Goldman Sachs Earnings 2018-12-31

Introduction

Goldman Sachs is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals.

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

References to “this Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018. All references to 2018, 2017 and 2016 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2018, December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Group Inc. is a bank holding company (BHC) and a financial holding company (FHC) regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB). Our U.S. depository institution subsidiary, Goldman Sachs Bank USA (GS Bank USA), is a New York State-chartered bank.

As of December 2018, we had offices in over 30 countries and 46% of our headcount was based outside the Americas. Our clients are located worldwide and we are an active participant in financial markets around the world.

Our Business Segments

We report our activities in four business segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending and Investment Management.

The chart below presents our four business segments.

Investment Banking

Investment Banking serves public and private sector clients around the world. We provide financial advisory services and help companies raise capital to strengthen and grow their businesses. We seek to develop and maintain long-term relationships with a diverse global group of institutional clients, including corporates, governments, states and municipalities. Our goal is to deliver to our institutional clients the entire resources of the firm in a seamless fashion, with investment banking serving as the main initial point of contact with Goldman Sachs.

Financial Advisory. We are a leader in providing financial advisory services, including strategic advisory assignments with respect to mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, corporate defense activities, restructurings, spin-offs and risk management. In particular, we help clients execute large, complex transactions for which we provide multiple services, including cross-border structuring expertise. Financial Advisory also includes revenues from derivative transactions directly related to these client advisory assignments. We also assist our clients in managing their asset and liability exposures and their capital.

Underwriting. The other core activity of Investment Banking is helping companies raise capital to fund their businesses. As a financial intermediary, our job is to match the capital of our investing clients, who aim to grow the savings of millions of people, with the needs of our public and private sector clients, who need financing to generate growth, create jobs and deliver products and services. Our underwriting activities include public offerings and private placements, including local and cross-border transactions and acquisition financing, of a wide range of securities and other financial instruments, including loans. Underwriting also includes revenues from derivative transactions entered into with public and private sector clients in connection with our underwriting activities.

Equity Underwriting. We underwrite common and preferred stock and convertible and exchangeable securities. We regularly receive mandates for large, complex transactions and have held a leading position in worldwide public common stock offerings and worldwide initial public offerings for many years.

Debt Underwriting. We underwrite and originate various types of debt instruments, including investment-grade and high-yield debt, bank loans and bridge loans, including in connection with acquisition financing, and emerging- and growth-market debt, which may be issued by, among others, corporate, sovereign, municipal and agency issuers. In addition, we underwrite and originate structured securities, which include mortgage-related securities and other asset-backed securities.

Institutional Client Services

Institutional Client Services serves our clients who come to us to buy and sell financial products, raise funding and manage risk. We do this by acting as a market maker and offering market expertise on a global basis. Institutional Client Services makes markets and facilitates client transactions in fixed income, equity, currency and commodity products. In addition, we make markets in and clear client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide.

As a market maker, we provide prices to clients globally across thousands of products in all major asset classes and markets. At times we take the other side of transactions ourselves if a buyer or seller is not readily available and at other times we connect our clients to other parties who want to transact. Our willingness to make markets, commit capital and take risk in a broad range of products is crucial to our client relationships. Market makers provide liquidity and play a critical role in price discovery, which contributes to the overall efficiency of the capital markets.

Our clients are primarily institutions that are professional market participants, including investment entities whose ultimate clients include individual investors investing for their retirement, buying insurance or putting aside surplus cash in a deposit account.

Through our global sales force, we maintain relationships with our clients, receiving orders and distributing investment research, trading ideas, market information and analysis. Much of this connectivity between us and our clients is maintained on technology platforms and operates globally wherever and whenever markets are open for trading.

Institutional Client Services and our other businesses are supported by our Global Investment Research division, which, as of December 2018, provided fundamental research on approximately 3,000 companies worldwide and more than 40 national economies, as well as on industries, currencies and commodities.

Institutional Client Services generates revenues from the following activities:

Institutional Client Services activities are organized by asset class and include both “cash” and “derivative” instruments. “Cash” refers to trading the underlying instrument (such as a stock, bond or barrel of oil). “Derivative” refers to instruments that derive their value from underlying asset prices, indices, reference rates and other inputs, or a combination of these factors (such as an option, which is the right or obligation to buy or sell a certain bond, stock or other asset on a specified date in the future at a certain price, or an interest rate swap, which is the agreement to convert a fixed rate of interest into a floating rate or vice versa).

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

Equities. Includes equities client execution, commissions and fees, and securities services.

Equities Client Execution. We make markets in equity securities and equity-related products, including exchange-traded funds, convertible securities, options, futures and over-the-counter (OTC) derivative instruments, on a global basis. As a principal, we facilitate client transactions by providing liquidity to our clients, including with large blocks of stocks or derivatives, requiring the commitment of our capital.

We also structure and make markets in derivatives on indices, industry groups, financial measures and individual company stocks. We develop strategies and provide information about portfolio hedging and restructuring and asset allocation transactions for our clients. We also work with our clients to create specially tailored instruments to enable sophisticated investors to establish or liquidate investment positions or undertake hedging strategies. We are one of the leading participants in the trading and development of equity derivative instruments.

Our exchange-based market-making activities include making markets in stocks and exchange-traded funds, futures and options on major exchanges worldwide.

Commissions and Fees. We generate commissions and fees from executing and clearing institutional client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide, as well as OTC transactions. We provide our clients with access to a broad spectrum of equity execution services, including electronic “low-touch” access and more complex “high-touch” execution through both traditional and electronic platforms.

Securities Services. Includes financing, securities lending and other prime brokerage services.

Investing & Lending

Our investing and lending activities, which are typically longer-term, include activities across various asset classes, primarily debt securities and loans, public and private equity securities, infrastructure and real estate. These activities include making investments, some of which are consolidated, through our Merchant Banking business and our Special Situations Group. Some of these investments are made indirectly through funds that we manage. We also provide financing to corporate clients and individuals, including bank loans, personal loans and mortgages.

Equity Securities. We make corporate, real estate, infrastructure and other equity-related investments.

