter or, if determined adversely against us, the costs associated with any such matter, particularly where the claimant seeks very large or indeterminate damages or where the matter presents novel legal theories, involves a large number of parties or is at a preliminary stage. We may be unable to accurately estimate our exposure to litigation risk when we record reserves for probable and estimable loss contingencies. As a result, any reserves we establish to cover any settlements, judgments or regulatory fines may not be sufficient to cover our actual financial exposure. The resolution of certain pending or potential legal or regulatory matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations for the period in which the relevant matter is resolved or an accrual is determined to be required, on our consolidated financial condition or on our reputation
We face litigation and governmental and client inquiries in connection with our execution of indirect foreign exchange trades with custody clients; these issues have adversely affected our revenue from such trading and may cause our revenue from such trading to decline in the future.
Our custody clients are not required to execute foreign exchange transactions with us. To the extent they execute foreign exchange trades with us, they generally execute a greater volume using our direct methods of execution at negotiated rates or spreads than they execute using our “indirect” methods at rates we establish. Where our clients or their investment managers choose to use our indirect foreign exchange execution methods, generally they elect that service for trades of smaller size or for currencies where regulatory or operational requirements cause trading in such currencies to
present greater operational risk and costs for them. Given the nature of these trades and other features of the indirect foreign exchange trading in which we engage, we generally charge higher rates for indirect execution than we charge for other trades, including trades in the interbank currency market.
As discussed more fully below, claims have been asserted on behalf of current and former custody clients, and future claims may be asserted, alleging that our indirect foreign exchange rates (including the differences between those rates and indicative interbank market rates at the time we executed the trades) were not adequately disclosed or were otherwise improper, and seeking to recover, among other things, the full amount of the revenue we obtained from our indirect foreign exchange trading with them. In addition, attorneys general and other governmental authorities from a number of jurisdictions, as well as U.S. Attorney's offices, the U.S. Department of Labor and the SEC, have requested information or issued subpoenas in connection with inquiries into the pricing of our indirect foreign exchange trading.
In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009. The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts law and a breach of the duty of loyalty. Two other putative class actions are currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging various violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with us that executed indirect foreign exchange trades with State Street from 1998 onward. The complaints allege that State Street caused class members to pay unfair and unreasonable rates for indirect foreign exchange trades with State Street. The complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief. Other claims may be asserted in the future, including in response to developments in the actions discussed above or governmental proceedings.
If these matters were to proceed to trial, we expect that plaintiffs would seek to recover their share of all or a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from indirect foreign exchange trades. We cannot predict whether a court, in the event of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be the appropriate measure of damages.
The following table summarizes our estimated total revenue worldwide from indirect foreign exchange trading for the years ended December 31:
We believe that the amount of our revenue from indirect foreign exchange trading had been of a similar or lesser order of magnitude for many years prior to 2008. Our revenue calculations related to indirect foreign exchange trading reflect judgment concerning the relationship between the rates we charge for indirect foreign exchange execution and indicative interbank market rates near in time to execution. Our revenue from foreign exchange trading generally depends on the difference between the rates we set for those indirect trades and indicative interbank market rates at the time of execution of the trade.
As of December 31, 2015, we have accrued a total of $565 million associated with our indirect foreign exchange business. This accrual reflects the current status of our ongoing efforts to seek to resolve the outstanding claims asserted in the United States against us by federal governmental entities and U.S. civil litigants with regard to our indirect foreign exchange business. Although we believe this recorded legal accrual will address the financial demands associated with these claims, significant non-financial terms remain outstanding. In addition, there can be no assurance that other claims will not be asserted in the future. Consequently, there can be no assurance that we will enter into any settlements, that the cost of any settlements or other resolutions of any such matters will not materially exceed our accrual or that other, potentially material, claims relating to our indirect foreign exchange business will not be asserted against us. An adverse outcome with respect to one or more claims, whether or not currently asserted, relating to our indirect foreign exchange business could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, on our consolidated results of operations for the period in which the adverse outcome occurs (or an accrual is determined to be required), or on our consolidated financial condition.
The heightened regulatory and media scrutiny on indirect foreign exchange services has resulted in clients reducing the volume of indirect foreign exchange trades, which has had and is anticipated to continue to have an adverse impact on our revenue from, and the profitability of, our indirect foreign exchange trading. Some custody clients or their investment managers have elected to change the manner in which they execute foreign exchange with us or have decided not to use our foreign exchange execution methods. We do not expect the market, regulatory and other pressures on our indirect foreign exchange services to decrease in 2016. We intend to continue to offer our custody clients a range of execution options for their foreign exchange needs; however, the range of services, costs and profitability vary by execution option. We cannot provide assurance that clients or investment managers who choose to use less or none of our indirect foreign exchange trading, or to use alternatives to our existing indirect foreign exchange trading, will choose the alternatives offered by us. Accordingly, our revenue earned from providing these foreign exchange trading services may decline further.
We may not be successful in implementing State Street Beacon, our multi-year program to create cost efficiencies through changes in our operational processes and to further digitize our processes and interfaces with our clients.
In order to maintain and grow our business, we must continuously make strategic decisions about our current and future business plans, including plans to target cost initiatives and enhance operational processes and efficiencies, plans to improve existing and to develop new service offerings and enhancements, plans for entering or exiting business lines or geographic markets, plans for acquiring or disposing of businesses, plans to build new systems, migrate from existing systems and other infrastructure and to address staffing needs. In October 2015, we announced State Street Beacon, a multi-year program to create cost efficiencies through changes in our operational processes and to further digitize our processes and interfaces with our clients.
Operational process transformations, including State Street Beacon, entail significant risks. The program, and any future strategic or business plan we implement, may prove to be inadequate to achieve its objectives, may result in increased or unanticipated costs, may result in earnings volatility, may take longer than anticipated to implement, may involve elements reliant on the performance of third parties and may not be successfully implemented. In addition, our efforts to manage expenses may be matched or exceeded by our competitors. Any failure to implement State Street Beacon in whole or in part may, among other things, reduce our competitive
position, diminish the cost effectiveness of our systems and processes or provide an insufficient return on our associated investment. In particular, elements of the program include investment in systems integration and new technologies, including straight-through-processing, to increase global servicing capabilities, reduce expenses and enhance the client experience, and also the development of new, and the evolution of existing, methods and tools to accelerate the pace of innovation, the introduction of new services and enhancements to the security of our data systems. The transition to new operating processes and technology infrastructure may cause disruptions in our relationships with clients and employees and may present other unanticipated technical or operational hurdles. As a result, we may not achieve some or all of the cost savings or other benefits anticipated through the program. In addition, other systems development initiatives, which are not included in State Street Beacon, may not have access to the same level of resources or management attention and, consequently, may be delayed or unsuccessful. Many of our systems require enhancements to meet the requirements of evolving regulation, to permit us to optimize our use of capital or to reduce the risk of operating error. We may not have the resources to pursue all of these objectives, including State Street Beacon, simultaneously.