Debt Securities and Loans. We make corporate, real estate, infrastructure and other debt investments. In addition, we provide financing to clients through loan facilities and through secured loans, including secured loans through our digital platform, Goldman Sachs Private Bank Select. We also make unsecured loans and accept deposits through our digital platform, Marcus: by Goldman Sachs.

Investment Management

Investment Management provides investment and wealth advisory services to help clients preserve and grow their financial assets. We provide these services to our institutional and high-net-worth individual clients, as well as investors who primarily access our products through a network of third-party distributors around the world.

We manage client assets across a broad range of investment strategies and asset classes, including equity, fixed income and alternative investments. Alternative investments primarily includes hedge funds, credit funds, private equity, real estate, currencies, commodities and asset allocation strategies. Our investment offerings include those managed on a fiduciary basis by our portfolio managers, as well as strategies managed by third-party managers. We offer our investments in a variety of structures, including separately managed accounts, mutual funds, private partnerships and other commingled vehicles.

We also provide customized investment advisory solutions designed to address our clients’ investment needs. These solutions begin with identifying clients’ objectives and continue through portfolio construction, ongoing asset allocation and risk management and investment realization. We draw from a variety of third-party managers, as well as our proprietary offerings to implement solutions for clients.

We supplement our investment advisory solutions for high-net-worth individuals with wealth advisory services that include income and liability management, trust and estate planning, philanthropic giving and tax planning. We also use our global securities and derivatives market-making capabilities to address clients’ specific investment needs.

Management and Other Fees. The majority of revenues in management and other fees consists of asset-based fees on client assets. The fees that we charge vary by asset class, distribution channel and the type of services provided, and are affected by investment performance, as well as asset inflows and redemptions. Other fees we receive primarily include financial planning and counseling fees generated through wealth advisory services provided by our subsidiary, The Ayco Company, L.P.

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

Incentive Fees. In certain circumstances, we are also entitled to receive incentive fees based on a percentage of a fund’s or a separately managed account’s return, or when the return exceeds a specified benchmark or other performance targets. Such fees include overrides, which consist of the increased share of the income and gains derived primarily from our private equity and credit funds when the return on a fund’s investments over the life of the fund exceeds certain threshold returns.

Transaction Revenues. We receive commissions and net spreads for facilitating transactional activity in high-net-worth individual accounts. In addition, we earn net interest income primarily associated with client deposits and margin lending activity undertaken by such clients.

Business Continuity and Information Security

Business continuity and information security, including cyber security, are high priorities for Goldman Sachs. Their importance has been highlighted by numerous highly publicized events in recent years, including (i) cyber attacks against financial institutions, governmental agencies, large consumer-based companies and other organizations that resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of personal information of clients and customers and other sensitive or confidential information, the theft and destruction of corporate information and requests for ransom payments, and (ii) extreme weather events.

Our Business Continuity & Technology Resilience Program has been developed to provide reasonable assurance of business continuity in the event of disruptions at our critical facilities or systems and to comply with regulatory requirements, including those of FINRA. Because we are a BHC, our Business Continuity & Technology Resilience Program is also subject to review by the FRB. The key elements of the program are crisis management, business continuity, technology resilience, business recovery, assurance and verification, and process improvement. In the area of information security, we have developed and implemented a framework of principles, policies and technology designed to protect the information provided to us by our clients and our own information from cyber attacks and other misappropriation, corruption or loss. Safeguards are designed to maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information.

Employees

Management believes that a major strength and principal reason for the success of Goldman Sachs is the quality and dedication of our people and the shared sense of being part of a team. We strive to maintain a work environment that fosters professionalism, excellence, diversity, cooperation among our employees worldwide and high standards of business ethics.

Instilling the Goldman Sachs culture in all employees is a continuous process, in which training plays an important part. All employees are offered the opportunity to participate in education and periodic seminars that we sponsor at various locations throughout the world. Another important part of instilling the Goldman Sachs culture is our employee review process. Employees are reviewed by supervisors, co-workers and employees they supervise in a 360-degree review process that is integral to our team approach, and which includes an evaluation of an employee’s performance with respect to risk management, compliance and diversity. As of December 2018, we had headcount of 36,600.

Competition

The financial services industry and all of our businesses are intensely competitive, and we expect them to remain so. Our competitors are other entities that provide investment banking, market-making and investment management services, and commercial and/or consumer lending and deposit-taking products, as well as those entities that make investments in securities, commodities, derivatives, real estate, loans and other financial assets. These entities include brokers and dealers, investment banking firms, commercial banks, insurance companies, investment advisers, mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, merchant banks, consumer finance companies and financial technology and other internet-based companies. We compete with some entities globally and with others on a regional, product or niche basis. We compete based on a number of factors, including transaction execution, products and services, innovation, reputation and price.

We have faced, and expect to continue to face, pressure to retain market share by committing capital to businesses or transactions on terms that offer returns that may not be commensurate with their risks. In particular, corporate clients seek such commitments (such as agreements to participate in their loan facilities) from financial services firms in connection with investment banking and other assignments.

Consolidation and convergence have significantly increased the capital base and geographic reach of some of our competitors, and have also hastened the globalization of the securities and other financial services markets. As a result, we have had to commit capital to support our international operations and to execute large global transactions. To take advantage of some of our most significant opportunities, we will have to compete successfully with financial institutions that are larger and have more capital and that may have a stronger local presence and longer operating history outside the U.S.

We also compete with smaller institutions that offer more targeted services, such as independent advisory firms. Some clients may perceive these firms to be less susceptible to potential conflicts of interest than we are, and, as described below, our ability to effectively compete with them could be affected by regulations and limitations on activities that apply to us but may not apply to them.

A number of our businesses are subject to intense price competition. Efforts by our competitors to gain market share have resulted in pricing pressure in our investment banking and market-making businesses, and could result in pricing pressure in other of our businesses. For example, the increasing volume of trades executed electronically, through the internet and through alternative trading systems, has increased the pressure on trading commissions, in that commissions for electronic trading are generally lower than for non-electronic trading. It appears that this trend toward low-commission trading will continue. Price competition has also led to compression in the difference between the price at which a market participant is willing to sell an instrument and the price at which another market participant is willing to buy it (i.e., bid/offer spread), which has affected our market-making businesses. In addition, we believe that we will continue to experience competitive pressures in these and other areas in the future as some of our competitors seek to obtain market share by further reducing prices, and as we enter into or expand our presence in markets that may rely more heavily on electronic trading and execution.

We also compete on the basis of the types of financial products that we and our competitors offer. In some circumstances, our competitors may offer financial products that we do not offer and that our clients may prefer.

The provisions of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the requirements promulgated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee) and other financial regulation could affect our competitive position to the extent that limitations on activities, increased fees and compliance costs or other regulatory requirements do not apply, or do not apply equally, to all of our competitors or are not implemented uniformly across different jurisdictions. For example, the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that prohibit proprietary trading and restrict investments in certain hedge and private equity funds differentiate between U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based banking organizations and give non-U.S.-based banking organizations greater flexibility to trade outside of the U.S. and to form and invest in funds outside the U.S.

Likewise, the obligations with respect to derivative transactions under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act depend, in part, on the location of the counterparties to the transaction. The impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and other regulatory developments on our competitive position will depend to a large extent on the manner in which the required rulemaking and regulatory guidance evolve, the extent of international convergence, and the development of market practice and structures under the new regulatory regimes as described further in “Regulation” below.

We also face intense competition in attracting and retaining qualified employees. Our ability to continue to compete effectively will depend upon our ability to attract new employees, retain and motivate our existing employees and to continue to compensate employees competitively amid intense public and regulatory scrutiny on the compensation practices of large financial institutions. Our pay practices and those of certain of our competitors are subject to review by, and the standards of, the FRB and other regulators inside and outside the U.S., including the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the U.K. We also compete for employees with institutions whose pay practices are not subject to regulatory oversight. See “Regulation — Compensation Practices” and “Risk Factors — Our businesses may be adversely affected if we are unable to hire and retain qualified employees” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K for further information about such regulation.

Regulation

As a participant in the global financial services industry, we are subject to extensive regulation and supervision worldwide. The Dodd-Frank Act, and the rules thereunder, significantly altered the U.S. financial regulatory regime within which we operate and the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation and Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (collectively, MiFID II) have significantly revised the regulatory regime for our European operations. The Basel Committee’s framework for strengthening the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks (Basel III), is implemented by the FRB, the PRA and other national regulators. The Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for prudential bank regulation. However, its standards are not effective in any jurisdiction until rules implementing such standards have been implemented by the relevant regulators. The implications of such regulations for our businesses depend to a large extent on their implementation by the relevant regulators globally, and the market practices and structures that develop.

In 2017 and 2018, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in response to an executive order issued by the President of the U.S., issued four reports recommending a number of comprehensive changes to the regulatory systems applicable in the U.S. to banks and other financial institutions.

Other reforms have been adopted or are being considered by regulators and policy makers worldwide, as described below. Recent developments have added additional uncertainty to the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms and potential for deregulation in some areas. The effects of any changes to the regulations affecting our businesses, including as a result of the proposals described below, are uncertain and will not be known until the changes are finalized and market practices and structures develop under the revised regulations.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI), Goldman Sachs International Bank (GSIB) and Goldman Sachs Asset Management International (GSAMI), our principal E.U. operating subsidiaries, are incorporated and headquartered in the U.K. and, as such, are currently subject to E.U. legal and regulatory requirements, based on directly binding regulations of the E.U. and the implementation of E.U. directives by the U.K. They all currently benefit from non-discriminatory access to E.U. clients and infrastructure based on E.U. treaties and E.U. legislation, including cross-border “passporting” arrangements and specific arrangements for the establishment of E.U. branches. As a result of the U.K.’s notification to the European Council of its decision to leave the E.U. (Brexit), there is considerable uncertainty as to the regulatory regime that will be applicable in the U.K. and the regulatory framework that will govern transactions and business undertaken by our U.K. subsidiaries in the remaining E.U. countries. The U.K.’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 aims to preserve the direct and operative E.U. law governing the requirements on U.K. financial service providers as English law beginning March 29, 2019. References to E.U. regulations that are in effect in the U.K. as of March 29, 2019 may apply to our U.K. subsidiaries following Brexit. In addition, proposals by the Basel Committee or the E.U. may be implemented in the U.K. and apply to our U.K. subsidiaries.

Pursuant to an agreement endorsed by the E.U. and U.K. leaders in November (Withdrawal Agreement), the existing access arrangements for financial services would continue unchanged until the end of 2020, with potential for one further extension of up to two years, subsequent to which a new trade relationship may be established between the E.U. and the U.K. While the parties have issued a political declaration on the outline of such co-operation, the exact terms of that future relationship, including the exact terms of access to each other’s financial markets remain subject to future negotiation. If the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified, beginning March 29, 2019, the date on which the U.K. is scheduled to leave the E.U., firms established in the U.K., including our U.K. subsidiaries, would lose their pan-E.U. “passports” and generally be treated like entities in countries outside the E.U. They may, however, benefit from emergency measures, including those that several E.U. member states have introduced so that existing contractual arrangements are not disrupted, in order to minimize any impact on existing transactions. The E.U. has also provided interim recognition to U.K. clearing houses so that E.U. clients can continue to access them.

Banking Supervision and Regulation

Group Inc. is a BHC under the U.S. Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHC Act) and an FHC under amendments to the BHC Act effected by the U.S. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLB Act), and is subject to supervision and examination by the FRB, which is our primary regulator.

Under the system of “functional regulation” established under the BHC Act, the primary regulators of our U.S. non-bank subsidiaries directly regulate the activities of those subsidiaries, with the FRB exercising a supervisory role. Such “functionally regulated” subsidiaries include broker-dealers registered with the SEC, such as our principal U.S. broker-dealer, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), entities registered with or regulated by the CFTC with respect to futures-related and swaps-related activities and investment advisers registered with the SEC with respect to their investment advisory activities.