The success of the program and our other strategic plans could also be affected by market disruptions and unanticipated changes in the overall market for financial services and the global economy. We also may not be able to abandon or alter these plans without significant loss, as the implementation of our decisions may involve significant capital outlays, often far in advance of when we expect to generate any related revenues or cost expectations. Accordingly, our business, our consolidated results of operations and our consolidated financial condition may be adversely affected by any failure or delay in our strategic decisions, including the program or elements thereof. For additional information about the program, see the “Consolidated Results of Operations - Expenses” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis, included under Item 7.
Our businesses may be negatively affected by adverse publicity or other reputational harm.
Our relationship with many of our clients is predicated on our reputation as a fiduciary and a service provider that adheres to the highest standards of ethics, service quality and regulatory compliance. Adverse publicity, regulatory actions or fines, litigation, operational failures or the failure to meet client expectations or fiduciary or other obligations could materially and adversely affect our reputation, our ability to attract and retain clients or key
employees or our sources of funding for the same or other businesses. For example, over the past several years we have experienced adverse publicity with respect to our indirect foreign exchange trading, and this adverse publicity has contributed to a shift of client volume to other foreign exchange execution methods. Similarly, regulatory and reputational issues in our transition management business in the U.K. in 2010 and 2011 adversely affected our revenue from that business in subsequent years. Preserving and enhancing our reputation also depends on maintaining systems, procedures and controls that address known risks and regulatory requirements, as well as our ability to timely identify, understand and mitigate additional risks that arise due to changes in our businesses and the marketplaces in which we operate, the regulatory environment and client expectations.
Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented, our risk management policies and procedures may be inadequate, and operational risk could adversely affect our consolidated results of operations.
We may fail to identify and manage risks related to a variety of aspects of our business, including, but not limited to, operational risk, interest-rate risk, foreign exchange risk, trading risk, fiduciary risk, legal and compliance risk, liquidity risk and credit risk. We have adopted various controls, procedures, policies and systems to monitor and manage risk. While we currently believe that our risk management process is effective, we cannot provide assurance that those controls, procedures, policies and systems will always be adequate to identify and manage the internal and external, including service provider, risks in our various businesses. Risks that individuals, either employees or contractors, consciously circumvent established control mechanisms to, for example, exceed trading or investment management limitations, or commit fraud, are particularly challenging to manage through a control framework. The financial and reputational impact of control failures can be significant. Persistent or repeated issues with respect to controls may raise concerns among regulators regarding our culture, governance and control environment. While we seek to contractually limit our financial exposure to operational risk, the degree of protection that we are able to achieve varies, and our potential exposure may be greater than the revenue we anticipate that we will earn from servicing our clients.
In addition, our businesses and the markets in which we operate are continuously evolving. We may fail to identify or fully understand the implications of changes in our businesses or the financial markets and fail to adequately or timely enhance our risk framework to address those changes. If our risk
framework is ineffective, either because it fails to keep pace with changes in the financial markets, regulatory or industry requirements, our businesses, our counterparties, clients or service providers or for other reasons, we could incur losses, suffer reputational damage or find ourselves out of compliance with applicable regulatory or contractual mandates or expectations.
Operational risk is inherent in all of our business activities. As a leading provider of services to institutional investors, we provide a broad array of services, including research, investment management, trading services and investment servicing that expose us to operational risk. In addition, these services generate a broad array of complex and specialized servicing, confidentiality and fiduciary requirements, many of which involve the opportunity for human, systems or process errors. We face the risk that the control policies, procedures and systems we have established to comply with our operational requirements will fail, will be inadequate or will become outdated. We also face the potential for loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, employee supervision or monitoring mechanisms, service-provider processes or other systems or controls, which could materially affect our future consolidated results of operations. Given the volume and magnitude of transactions we process on a daily basis, operational losses represent a potentially significant financial risk for our business. Operational errors that result in us remitting funds to a failing or bankrupt entity may be irreversible, and may subject us to losses.
We may also be subject to disruptions from external events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, which could cause delays or disruptions to operational functions, including information processing and financial market settlement functions. In addition, our clients, vendors and counterparties could suffer from such events. Should these events affect us, or the clients, vendors or counterparties with which we conduct business, our consolidated results of operations could be negatively affected. When we record balance sheet accruals for probable and estimable loss contingencies related to operational losses, we may be unable to accurately estimate our potential exposure, and any accruals we establish to cover operational losses may not be sufficient to cover our actual financial exposure, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations.
The quantitative models we use to manage our business may contain errors that result in inadequate risk assessments, inaccurate valuations or poor business decisions, and lapses in disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting could occur, any of which could result in material harm.
We use quantitative models to help manage many different aspects of our businesses. As an input to our overall assessment of capital adequacy, we use models to measure the amount of credit risk, market risk, operational risk, interest-rate risk and liquidity risk we face. During the preparation of our consolidated financial statements, we sometimes use models to measure the value of asset and liability positions for which reliable market prices are not available. We also use models to support many different types of business decisions including trading activities, hedging, asset-and-liability management and whether to change business strategy. Weaknesses in the underlying model, inadequate model assumptions, normal model limitations, inappropriate model use, weaknesses in model implementation or poor data quality, could result in unanticipated and adverse consequences, including material loss and material non-compliance with regulatory requirements or expectations. Because of our widespread usage of models, potential weaknesses in our model risk management practices pose an ongoing risk to us.
We also may fail to accurately quantify the magnitude of the risks we face. Our measurement methodologies rely on many assumptions and historical analyses and correlations. These assumptions may be incorrect, and the historical correlations on which we rely may not continue to be relevant. Consequently, the measurements that we make for regulatory purposes may not adequately capture or express the true risk profiles of our businesses. Moreover, as businesses and markets evolve, our measurements may not accurately reflect this evolution. While our risk measures may indicate sufficient capitalization, they may underestimate the level of capital necessary to conduct our businesses.
Additionally, our disclosure controls and procedures may not be effective in every circumstance, and, similarly, it is possible we may identify a material weakness or significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting. Any such lapses or deficiencies may materially and adversely affect our business and consolidated results of operations or consolidated financial condition, restrict our ability to access the capital markets, require us to expend significant resources to correct the lapses or deficiencies, expose us to regulatory or legal proceedings, subject us to fines, penalties or judgments or harm our reputation.
Cost shifting to non-U.S. jurisdictions and outsourcing may expose us to increased operational risk and reputational harm and may not result in expected cost savings.