In November 2018, the FRB issued a final rule establishing a new rating system for large financial institutions, such as us. The new rating system is intended to align with the FRB’s existing supervisory program for large financial institutions and includes component ratings for capital planning, liquidity risk management, and governance and controls. The FRB has also proposed related guidance for the governance and controls component.

Our principal U.S. bank subsidiary, GS Bank USA, is supervised and regulated by the FRB, the FDIC, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. A number of our activities are conducted partially or entirely through GS Bank USA and its subsidiaries, including: origination of bank loans; personal loans and mortgages; interest rate, credit, currency and other derivatives; leveraged finance; deposit-taking; and agency lending. Our consumer-oriented activities are subject to extensive regulation and supervision by federal and state regulators with regard to consumer protection laws, including laws relating to fair lending and other practices in connection with marketing and providing consumer financial products.

Certain of our subsidiaries are regulated by the banking and securities regulatory authorities of the countries in which they operate. As described below, our E.U. subsidiaries, including our U.K. subsidiaries, are subject to various European regulations, as well as national laws, which to some extent implement European directives.

GSI, our U.K. broker-dealer subsidiary and a designated investment firm, and GSIB, our U.K. bank subsidiary, are regulated by the PRA and the FCA. GSI provides broker-dealer services in and from the U.K., and GSIB acts as a primary dealer for European government bonds and is involved in market making in European government bonds, lending (including securities lending) and deposit-taking activities. GSIB’s consumer-oriented deposit-taking activities are subject to U.K. consumer protection regulations. Goldman Sachs Bank Europe SE (“GSBE,” formerly Goldman Sachs AG), our German bank subsidiary, is regulated by the BaFin and Deutsche Bundesbank within the context of the European Single Supervisory Mechanism. In addition, in December 2018, our German subsidiary, Goldman Sachs Europe SE, was approved by BaFin as an authorized investment firm, which will allow it to conduct certain activities (such as activities related to physical commodities) which GSBE may be prevented from undertaking.

Capital and Liquidity Requirements. We and GS Bank USA are subject to regulatory risk-based capital and leverage requirements that are calculated in accordance with the regulations of the FRB (Capital Framework). The Capital Framework is largely based on Basel III and also implements certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the Capital Framework, we and GS Bank USA are “Advanced approach” banking organizations. We have also been designated as a global systemically important bank (G-SIB). Under the FRB’s capital adequacy requirements, we and GS Bank USA must meet specific regulatory capital requirements that involve quantitative measures of assets, liabilities and certain off-balance-sheet items. The sufficiency of our capital levels is also subject to qualitative judgments by regulators. We and GS Bank USA are also subject to liquidity requirements established by the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies.

In October 2018, the FRB released two proposals that would generally make the applicable capital and liquidity requirements less stringent for large U.S. banking organizations other than those that are U.S. G-SIBs, such as us.

GSI and GSIB are subject to capital requirements prescribed in the E.U. Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and the E.U. Fourth Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV). GSI and GSIB are subject to liquidity requirements established by U.K. regulatory authorities that are similar to those applicable to GS Bank USA and us.

Risk-Based Capital Ratios. The Capital Framework provides for an additional capital ratio requirement that consists of three components: (i) for capital conservation (capital conservation buffer), (ii) for countercyclicality (countercyclical capital buffer) and (iii) as a consequence of our designation as a G-SIB (G-SIB buffer). The additional capital ratio requirement must be satisfied entirely with capital that qualifies as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1). GS Bank USA is subject to the first two components of the additional capital ratio requirement discussed above.

The capital conservation buffer and G-SIB buffer began to phase in on January 1, 2016 and continued to do so through January 1, 2019. In April 2018, the FRB proposed a rule that would, among other things, replace the capital conservation buffer with a stress capital buffer (SCB) requirement for large BHCs subject to the FRB’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). See “Regulation — Banking Supervision and Regulation — Stress Tests” for further information about this proposed rule.

The countercyclical capital buffer is designed to counteract systemic vulnerabilities and currently applies only to “Advanced approach” banking organizations. Several other national supervisors also require countercyclical capital buffers. The G-SIB and countercyclical capital buffers applicable to us could change in the future and, as a result, the minimum capital ratios to which we are subject could change.

In December 2018, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule that would provide an optional three-year phase-in period for the day-one regulatory capital effects of the adoption of the Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) accounting standard. The FRB also released a statement indicating that it will not incorporate CECL into the calculation of the allowance for credit losses in supervisory stress tests through the 2021 stress test cycle. See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for further information about CECL.

In October 2018, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies issued a proposed rule that would implement the Basel Committee’s standardized approach for measuring counterparty credit risk exposures in connection with derivative contracts (SA-CCR). Under the proposal, “Advanced approach” banking organizations would be required to use SA-CCR for purposes of calculating their standardized risk-weighted assets (RWAs) and, with some adjustments, for purposes of determining their supplementary leverage ratios (SLRs) discussed below.

The Basel Committee has published final guidelines for calculating incremental capital ratio requirements for banking institutions that are systemically significant from a domestic but not global perspective (D-SIBs). If these guidelines are implemented by national regulators, they will apply, among others, to certain subsidiaries of G-SIBs. These guidelines are in addition to the framework for G-SIBs, but are more principles-based. CRD IV and the CRR provide that institutions that are systemically important at the E.U. or member state level, known as other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs), may be subject to additional capital ratio requirements of up to 2% of CET1, according to their degree of systemic importance (O-SII buffers). O-SIIs are identified annually, along with their applicable buffers. The PRA has identified Goldman Sachs Group UK Limited (GSG UK), the parent company of GSI and GSIB, as an O-SII. GSG UK’s O-SII buffer is currently set at zero percent.

In January 2019, the Basel Committee finalized revisions to the framework for calculating capital requirements for market risk, which is expected to increase market risk capital requirements for most banking organizations, although to a lesser degree than the version of the framework issued in January 2016. The revised framework, among other things, revises the standardized approach and internal models to calculate market risk requirements and clarifies the scope of positions subject to market risk capital requirements. The Basel Committee has proposed that national regulators implement the revised framework beginning January 1, 2022. The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies and the European Commission have not yet proposed rules implementing the 2019 version of the revised market risk framework for the U.S. and E.U. financial institutions, respectively.

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published standards that it described as the finalization of the Basel III post-crisis regulatory reforms. These standards set a floor on internally modeled capital requirements at a percentage of the capital requirements under the standardized approach. They also revise the Basel Committee’s standardized and model-based approaches for credit risk, provide a new standardized approach for operational risk capital and revise the frameworks for credit valuation adjustment risk. The Basel Committee has proposed that national regulators implement these standards beginning January 1, 2022, and that the new floor be phased in through January 1, 2027.

The Basel Committee has also published updated frameworks relating to Pillar 3 disclosure requirements and the regulatory capital treatment of securitization exposures and a revised G-SIB assessment methodology. The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies have not yet proposed rules implementing the December 2017 standards for purposes of risk-based capital ratios or the Basel Committee frameworks.

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K and Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information about the capital ratios of the firm, GS Bank USA and GSI.

As described in “Other Restrictions” below, in September 2016, the FRB issued a proposed rule that would, among other things, require FHCs to hold additional capital in connection with covered physical commodity activities.

Leverage Ratios. Under the Capital Framework, we and GS Bank USA are subject to Tier 1 leverage ratios and SLRs established by the FRB. In April 2018, the FRB and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a proposed rule which would replace the current 2% SLR buffer for G-SIBs, including us, with a buffer equal to 50% of their G-SIB buffer. This proposal and the proposal to use SA-CCR for purposes of calculating the SLR would implement certain of the revisions to the leverage ratio framework published by the Basel Committee in December 2017.

The Basel Committee has also issued consultation papers on, among other matters, changes to leverage ratio treatment of client cleared derivatives and the public disclosure of daily average balances for certain components of leverage ratio calculations.

The European Commission’s November 2016 proposal to amend the CRR would implement the Basel III leverage ratio framework by establishing a 3% minimum leverage ratio requirement for certain E.U. financial institutions, including GSI and GSIB, but it has not been enacted.

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K and Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information about our and GS Bank USA’s Tier 1 leverage ratios and SLRs, and GSI’s leverage ratio.

Liquidity Ratios. The Basel Committee’s framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring requires banking organizations to measure their liquidity against two specific liquidity tests: the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR).

The LCR rule issued by the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies and applicable to both us and GS Bank USA is generally consistent with the Basel Committee’s framework and is designed to ensure that a banking organization maintains an adequate level of unencumbered, high-quality liquid assets equal to or greater than the expected net cash outflows under an acute short-term liquidity stress scenario. The LCR rule issued by the European Commission and applicable to GSI and GSIB is also generally consistent with the Basel Committee’s framework. We are required to maintain a minimum LCR of 100%. We disclose, on a quarterly basis, our average daily LCR over the quarter. See “Available Information.”

The NSFR is designed to promote medium- and long-term stable funding of the assets and off-balance-sheet activities of banking organizations over a one-year time horizon. The Basel Committee’s NSFR framework requires banking organizations to maintain a minimum NSFR of 100%.

In May 2016, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies issued a proposed rule that would implement the NSFR for large U.S. banking organizations, including us and GS Bank USA. The European Commission’s November 2016 proposal to amend the CRR would implement the NSFR for certain E.U. financial institutions. Neither the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies nor the European Commission have released a final rule.

The FRB’s enhanced prudential standards require BHCs, including Group Inc., with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets, to comply with enhanced liquidity and overall risk management standards, which include maintaining a level of highly liquid assets based on projected funding needs for 30 days, and increased involvement by boards of directors in liquidity and overall risk management. Although the liquidity requirement under these rules has some similarities to the LCR, it is a separate requirement.

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management — Overview and Structure of Risk Management” and “— Liquidity Risk Management” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K for information about the LCR and NSFR, as well as our risk management practices and liquidity.

Stress Tests. As required by the FRB’s annual CCAR rules, we submit a capital plan for review by the FRB. In addition, we are required to perform company-run stress tests on a semi-annual basis, although the FRB has recently proposed to reduce the required frequency of these tests to annually. We publish summaries of our stress tests results on our website as described in “Available Information” below.

Our annual stress test submission is incorporated into the annual capital plans that we submit to the FRB as part of the CCAR process for large BHCs, which is designed to ensure that capital planning processes will permit continued operations by such institutions during times of economic and financial stress. As part of CCAR, the FRB evaluates an institution’s plan to make capital distributions, such as by repurchasing or redeeming stock or making dividend payments, across a range of macroeconomic and firm-specific assumptions based on the institution’s and the FRB’s stress tests. If the FRB objects to an institution’s capital plan, the institution is generally prohibited from making capital distributions other than those to which the FRB has not objected. In addition, an institution faces limitations on capital distributions to the extent that actual capital issuances are less than the amounts indicated in its capital plan.

In April 2018, the FRB issued a proposed rule to establish stress buffer requirements. Under the proposal, the SCB would replace the component of the capital conservation buffer. The SCB, subject to a minimum, would reflect stressed losses in the supervisory severely adverse scenario of the FRB’s CCAR stress tests and would also include four quarters of planned common stock dividends. The proposal would also introduce a stress leverage buffer requirement, similar to the SCB, which would apply to the Tier 1 leverage ratio. In addition, the proposal would require BHCs to reduce their planned capital distributions if those distributions would not be consistent with the applicable capital buffer constraints based on the BHCs’ own baseline scenario projections.

Under recent amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act, effective November 2019, depository institutions with total consolidated assets between $100 billion and $250 billion, such as GS Bank USA, will not be required to conduct annual company-run stress tests. GS Bank USA will not be required to conduct the annual company-run stress test in 2019. GSI and GSIB also have their own capital planning and stress testing process, which incorporates internally designed stress tests and those required under the PRA’s Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process.