We actively strive to achieve cost savings by shifting certain business processes and business support functions to lower-cost geographic locations, such as Poland, India and China, and by outsourcing. We may accomplish this shift by establishing operations in lower-cost locations, by outsourcing to vendors in various jurisdictions or through joint ventures. This effort exposes us to the risk that we may not maintain service quality, control or effective management within these operations, to the risks that our outsourcing vendors or joint ventures may not comply with their servicing and other contractual obligations to us, including with respect to indemnification and information security, and to the risk that we may not satisfy applicable regulatory responsibilities regarding the management and oversight of third parties and outsourcing providers. In addition, we are exposed to the relevant macroeconomic, political and similar risks generally involved in doing business in the jurisdictions in which we establish lower-cost locations or joint ventures or in which our outsourcing vendors locate their operations. The increased elements of risk that arise from certain operating processes being conducted in some jurisdictions could lead to an increase in reputational risk. During periods of transition of operations, greater operational risk and client concern exist with respect to maintaining a high level of service delivery. The extent and pace at which we are able to move functions to lower-cost locations, joint ventures and outsourcing providers may also be affected by regulatory and client acceptance issues. Such relocation or outsourcing of functions also entails costs, such as technology, real estate and restructuring expenses, that may offset or exceed the expected financial benefits of the relocation or outsourcing. In addition, the financial benefits of lower-cost locations and of outsourcings may diminish over time.
We may incur losses arising from our investments in sponsored investment funds, which could be material to our consolidated results of operations in the periods incurred.
In the normal course of business, we manage various types of sponsored investment funds through SSGA. The services we provide to these sponsored investment funds generate management fee revenue, as well as servicing fees from our other businesses. From time to time, we may invest in the funds, which we refer to as seed capital, in order for the funds to establish a performance history for newly launched strategies. These funds may meet the definition of variable interest entities, as defined by GAAP, and if
we are deemed to be the primary beneficiary of these funds, we may be required to consolidate these funds in our financial statements under GAAP. The funds follow specialized investment company accounting rules which prescribe fair value for the underlying investment securities held by the funds.
In the aggregate, we expect any financial losses that we realize over time from these seed investments to be limited to the actual fair value of the amount invested in the consolidated fund, which is based on the fair value of the underlying investment securities held by the funds. However, in the event of a fund wind-down, gross gains and losses of the fund may be recognized for financial accounting purposes in different periods during the time the fund is consolidated but not wholly owned. Although we expect the actual economic loss to be limited to the amount invested, our losses in any period for financial accounting purposes could exceed the value of our economic interests in the fund and could exceed the value of our initial seed capital investment.
In instances where we are not deemed to be the primary beneficiary of the sponsored investment fund, we do not include the funds in our consolidated financial statements. Our risk of loss associated with investment in these unconsolidated funds primarily represents our seed capital investment, which could become realized as a result of poor investment performance. However, the amount of loss we may recognize during any period would be limited to the carrying amount of our investment.
Our reputation and business prospects may be damaged if our clients incur substantial losses in investment pools in which we act as agent or are restricted in redeeming their interests in these investment pools.
We manage assets on behalf of clients in several forms, including in collective investment pools, money market funds, securities finance collateral pools, cash collateral and other cash products and short-term investment funds. Our management of collective investment pools on behalf of clients exposes us to reputational risk and operational losses. If our clients incur substantial investment losses in these pools, receive redemptions as in-kind distributions rather than in cash, or experience significant under-performance relative to the market or our competitors' products, our reputation could be significantly harmed, which harm could significantly and adversely affect the prospects of our associated business units. Because we often implement investment and operational decisions and actions over multiple investment pools to achieve scale, we face the risk that losses, even small losses, may have a significant effect in the aggregate.
Within our investment management business, we manage investment pools, such as mutual funds and collective investment funds that generally offer our clients the ability to withdraw their investments on short notice, generally daily or monthly. This feature requires that we manage those pools in a manner that takes into account both maximizing the long-term return on the investment pool and retaining sufficient liquidity to meet reasonably anticipated liquidity requirements of our clients. The importance of maintaining liquidity varies by product type, but it is a particularly important feature in money market funds and other products designed to maintain a constant net asset value of $1.00.
During the market disruption that accelerated following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the liquidity in many asset classes, particularly short- and long-term fixed-income securities, declined dramatically, and providing liquidity to meet all client demands in these investment pools without adversely affecting the return to non-withdrawing clients became more difficult. In 2008, we imposed restrictions on cash redemptions from the agency lending collateral pools, as the per-unit market value of those funds' assets had declined below the constant $1.00 the funds employ to effect purchase and redemption transactions. Both the decline of the funds' net asset value below $1.00 and the imposition of restrictions on redemptions had a significant client, reputational and regulatory impact on us, and the recurrence of such or similar circumstances in the future could adversely impact our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. During this period, we also continued to process purchase and redemption of units of the collateral pools at $1.00 although the fair market value of the collateral pools' assets were less than $1.00. Our willingness in the future to continue to process purchases and redemptions from collateral pools at $1.00 when the fair market value of our collateral pools' assets is less than $1.00 could expose us to significant liability. Our unwillingness in the future to continue to process purchases and redemptions from collateral pools at $1.00 when the fair market value of the collateral pools' assets are less than $1.00 could similarly expose us to significant liability.
In the case of SSGA funds that engage in securities lending, we implemented limitations, which were terminated in 2010, on the portion of an investor's interest in such fund that may be withdrawn during any month. We also elected to contribute significant amounts to these funds to negate the effect of the collateral pools on the funds’ net asset value.
If higher than normal demands for liquidity from our clients were to return to post-Lehman-Brothers-bankruptcy levels or increase, managing the liquidity
requirements of our collective investment pools could become more difficult. If such liquidity problems were to recur, our relationships with our clients may be adversely affected, and, we could, in certain circumstances, be required to consolidate the investment pools into our consolidated statement of condition; levels of redemption activity could increase; and our consolidated results of operations and business prospects could be adversely affected. In addition, if a money market fund that we manage were to have unexpected liquidity demands from investors in the fund that exceeded available liquidity, the fund could be required to sell assets to meet those redemption requirements, and selling the assets held by the fund at a reasonable price, if at all, may then be difficult.
While it is currently not our intention, and we do not have contractual or other obligations to do so, we have in the past guaranteed, and may in the future guarantee, liquidity to investors desiring to make withdrawals from a fund or otherwise take actions to mitigate the impact of market conditions on our clients and if permitted by applicable laws. Making a significant amount of such guarantees could adversely affect our own consolidated liquidity and financial condition. Because of the size of the investment pools that we manage, we may not have the financial ability or regulatory authority to support the liquidity or other demands of our clients. The extreme volatility in the equity markets has led to the potential for the return on passive and quantitative products to deviate from their target returns.
Any decision by us to provide financial support to an investment pool to support our reputation in circumstances where we are not statutorily or contractually obligated to do so could result in the recognition of significant losses, could adversely affect the regulatory view of our capital levels or plans and could, in certain situations, require us to consolidate the investment pools into our consolidated statement of condition. Any failure of the pools to meet redemption requests, or under-performance of our pools relative to similar products offered by our competitors, could harm our business and our reputation.
Development of new products and services may impose additional costs on us and may expose us to increased operational risk.