Dividends and Stock Repurchases. Dividend payments by Group Inc. to its shareholders and stock repurchases by Group Inc. are subject to the oversight of the FRB.

U.S. federal and state laws impose limitations on the payment of dividends by U.S. depository institutions, such as GS Bank USA. In general, the amount of dividends that may be paid by GS Bank USA is limited to the lesser of the amounts calculated under a “recent earnings” test and an “undivided profits” test. Under the recent earnings test, a dividend may not be paid if the total of all dividends declared by the entity in any calendar year is in excess of the current year’s net income combined with the retained net income of the two preceding years, unless the entity obtains prior regulatory approval. Under the undivided profits test, a dividend may not be paid in excess of the entity’s “undivided profits” (generally, accumulated net profits that have not been paid out as dividends or transferred to surplus).

The applicable U.S. banking regulators have authority to prohibit or limit the payment of dividends if, in the banking regulator’s opinion, payment of a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in light of the financial condition of the banking organization.

Source of Strength. The Dodd-Frank Act requires BHCs to act as a source of strength to their bank subsidiaries and to commit capital and financial resources to support those subsidiaries. This support may be required by the FRB at times when we might otherwise determine not to provide it. Capital loans by a BHC to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of the subsidiary bank. In addition, if a BHC commits to a U.S. federal banking agency that it will maintain the capital of its bank subsidiary, whether in response to the FRB’s invoking its source-of-strength authority or in response to other regulatory measures, that commitment will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee for the BHC and the bank will be entitled to priority payment in respect of that commitment, ahead of other creditors of the BHC.

Transactions between Affiliates. Transactions between GS Bank USA or its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and Group Inc. or its other subsidiaries and affiliates, on the other hand, are regulated by the FRB. These regulations generally limit the types and amounts of transactions (including credit extensions from GS Bank USA or its subsidiaries to Group Inc. or its other subsidiaries and affiliates) that may take place and generally require those transactions to be on market terms or better to GS Bank USA or its subsidiaries. These regulations generally do not apply to transactions between GS Bank USA and its subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the coverage and scope of these regulations, including by applying them to the credit exposure arising under derivative transactions, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and lending transactions.

The BHC Act prohibits the FRB from requiring a payment by a BHC subsidiary to a depository institution if the functional regulator of that subsidiary objects to such payment. In such a case, the FRB could instead require the divestiture of the depository institution and impose operating restrictions pending the divestiture.

Resolution and Recovery. Group Inc. is required by the FRB and the FDIC to submit a periodic plan for its rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure (resolution plan). If the regulators jointly determine that an institution has failed to remediate identified shortcomings in its resolution plan and that its resolution plan, after any permitted resubmission, is not credible or would not facilitate an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the regulators may jointly impose more stringent capital, leverage or liquidity requirements or restrictions on growth, activities or operations or may jointly order the institutions to divest assets or operations in order to facilitate orderly resolution in the event of failure. In December 2018, the FRB and FDIC finalized guidance for resolution plan submissions which consolidated or superseded all prior guidance. See “Risk Factors — The application of Group Inc.’s proposed resolution strategy could result in greater losses for Group Inc.’s security holders” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Regulatory Matters and Other Developments — Regulatory Matters — Resolution and Recovery Plans” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K for further information about our resolution plan.

We are also required by the FRB to submit, on a periodic basis, a global recovery plan that outlines the steps that management could take to reduce risk, maintain sufficient liquidity, and conserve capital in times of prolonged stress.

The FDIC has issued a rule requiring each insured depository institution with $50 billion or more in assets, such as GS Bank USA, to provide a resolution plan. Our resolution plan for GS Bank USA must, among other things, demonstrate that it is adequately protected from risks arising from our other entities.

The federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted final rules imposing restrictions on qualified financial contracts (QFCs) entered into by G-SIBs. The rules began to phase in on January 1, 2019 and will be fully effective on January 1, 2020. The rules are intended to facilitate the orderly resolution of a failed G-SIB by limiting the ability of the G-SIB to enter into a QFC unless (i) the counterparty waives certain default rights in such contract arising upon the entry of the G-SIB or one of its affiliates into resolution, (ii) the contract does not contain enumerated prohibitions on the transfer of such contract and/or any related credit enhancement, and (iii) the counterparty agrees that the contract will be subject to the special resolution regimes set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act orderly liquidation authority (OLA) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 (FDIA), described below. Compliance can be achieved by adhering to the ISDA Universal Protocol or U.S. ISDA Protocol described below.

Certain Group Inc. subsidiaries, along with those of a number of other major global banking organizations, adhere to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Universal Resolution Stay Protocol (ISDA Universal Protocol), which was developed and updated in coordination with the Financial Stability Board (FSB), an international body that sets standards and coordinates the work of national financial authorities and international standard-setting bodies. The ISDA Universal Protocol imposes a stay on certain cross-default and early termination rights within standard ISDA derivative contracts and securities financing transactions between adhering parties in the event that one of them is subject to resolution in its home jurisdiction, including a resolution under the OLA or the FDIA in the U.S. In addition, certain Group Inc. subsidiaries adhere to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association 2018 U.S. Resolution Stay Protocol (U.S. ISDA Protocol), which was based on the ISDA Universal Protocol and was created to allow market participants to comply with the final QFC rules adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies.

The E.U. Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) establishes a framework for the recovery and resolution of financial institutions in the E.U., such as GSI and GSIB. The BRRD provides national supervisory authorities with tools and powers to pre-emptively address potential financial crises in order to promote financial stability and minimize taxpayers’ exposure to losses. The BRRD requires E.U. member states to grant “bail-in” powers to E.U. resolution authorities to recapitalize a failing entity by writing down its unsecured debt or converting its unsecured debt into equity. Financial institutions in the E.U. must provide that contracts enable such actions.

Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity. In December 2016, the FRB adopted a final rule establishing loss-absorbency and related requirements for BHCs that have been designated as U.S. G-SIBs, such as Group Inc. The rule became effective in January 2019 with no phase-in period. The rule addresses U.S. implementation of the FSB’s total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) principles and term sheet on minimum TLAC requirements for G-SIBs (issued in November 2015). The rule (i) establishes minimum TLAC requirements, (ii) establishes minimum “eligible long-term debt” (i.e., debt that is unsecured, has a maturity of at least one year from issuance and satisfies certain additional criteria) requirements, (iii) prohibits certain parent company transactions and (iv) caps the amount of parent company liabilities that are not eligible long-term debt.

The rule also prohibits a BHC that has been designated as a U.S. G-SIB from (i) guaranteeing liabilities of subsidiaries that are subject to early termination provisions if the BHC enters into an insolvency or receivership proceeding, subject to an exception for guarantees permitted by rules of the U.S. federal banking agencies imposing restrictions on QFCs; (ii) incurring liabilities guaranteed by subsidiaries; (iii) issuing short-term debt; or (iv) entering into derivatives and certain other financial contracts with external counterparties.

Additionally, the rule caps, at 5% of the value of the parent company’s eligible TLAC, the amount of unsecured non-contingent third-party liabilities that are not eligible long-term debt that could rank equally with or junior to eligible long-term debt.

The FSB’s final TLAC standard requires certain material subsidiaries of a G-SIB organized outside of the G-SIB’s home country, such as GSI and GSIB, to maintain amounts of TLAC directly or indirectly from the parent company. In July 2017, the FSB issued a final set of guiding principles on the implementation of the TLAC requirements applicable to material subsidiaries.

The BRRD subjects institutions to a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), which is generally consistent with the FSB’s TLAC standard. In June 2018, the Bank of England published a statement of policy on internal MREL, which requires a material U.K. subsidiary of an overseas banking group, such as GSI, to meet a minimum internal MREL requirement to facilitate the transfer of losses to its resolution entity, which for GSI is Group Inc. The transitional minimum internal MREL requirement began to phase in from January 1, 2019 and will become fully effective on January 1, 2022. In order to comply with the MREL statement of policy, bail-in triggers have been provided to the Bank of England over certain intercompany regulatory capital and senior debt instruments issued by GSI. These triggers enable the Bank of England to write down such instruments or convert such instruments to equity. The triggers can be exercised by the Bank of England if it determines that GSI has reached the point of non-viability and the FRB and the FDIC have not objected to the bail-in or if Group Inc. enters bankruptcy or similar proceedings.

The European Commission’s November 2016 proposed amendments to the CRR and the BRRD include provisions that are designed to implement the FSB’s minimum TLAC requirement for G-SIBs. The proposal would require subsidiaries of a non-E.U. G-SIB that account for more than 5% of its RWAs, operating income or leverage exposure, such as GSI, to meet 90% of the requirement applicable to E.U. G-SIBs.

In November 2016, the European Commission also proposed to amend CRD IV to require a non-E.U. G-SIB, such as us, to establish an E.U. intermediate holding company (E.U. IHC) if a firm has two or more of certain types of E.U. financial institution subsidiaries, including broker-dealers and banks. The European Commission also proposed amendments to the CRR that would require E.U. IHCs to satisfy MREL requirements and certain other prudential requirements. These proposals are subject to adoption at the E.U. level and, for the directives, implementing rulemakings by E.U. member states, which have not yet occurred.

Insolvency of an Insured Depository Institution or a Bank Holding Company. Under the FDIA, if the FDIC is appointed as conservator or receiver for an insured depository institution such as GS Bank USA, upon its insolvency or in certain other events, the FDIC has broad powers, including the power:

In addition, the claims of holders of domestic deposit liabilities and certain claims for administrative expenses against an insured depository institution would be afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims, including deposits at non-U.S. branches and claims of debtholders of the institution, in the “liquidation or other resolution” of such an institution by any receiver. As a result, whether or not the FDIC ever sought to repudiate any debt obligations of GS Bank USA, the debtholders (other than depositors) would be treated differently from, and could receive, if anything, substantially less than, the depositors of GS Bank USA.

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new resolution regime (known as OLA) for BHCs and their affiliates that are systemically important and certain non-bank financial companies. Under OLA, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver for the systemically important institution and its failed non-bank subsidiaries if, upon the recommendation of applicable regulators, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury determines, among other things, that the institution is in default or in danger of default, that the institution’s failure would have serious adverse effects on the U.S. financial system and that resolution under OLA would avoid or mitigate those effects.

If the FDIC is appointed as receiver under OLA, then the powers of the receiver, and the rights and obligations of creditors and other parties who have dealt with the institution, would be determined under OLA, and not under the bankruptcy or insolvency law that would otherwise apply. The powers of the receiver under OLA were generally based on the powers of the FDIC as receiver for depository institutions under the FDIA.

Substantial differences in the rights of creditors exist between OLA and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including the right of the FDIC under OLA to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims in some circumstances, the use of an administrative claims procedure to determine creditors’ claims (as opposed to the judicial procedure utilized in bankruptcy proceedings), and the right of the FDIC to transfer claims to a “bridge” entity. In addition, OLA limits the ability of creditors to enforce certain contractual cross-defaults against affiliates of the institution in receivership. The FDIC has issued a notice that it would likely resolve a failed FHC by transferring its assets to a “bridge” holding company under its “single point of entry” or “SPOE” strategy pursuant to OLA.

Deposit Insurance. Deposits at GS Bank USA have the benefit of FDIC insurance up to the applicable limits. The FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund is funded by assessments on insured depository institutions. GS Bank USA’s assessment (subject to adjustment by the FDIC) is currently based on its average total consolidated assets less its average tangible equity during the assessment period, its supervisory ratings and specified forward-looking financial measures used to calculate the assessment rate. In addition, deposits at GSIB are covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme up to the applicable limits.

Prompt Corrective Action. The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) requires the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies to take “prompt corrective action” in respect of depository institutions that do not meet specified capital requirements. FDICIA establishes five capital categories for FDIC-insured banks, such as GS Bank USA: well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized.

An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than is indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. FDICIA imposes progressively more restrictive constraints on operations, management and capital distributions, as the capital category of an institution declines. Failure to meet the capital requirements could also require a depository institution to raise capital. Ultimately, critically undercapitalized institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator, as described in “Insolvency of an Insured Depository Institution or a Bank Holding Company” above.