Our financial performance depends, in part, on our ability to develop and market new and innovative services and to adopt or develop new technologies that differentiate our products or provide cost efficiencies, while avoiding increased related expenses. The introduction of new products and services can entail significant time and resources, including regulatory approvals. Substantial risks and
uncertainties are associated with the introduction of new products and services, including technical and control requirements that may need to be developed and implemented, rapid technological change in the industry, our ability to access technical and other information from our clients, the significant and ongoing investments required to bring new products and services to market in a timely manner at competitive prices and the preparation of marketing, sales and other materials that fully and accurately describe the product or service and its underlying risks. Our failure to manage these risks and uncertainties also exposes us to enhanced risk of operational lapses which may result in the recognition of financial statement liabilities. Regulatory and internal control requirements, capital requirements, competitive alternatives, vendor relationships and shifting market preferences may also determine if such initiatives can be brought to market in a manner that is timely and attractive to our clients. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business and reputation, as well as on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
We depend on information technology, and any failures of or damage to, attack on or unauthorized access to our information technology systems or facilities, or those of third parties with which we do business, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could result in significant limits on our ability to conduct our operations and activities, costs and reputational damage.
Our businesses depend on information technology infrastructure, both internal and external, to, among other things, record and process a large volume of increasingly complex transactions and other data, in many currencies, on a daily basis, across numerous and diverse markets and jurisdictions. In recent years, several financial services firms have suffered successful cyber-attacks launched both domestically and from abroad, resulting in the disruption of services to clients, loss or misappropriation of sensitive or private data and reputational harm. We also have been subjected to cyber-attack, and although we have not to our knowledge suffered a material breach of our systems, it is possible that we could suffer such a breach in the future. Cyber-threats are sophisticated and continually evolving. We may not implement effective systems and other measures to effectively prevent or mitigate the full diversity of cyber-threats or improve and adapt such systems and measures as such threats evolve and advance.
Our computer, communications, data processing, networks, backup, business continuity or other operating, information or technology systems
and facilities, including those that we outsource to other providers, may fail to operate properly or become disabled, overloaded or damaged as a result of a number of factors, including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, which could adversely affect our ability to process transactions, provide services or maintain systems availability, maintain compliance and internal controls or otherwise appropriately conduct our business activities. For example, there could be sudden increases in transaction or data volumes, electrical or telecommunications outages, cyber-attacks or employee or contractor error or malfeasance.
The third parties with which we do business, which facilitate our business activities or with whom we otherwise engage or interact, including financial intermediaries and technology infrastructure and service providers, are also susceptible to the foregoing risks (including regarding the third parties with which they are similarly interconnected or on which they otherwise rely), and our or their business operations and activities may therefore be adversely affected, perhaps materially, by failures, terminations, errors or malfeasance by, or attacks or constraints on, one or more financial, technology, infrastructure or government institutions or intermediaries with whom we or they are interconnected or conduct business.
In particular, we, like other financial services firms, will continue to face increasing cyber threats, including computer viruses, malicious code, distributed denial of service attacks, phishing attacks, information security breaches or employee or contractor error or malfeasance that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our, our clients' or other parties' confidential, personal, proprietary or other information or otherwise disrupt, compromise or damage our or our clients' or other parties' business assets, operations and activities. Our status as a global systemically important financial institution may increase the risk that we are targeted by such cyber-security threats. In addition, some of our service offerings, such as data warehousing, may also increase the risk we are, and the consequences of being, so-targeted. We therefore could experience significant related costs and exposures, including lost or constrained ability to provide our services or maintain systems availability to clients, regulatory inquiries, enforcements, actions and fines, litigation, damage to our reputation or property and enhanced competition.
Due to our dependence on technology and the important role it plays in our business operations, we must persist in improving and updating our information technology infrastructure. Updating these systems and facilities can require significant resources and often involves implementation,
integration and security risks that could cause financial, reputational and operational harm. However, failing to properly respond to and invest in changes and advancements in technology can limit our ability to attract and retain clients, prevent us from offering similar products and services as those offered by our competitors and inhibit our ability to meet regulatory requirements.
Any theft, loss or other misappropriation or inadvertent disclosure of, or inappropriate access to, the confidential information we possess could have an adverse impact on our business and could subject us to regulatory actions, litigation and other adverse effects.
Our businesses and relationships with clients are dependent on our ability to maintain the confidentiality of our and our clients' trade secrets and confidential information (including client transactional data and personal data about our employees, our clients and our clients' clients). Unauthorized access, or failure of our controls with respect to granting access to our systems, may occur, resulting in theft, loss, or other misappropriation of such information. Any theft, loss, other misappropriation or inadvertent disclosure of confidential information could have a material adverse impact on our competitive position, our relationships with our clients and our reputation and could subject us to regulatory inquiries, enforcement and fines, civil litigation and possible financial liability or costs.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property, and we are subject to claims of third-party intellectual property rights.
Our potential inability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology effectively may allow competitors to duplicate our technology and products and may adversely affect our ability to compete with them. To the extent that we do not protect our intellectual property effectively through patents or other means, other parties, including former employees, with knowledge of our intellectual property may leave and seek to exploit our intellectual property for their own or others' advantage. In addition, we may infringe on claims of third-party patents, and we may face intellectual property challenges from other parties. We may not be successful in defending against any such challenges or in obtaining licenses to avoid or resolve any intellectual property disputes. Third-party intellectual rights, valid or not, may also impede our deployment of the full scope of our products and service capabilities in all jurisdictions in which we operate or market our products and services. The intellectual property of an acquired business may be an important component of the value that we agree to
pay for such a business. However, such acquisitions are subject to the risks that the acquired business may not own the intellectual property that we believe we are acquiring, that the intellectual property is dependent on licenses from third parties, that the acquired business infringes on the intellectual property rights of others, or that the technology does not have the acceptance in the marketplace that we anticipated.
Competition for our employees is intense, and we may not be able to attract and retain the highly skilled people we need to support our business.
Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract and retain key people. Competition for the best people in most activities in which we engage can be intense, and we may not be able to hire people or retain them, particularly in light of challenges associated with evolving compensation restrictions applicable, or which may become applicable, to banks and some asset managers and that potentially are not applicable to other financial services firms in all jurisdictions. The unexpected loss of services of key personnel, both in business units and control functions, could have a material adverse impact on our business because of their skills, their knowledge of our markets, operations and clients, their years of industry experience and, in some cases, the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel. Similarly, the loss of key employees, either individually or as a group, could adversely affect our clients' perception of our ability to continue to manage certain types of investment management mandates or to provide other services to them.
We are subject to intense competition in all aspects of our business, which could negatively affect our ability to maintain or increase our profitability.
The markets in which we operate across all facets of our business are both highly competitive and global. These markets are changing as a result of new and evolving laws and regulations applicable to financial services institutions. Regulatory-driven market changes cannot always be anticipated, and may adversely affect the demand for, and profitability of, the products and services that we offer. In addition, new market entrants and competitors may address changes in the markets more rapidly than we do, or may provide clients with a more attractive offering of products and services, adversely affecting our business. Our efforts to develop and market new products may position us in new markets with pre-existing competitors with strong market position. We have also experienced, and anticipate that we will continue to experience, pricing pressure in many of our core businesses, particularly our custodial and
investment management services. Many of our businesses compete with other domestic and international banks and financial services companies, such as custody banks, investment advisors, broker/dealers, outsourcing companies and data processing companies. Further consolidation within the financial services industry could also pose challenges to us in the markets we serve, including potentially increased downward pricing pressure across our businesses.
Some of our competitors, including our competitors in core services, have substantially greater capital resources than we do or are not subject to as stringent capital or other regulatory requirements as are we. In some of our businesses, we are service providers to significant competitors. These competitors are in some instances significant clients, and the retention of these clients involves additional risks, such as the avoidance of actual or perceived conflicts of interest and the maintenance of high levels of service quality and intra-company confidentiality. The ability of a competitor to offer comparable or improved products or services at a lower price would likely negatively affect our ability to maintain or increase our profitability. Many of our core services are subject to contracts that have relatively short terms or may be terminated by our client after a short notice period. In addition, pricing pressures as a result of the activities of competitors, client pricing reviews, and rebids, as well as the introduction of new products, may result in a reduction in the prices we can charge for our products and services.
Acquisitions, strategic alliances, joint ventures and divestitures pose risks for our business.
As part of our business strategy, we acquire complementary businesses and technologies, enter into strategic alliances and joint ventures and divest portions of our business. We undertake transactions of varying sizes to, among other reasons, expand our geographic footprint, access new clients, technologies or services, develop closer or more collaborative relationships with our business partners, bolster existing servicing capabilities, efficiently deploy capital or leverage cost savings or other business or financial opportunities. We may not achieve the expected benefits of these transactions, which could result in increased costs, lowered revenues, ineffective deployment of capital, regulatory concerns, exit costs or diminished competitive position or reputation.
Transactions of this nature also involve a number of risks and financial, accounting, tax, regulatory, managerial, operational, cultural and employment challenges, which could adversely affect our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. For example, the businesses that we
acquire or our strategic alliances or joint ventures may under-perform relative to the price paid or the resources committed by us; we may not achieve anticipated cost savings; or we may otherwise be adversely affected by acquisition-related charges. Further, past acquisitions have resulted in the recognition of goodwill and other significant intangible assets in our consolidated statement of condition. These assets are not eligible for inclusion in regulatory capital under applicable requirements. In addition, we may be required to record impairment in our consolidated statement of income in future periods if we determine that the value of these assets has declined.
Through our acquisitions or joint ventures, we may also assume unknown or undisclosed business, operational, tax, regulatory and other liabilities, fail to properly assess known contingent liabilities or assume businesses with internal control deficiencies. While in most of our transactions we seek to mitigate these risks through, among other things, due diligence and indemnification provisions, these or other risk-mitigating provisions we put in place may not be sufficient to address these liabilities and contingencies.
Various regulatory approvals or consents, formal or informal, are generally required prior to closing of these transactions, which may include approvals or non-objections from the Federal Reserve and other domestic and non-U.S. regulatory authorities. These regulatory authorities may impose conditions on the completion of the acquisition or require changes to its terms that materially affect the terms of the transaction or our ability to capture some of the opportunities presented by the transaction. Any such conditions, or any associated regulatory delays, could limit the benefits of the transaction. Acquisitions or joint ventures we announce may not be completed if we do not receive the required regulatory approvals, if regulatory approvals are significantly delayed or if other closing conditions are not satisfied.
The integration of our acquisitions results in risks to our business and other uncertainties.
The integration of acquisitions presents risks that differ from the risks associated with our ongoing operations. Integration activities are complicated and time consuming and can involve significant unforeseen costs. We may not be able to effectively assimilate services, technologies, key personnel or businesses of acquired companies into our business or service offerings as anticipated, alliances may not be successful, and we may not achieve related revenue growth or cost savings. We also face the risk of being unable to retain, or cross-sell our products or services to, the clients of acquired companies or joint ventures. Acquisitions of
investment servicing businesses entail information technology systems conversions, which involve operational risks and may result in client dissatisfaction and defection. Clients of investment servicing businesses that we have acquired may be competitors of our non-custody businesses. The loss of some of these clients or a significant reduction in the revenues generated from them, for competitive or other reasons, could adversely affect the benefits that we expect to achieve from these acquisitions or cause impairment to goodwill and other intangibles.
With any acquisition, the integration of the operations and resources of the businesses could result in the loss of key employees, the disruption of our and the acquired company's ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures or policies that could adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with clients or employees or to achieve the anticipated benefits of the acquisition. Integration efforts may also divert management attention and resources.
Long-term contracts expose us to pricing and performance risk.
We enter into long-term contracts to provide middle office or investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing services to clients, primarily for conversions, including services related but not limited to certain trading activities, cash reporting, settlement and reconciliation activities, collateral management and information technology development. We also may enter into longer-term arrangements with respect to custody, fund administration and depository services. These arrangements generally set forth our fee schedule for the term of the contract and, absent a change in service requirements, do not permit us to re-price the contract for changes in our costs or for market pricing. The long-term contracts for these relationships require, in some cases, considerable up-front investment by us, including technology and conversion costs, and carry the risk that pricing for the products and services we provide might not prove adequate to generate expected operating margins over the term of the contracts.
The profitability of these contracts is largely a function of our ability to accurately calculate pricing for our services, efficiently assume our contractual responsibilities in a timely manner, control our costs and maintain the relationship with the client for an adequate period of time to recover our up-front investment. Our estimate of the profitability of these arrangements can be adversely affected by declines in the assets under the clients' management, whether due to general declines in the securities markets or client-specific issues. In addition, the profitability of these arrangements may be based on our ability to
cross-sell additional services to these clients, and we may be unable to do so.
Performance risk exists in each contract, given our dependence on successful conversion and implementation onto our own operating platforms of the service activities provided. Our failure to meet specified service levels or implementation timelines may also adversely affect our revenue from such arrangements, or permit early termination of the contracts by the client. If the demand for these types of services were to decline, we could see our revenue decline.
Changes in accounting standards may adversely affect our consolidated financial statements.
New accounting standards, or changes to existing accounting standards, resulting both from initiatives of the FASB, or their convergence efforts with the International Accounting Standards Board, as well as changes in the interpretation of existing accounting standards, by the FASB or the SEC or otherwise reflected in U.S. GAAP, potentially could affect our consolidated results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. These changes can materially affect how we record and report our consolidated results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and other financial information. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in the revised treatment of certain transactions or activities, and, in some cases, the revision of our consolidated financial statements for prior periods.
Changes in tax laws, rules or regulations, challenges to our tax positions with respect to historical transactions, and changes in the composition of our pre-tax earnings may increase our effective tax rate and thus adversely affect our consolidated financial statements.
Our businesses can be directly or indirectly affected by new tax legislation, the expiration of existing tax laws or the interpretation of existing tax laws worldwide. The U.S. federal government, state governments, including Massachusetts, and jurisdictions around the world continue to review proposals to amend tax laws, rules and regulations applicable to our business that could have a negative impact on our after-tax earnings.
In the normal course of our business, we are subject to review by U.S. and non-U.S. tax authorities. A review by any such authority could result in an increase in our recorded tax liability. In addition to the aforementioned risks, our effective tax rate is dependent on the nature and geographic composition of our pre-tax earnings and could be negatively affected by changes in these factors.
We may incur losses as a result of unforeseen events, including terrorist attacks, natural disasters, the emergence of a pandemic or acts of embezzlement.
Acts of terrorism, natural disasters or the emergence of a pandemic could significantly affect our business. We have instituted disaster recovery and continuity plans to address risks from terrorism, natural disasters and pandemic; however, anticipating or addressing all potential contingencies is not possible for events of this nature. Acts of terrorism, either targeted or broad in scope, or natural disasters could damage our physical facilities, harm our employees and disrupt our operations. A pandemic, or concern about a possible pandemic, could lead to operational difficulties and impair our ability to manage our business. Acts of terrorism, natural disasters and pandemics could also negatively affect our clients, counterparties and service providers, as well as result in disruptions in general economic activity and the financial markets.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
We occupy a total of approximately 7.3 million square feet of office space and related facilities worldwide, of which approximately 6.4 million square feet are leased. Of the total leased space, approximately 2.4 million square feet are located in eastern Massachusetts. An additional 1.3 million square feet are located elsewhere throughout the U.S. and in Canada. We lease approximately 2.0 million square feet in the U.K. and elsewhere in Europe, and approximately 700,000 square feet in the Asia/Pacific region.
Our headquarters is located at State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts, a 36-story office building. Various divisions of our two lines of business, as well as support functions, occupy space in this building. We lease the entire 1,025,000 square feet of the building, and a related underground parking garage, at One Lincoln Street, under 20-year non-cancellable capital leases expiring in 2023. A portion of the lease payments is offset by subleases for approximately 127,000 square feet of the building.
We occupy four buildings located in Quincy, Massachusetts, one of which we own and three of which we lease. The buildings contain a total of approximately 1.2 million square feet (720,000 square feet owned and 470,000 square feet leased). These, along with the Channel Center, an office building located in Boston, of which we lease the entire 500,000 square feet, function as State Street Bank's principal operations facilities.
We occupy other principal properties located in Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Ontario, composed of four leased buildings containing a total of approximately 680,000 square feet, under leases expiring from August 2022 to August 2025. Significant properties in the U.K. and Europe include nine buildings located in England, Scotland, Poland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Germany, and Italy, containing approximately 1.4 million square feet under leases expiring from January 2019 through August 2034. Principal properties located in China and Australia consist of three buildings containing approximately 379,000 square feet under leases expiring from September 2020 through May 2021.
We believe that our owned and leased facilities are suitable and adequate for our business needs. Additional information about our occupancy costs, including our commitments under non-cancelable leases, is provided in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The information required by this Item is provided under "Legal and Regulatory Matters" in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The following table presents certain information with respect to each of our executive officers as of February 19, 2016.
All executive officers are appointed by the Board and hold office at the discretion of the Board. No family relationships exist among any of our directors and executive officers.
Mr. Hooley joined State Street in 1986 and currently serves as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. He was appointed Chief Executive Officer in March 2010 and Chairman of the Board in January 2011. He served as our President and Chief Operating Officer from April 2008 until December 2014. From 2002 to April 2008, Mr. Hooley served as Executive Vice President and head of Investor Services and, in 2006, was appointed Vice Chairman and Global Head of Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading. Mr. Hooley was elected to serve on the Board of Directors effective October 22, 2009.
Mr. Bell joined State Street in August 2013 as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Bell served as senior executive vice president and chief financial officer of Manulife Financial Corporation, a leading Canada-based financial services group with principal operations in Asia, Canada and the U.S., from 2009 to June 2012. From 2002 to 2009, he served as executive vice president and chief financial officer at Cigna Corporation, a global health services organization where he had previously served in several senior management positions, including as President of Cigna Group Insurance.
Mr. Carp joined State Street in 2006 as Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer. Later in 2006, he was also appointed Secretary. From 2004 to 2005, Mr. Carp served as executive vice president and general counsel of Massachusetts Financial Services, an investment management and research company. From 1989 until 2004, Mr. Carp was a senior partner at the law firm of Hale and
Dorr LLP, where he was an attorney since 1982. Mr. Carp served as State Street's interim Chief Risk Officer from February 2010 until September 2010.
Mr. Conway joined State Street more than 25 years ago and since March 2015 has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Prior to that, Mr. Conway held several other management positions within the Company, including leading Global Exchange, State Street's data and analytics business from April 2013 to March 2015. From 2007 to April 2013 Mr. Conway served as the global head of State Street's Investment Management Services business.
Ms. Kedia joined State Street in 2008 as an executive vice president and is responsible for the Investment Servicing business in the Americas for mutual funds, insurance and institutional clients. Prior to joining State Street, Ms. Kedia previously was an executive vice president, global product management at Bank of New York Mellon. Additionally, Ms. Kedia was a partner with McKinsey & Company focusing on financial institutions and an associate with PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Mr. Kuritzkes joined State Street in 2010 as Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Kuritzkes was a partner at Oliver, Wyman & Company, an international management consulting firm, and led the firm’s Public Policy practice in North America. He joined Oliver, Wyman & Company in 1988, was a managing director in the firm’s London office from 1993 to 1997, and served as vice chairman of Oliver, Wyman & Company globally from 2000 until the firm’s acquisition by MMC in 2003. From 1986 to 1988, he worked as an economist and lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Mr. Newth joined State Street in 2005 and has served as Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting
Officer and Corporate Controller since October 2014. Prior to that, he held several senior positions in State Street's Accounting Department, including Director of Accounting Policy from 2009 to 2014 and Deputy Controller from April 2014 to October 2014. Before joining State Street, Mr. Newth served in various transaction services, accounting advisory and assurance roles at KPMG, from 1997 to 2005.
Mr. O'Hanley joined State Street in April 2015 as Chief Executive Officer and President of State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. Prior to that, Mr. O'Hanley was president of Asset Management & Corporate Services for Fidelity Investments, from 2010 to February 2014. From 1997 to 2010, Mr. O'Hanley served in various positions at Bank of New York Mellon, serving as President and Chief Executive Officer of BNY Asset Management in Boston from 2007 to 2010.
Mr. Phalen joined State Street in 1992 and in 2014 began serving as head of the Office of Regulatory Initiatives. He was appointed Vice Chairman in March 2014. Mr. Phalen served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Operations, Technology and Product Development from 2010 to 2014. Prior to that, starting in 2000 and until 2003, he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CitiStreet, a global benefits provider and retirement plan record keeper. In February 2005, he was appointed head of State Street's Investor Services division in North America. In 2006, he was appointed head of international operations for Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading, based in Europe. From January 2008 until May 2008, he served on an interim basis as President and Chief Executive Officer of SSGA, following which he returned to his role as head of international operations for Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading.
Ms. Quirk joined State Street in 2002, and since January 2012 has served as Chief Human Resources and Citizenship Officer. She has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Human Resources since March 2010. Prior to that, Ms. Quirk served as Executive Vice President in Global Human Resources and held various senior roles in that group.
Mr. Rogers joined State Street in 2007 as part of our acquisition of Investors Financial Services Corp., and was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer in December 2014. In that role, he is responsible for State Street Global Markets, State
Street Global Services Americas, Information Technology, Global Operations, and Global Exchange, State Street’s data and analytics business. Prior to that, Mr. Rogers served as head of Global Markets and Global Services - Americas since November 2011 and served as head of Global Services, including alternative investment solutions, for all of the Americas since March 2010. Mr. Rogers was previously head of the Relationship Management group, a role which he held beginning in 2009. From State Street's acquisition of Investors Financial Services Corp. in July 2007 to 2009, Mr. Rogers headed the post-acquisition Investors Financial Services Corp. business and its integration into State Street. Before joining State Street at the time of the acquisition, Mr. Rogers spent 27 years at Investors Financial Services Corp. and its predecessors in various capacities, most recently as President beginning in 2001.
Mr. Seck joined State Street in September 2011 as Executive Vice President and head of Global Markets and Global Services across Asia Pacific. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Seck was chief financial officer of the Singapore Exchange for eight years. Previously he held senior-level positions in the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, Lehman Brothers and DBS Bank.
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol STT. There were 2,897 shareholders of record as of January 31, 2016. The information required by this item concerning the market prices of, and dividends on, our common stock during the past two years is provided under “Quarterly Summarized Financial Information (Unaudited)” included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference.
In March 2015, our Board approved a new common stock purchase program authorizing the purchase by us of up to $1.8 billion of our common stock from April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately $780 million remaining under that program.
The following table presents purchases of our common stock and related information for each of the months in the quarter ended December 31, 2015. All shares of our common stock purchased during the quarter ended December 31, 2015 were purchased under the above-described Board-approved program. Stock purchases may be made using various types of mechanisms, including open market purchases or transactions off market, and may be made under Rule 10b5-1 trading programs. The timing of stock purchases, types of transactions and number of shares purchased will depend on several factors, including market conditions, our capital position, our financial performance and investment opportunities. The common stock purchase program does not have specific price targets and may be suspended at any time.
Additional information about our common stock, including Board authorization with respect to purchases by us of our common stock, is provided under “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference.
RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
As a bank holding company, our parent company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its principal banking subsidiary, State Street Bank, and its non-banking subsidiaries. The right of the parent company to participate as a shareholder in any distribution of assets of State Street Bank upon its liquidation, reorganization or otherwise is subject to the prior claims by creditors of State Street Bank, including obligations for federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements and deposit liabilities.
Payment of dividends by State Street Bank is subject to the provisions of the Massachusetts banking law, which provide that State Street Bank's Board of Directors may declare, from State Street Bank's "net profits," as defined below, cash dividends annually, semi-annually or quarterly (but not more frequently) and can declare non-cash dividends at any time. Under Massachusetts banking law, for purposes of determining the amount of cash dividends that are payable by State Street Bank, “net profits” is defined as an amount equal to the remainder of all earnings from current operations plus actual recoveries on loans and investments and other assets, after deducting from the total thereof all current operating expenses, actual losses, accrued dividends on preferred stock, if any, and all federal and state taxes.
No dividends may be declared, credited or paid so long as there is any impairment of State Street Bank's capital stock. The approval of the Massachusetts Commissioner of Banks is required if the total of all dividends declared by State Street Bank in any calendar year would exceed the total of its net profits for that year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfer to surplus or to a fund for the retirement of any preferred stock.
Under Federal Reserve regulations, the approval of the Federal Reserve would be required for the payment of dividends by State Street Bank if the total amount of all dividends declared by State Street Bank in any calendar year, including any proposed dividend, would exceed the total of its net income for such calendar year as reported in State Street Bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic and Foreign Offices Only - FFIEC 031, commonly referred to as the “Call Report,” as submitted through the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and provided to the Federal Reserve, plus its “retained net income” for the preceding two calendar years. For these purposes, “retained net income,” as of any date of determination, is defined as an amount equal to State Street Bank's net income (as reported in its Call Reports for the calendar year in which retained net income is being determined) less any dividends declared during such year. In determining the amount of dividends that are payable, the total of State Street Bank's net income for the current year and its retained net income for the preceding two calendar years is reduced by any net losses incurred in the current or preceding two-year period and by any required transfers to surplus or to a fund for the retirement of preferred stock.
Prior Federal Reserve approval also must be obtained if a proposed dividend would exceed State
Street Bank's “undivided profits” (retained earnings) as reported in its Call Reports. State Street Bank may include in its undivided profits amounts contained in its surplus account, if the amounts reflect transfers of undivided profits made in prior periods and if the Federal Reserve's approval for the transfer back to undivided profits has been obtained.
Under the PCA provisions adopted pursuant to the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991, State Street Bank may not pay a dividend when it is deemed, under the PCA framework, to be under-capitalized, or when the payment of the dividend would cause State Street Bank to be under-capitalized. If State Street Bank is under-capitalized for purposes of the PCA framework, it must cease paying dividends for so long as it is deemed to be under-capitalized. Once earnings have begun to improve and an adequate capital position has been restored, dividend payments may resume in accordance with federal and state statutory limitations and guidelines.
In 2015, our parent company declared aggregate quarterly common stock dividends to its shareholders of $1.32 per share, totaling approximately $536 million. In 2014, our parent company declared aggregate quarterly common stock dividends to its shareholders of $1.16 per share, totaling approximately $490 million. Currently, any payment of future common stock dividends by our parent company to its shareholders is subject to the review of our capital plan by the Federal Reserve in connection with its CCAR process. Information about dividends declared by our parent company and dividends from our subsidiary banks is provided under “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference. Future dividend payments of State Street Bank and our non-banking subsidiaries cannot be determined at this time. In addition, refer to “Business - Supervision
and Regulation - Capital Planning, Stress Tests and Dividends” included under Item 1 of this Form 10-K and the risk factor titled “Our business and capital-related activities, including our ability to return capital to shareholders and purchase our capital stock, may be adversely affected by our implementation of the revised regulatory capital and liquidity standards that we must meet under the Basel III final rule, the Dodd-Frank Act and other regulatory initiatives, or in the event our capital plan or post-stress capital ratios are determined to be insufficient as a result of regulatory capital stress testing” included under Item 1A of this Form 10-K.
Information about our equity compensation plans is included under Item 12, and in Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference.
SHAREHOLDER RETURN PERFORMANCE PRESENTATION
The graph presented below compares the cumulative total shareholder return on State Street's common stock to the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index, the S&P Financial Index and the KBW Bank Index over a five-year period. The cumulative total shareholder return assumes the investment of $100 in State Street common stock and in each index on December 31, 2010 at the closing price on the last trading day of 2010, and also assumes reinvestment of common stock dividends. The S&P Financial Index is a publicly available measure of 88 of the Standard & Poor's 500 companies, representing 26 diversified financial services companies, 21 insurance companies, 25 real estate companies and 16 banking companies. The KBW Bank Index seeks to reflect the performance of banks and thrifts that are publicly traded in the U.S., and is composed of 24 leading national money center and regional banks and thrifts.
ITEM 6.SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts or where otherwise noted)
(1) Amounts for 2011 through 2014 reflect adjustments related to certain expenses billed to our asset servicing clients as more fully described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
(2) Amount for 2012 reflects a $46 million loss from the sale of our Greek investment securities.
(3) Amount for 2013 reflects the correction of an out-of-period adjustment to deferred taxes, as more fully described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K. Amounts for 2012 and 2011 reflect the net effects of certain tax matters ($7 million benefit and $55 million expense, respectively) associated with the 2010 Intesa acquisition. Amount for 2011 reflects discrete tax benefits of $103 million attributable to costs incurred in terminating former conduit asset structures.
(4) Amounts represent preferred stock dividends and the allocation of earnings to participating securities using the two-class method.
(5) Ratios for 2015 and 2014 were calculated in conformity with the advanced approaches provisions of the Basel III final rule. Ratios for 2013, 2012 and 2011 were calculated in conformity with the provisions of Basel I. Ratios for 2015 and 2014 are not directly comparable to ratios for prior years. Refer to Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
(6) The supplementary leverage ratio was calculated using the transitional tier 1 capital as calculated under the supplementary leverage ratio provisions of the Basel III final rule as of the date indicated.
STATE STREET CORPORATION
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
We use acronyms and other defined terms for certain business terms and abbreviations, as defined on the acronyms list following the table of contents to this Form 10-K.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
As of December 31, 2015, we had consolidated total assets of $245.19 billion, consolidated total deposits of $191.63 billion, consolidated total shareholders' equity of $21.10 billion and 32,356 employees. We operate in more than 100 geographic markets worldwide, including in the U.S., Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
We have two lines of business:
Investment Servicing provides services for institutional clients, including mutual funds, collective investment funds and other investment pools, corporate and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations and endowments worldwide. Products include custody; product- and participant-level accounting; daily pricing and administration; master trust and master custody; record-keeping; cash management; foreign exchange, brokerage and other trading services; securities finance, including our enhanced custody product, which integrates securities lending and custody into a platform that offers clients the ability to borrow securities from us as principal and finance their borrowing activities in numerous ways, including by lending securities in our agency lending program; deposit and short-term investment facilities; loans and lease financing; investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing; and performance, risk and compliance analytics to support institutional investors.
Investment Management, through SSGA, provides a broad array of investment management, investment research and investment advisory services to corporations, public funds and other sophisticated investors. SSGA offers active and passive asset management strategies across equity, fixed-income and cash asset classes. Products are distributed directly and through intermediaries using a variety of investment vehicles, including ETFs, such as the SPDR® ETF brand.
For financial and other information about our lines of business, refer to “Line of Business Information” included in this Management's Discussion and Analysis and Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
This Management's Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K. Certain previously reported amounts presented in this Form 10-K have been reclassified to conform to current-year presentation.
In addition, certain prior period amounts have been revised to correct for errors related to those prior periods. Refer to Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
We prepare our consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions in its application of certain accounting policies that materially affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses.
The significant accounting policies that require us to make judgments, estimates and assumptions that are difficult, subjective or complex about matters that are uncertain and may change in subsequent periods include accounting for fair value measurements; other-than-temporary impairment of investment securities; impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets; and contingencies. These significant accounting policies require the most subjective or complex judgments, and underlying estimates and assumptions could be subject to revision as new information becomes available. Additional information about these significant accounting policies is included under “Significant Accounting Estimates” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.
Certain financial information provided in this Form 10-K, including this Management's Discussion and Analysis, is prepared on both a U.S. GAAP, or reported basis, and a non-GAAP, or operating basis, including certain non-GAAP measures used in the calculation of identified regulatory capital ratios. We measure and compare certain financial information on an operating basis, as we believe that this presentation supports meaningful comparisons from period to period and the analysis of comparable financial trends with respect to our normal ongoing business operations. We believe that operating-basis financial information, which reports non-taxable revenue, such as interest revenue associated with tax-exempt investment securities, on a fully taxable-equivalent basis, facilitates an investor's understanding and analysis of our underlying financial performance and trends in addition to financial information prepared and reported in conformity with U.S. GAAP. We also believe that the use of certain non-GAAP measures in the calculation of identified regulatory capital ratios is useful in understanding our capital position and is of interest to investors.
Operating-basis financial information should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for or superior to, financial information prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP. Any non-GAAP, or operating-basis, financial information presented in
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
this Form 10-K, including this Management’s Discussion and Analysis, is reconciled to its most directly comparable U.S. GAAP-basis measure.
This Management's Discussion and Analysis contains statements that are considered "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include statements about our goals and expectations regarding our business, financial and capital condition, results of operations, strategies, financial portfolio performance, dividend and stock purchase programs, expected outcomes of legal proceedings, market growth, acquisitions, joint ventures and divestitures and new technologies, services and opportunities, as well as regarding industry, regulatory, economic and market trends, initiatives and developments, the business environment and other matters that do not relate strictly to historical facts. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially. We undertake no obligation to revise the forward-looking statements contained in this Management's Discussion and Analysis to reflect events after the time we file this Form 10-K with the SEC. Additional information about forward-looking statements and related risks and uncertainties is provided in "Risk Factors" included under Item 1A of this Form 10-K.
We provide additional disclosures required by applicable bank regulatory standards, including supplemental qualitative and quantitative information with respect to regulatory capital (including market risk associated with our trading activities), summary results of semi-annual State Street-run stress tests which we conduct under the Dodd-Frank Act, and resolution plan disclosures required under the Dodd-Frank Act. These additional disclosures are accessible on the “Investor Relations” section of our corporate website at www.statestreet.com.
We have included our website address in this report as an inactive textual reference only. Information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K.
We use acronyms and other defined terms for certain business terms and abbreviations, as defined on the acronyms list following the table of contents to this Form 10-K.
OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL RESULTS