The prompt corrective action regulations do not apply to BHCs. However, the FRB is authorized to take appropriate action at the BHC level, based upon the undercapitalized status of the BHC’s depository institution subsidiaries. In certain instances relating to an undercapitalized depository institution subsidiary, the BHC would be required to guarantee the performance of the undercapitalized subsidiary’s capital restoration plan and might be liable for civil money damages for failure to fulfill its commitments on that guarantee. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the BHC, the guarantee would take priority over the BHC’s general unsecured creditors, as described in “Source of Strength” above.

Volcker Rule and Other Restrictions on Activities. As a BHC, we are subject to limitations on the types of business activities we may engage in.

Volcker Rule. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule” became effective in July 2015. The Volcker Rule prohibits “proprietary trading,” but permits activities such as underwriting, market making and risk-mitigation hedging, requires an extensive compliance program and includes additional reporting and record-keeping requirements.

In addition, the Volcker Rule limits the sponsorship of, and investment in, “covered funds” (as defined in the rule) by banking entities, including us. It also limits certain types of transactions between us and our sponsored funds, similar to the limitations on transactions between depository institutions and their affiliates. Covered funds include our private equity funds, certain of our credit and real estate funds, our hedge funds and certain other investment structures. The limitation on investments in covered funds requires us to limit our investment in each such fund to 3% or less of the fund’s net asset value, and to limit our aggregate investment in all such funds to 3% or less of our Tier 1 capital.

The FRB has extended the conformance period to July 2022 for our investments in, and relationships with, certain legacy “illiquid funds” (as defined in the Volcker Rule) that were in place prior to December 2013. See Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for further information about our investments in such funds.

In July 2018, the FRB, OCC, FDIC, CFTC and SEC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to amend the application of the Volcker Rule based on the size and scope of a banking entity’s trading activities and to clarify and amend certain definitions, requirements and exemptions. The ultimate impact of any amendments to the Volcker Rule will depend on, among other things, further rulemaking and implementation guidance from the relevant U.S. federal regulatory agencies and the development of market practices and standards.

Other Restrictions. FHCs generally can engage in a broader range of financial and related activities than are otherwise permissible for BHCs as long as they continue to meet the eligibility requirements for FHCs. The broader range of permissible activities for FHCs includes underwriting, dealing and making markets in securities and making investments in non-FHCs (merchant banking activities). In addition, certain FHCs are permitted to engage in certain commodities activities in the U.S. that may otherwise be impermissible for BHCs, so long as the assets held pursuant to these activities do not equal 5% or more of their consolidated assets.

The FRB, however, has the authority to limit an FHC’s ability to conduct activities that would otherwise be permissible, and will likely do so if the FHC does not satisfactorily meet certain requirements of the FRB. For example, if an FHC or any of its U.S. depository institution subsidiaries ceases to maintain its status as well-capitalized or well-managed, the FRB may impose corrective capital and/or managerial requirements, as well as additional limitations or conditions. If the deficiencies persist, the FHC may be required to divest its U.S. depository institution subsidiaries or to cease engaging in activities other than the business of banking and certain closely related activities.

If any insured depository institution subsidiary of an FHC fails to maintain at least a “satisfactory” rating under the Community Reinvestment Act, the FHC would be subject to restrictions on certain new activities and acquisitions.

In addition, we are required to obtain prior FRB approval before engaging in certain banking and other financial activities both within and outside the U.S.

In September 2016, the FRB issued a proposed rule which, if adopted, would impose new requirements on the physical commodity activities and certain merchant banking activities of FHCs. The proposed rule would, among other things, (i) require FHCs to hold additional capital in connection with covered physical commodity activities, including merchant banking investments in companies engaged in physical commodity activities; (ii) tighten the quantitative limits on permissible physical trading activity; and (iii) establish new public reporting requirements on the nature and extent of an FHC’s physical commodity holdings and activities. In addition, in a September 2016 report, the FRB recommended that Congress repeal (i) the authority of FHCs to engage in merchant banking activities; and (ii) the authority described above for certain FHCs to engage in certain otherwise permissible commodities activities.

In June 2018, the FRB issued a final rule regarding single counterparty credit limits, which imposes more stringent requirements for credit exposures among major financial institutions. The final rule requires U.S. G-SIBs, such as us, to comply by January 1, 2020. In addition, the FRB has proposed early remediation requirements, which are modeled on the prompt corrective action regime, described in “Prompt Corrective Action” above, but are designed to require action to begin in earlier stages of a company’s financial distress, based on a range of triggers, including capital and leverage, stress test results, liquidity and risk management.

In addition, New York State banking law imposes lending limits (which take into account credit exposure from derivative transactions) and other requirements that could impact the manner and scope of GS Bank USA’s activities.

The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies have issued guidance that focuses on transaction structures and risk management frameworks and that outlines high-level principles for safe-and-sound leveraged lending, including underwriting standards, valuation and stress testing. This guidance has, among other things, limited the percentage amount of debt that can be included in certain transactions. The status of this guidance is uncertain as the U.S. Government Accountability Office has determined that it is a rule subject to review under the Congressional Review Act.

Our broker-dealer subsidiaries are subject to regulations that cover all aspects of the securities business, including sales methods, trade practices, use and safekeeping of clients’ funds and securities, capital structure, record-keeping, the financing of clients’ purchases, and the conduct of directors, officers and employees. In the U.S., the SEC is the federal agency responsible for the administration of the federal securities laws. GS&Co. is registered as a broker-dealer, a municipal advisor and an investment adviser with the SEC and as a broker-dealer in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. U.S. self-regulatory organizations, such as FINRA and the NYSE, adopt rules that apply to, and examine, broker-dealers such as GS&Co.

U.S. state securities and other U.S. regulators also have regulatory or oversight authority over GS&Co. Similarly, our businesses are also subject to regulation by various non-U.S. governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory authorities in virtually all countries where we have offices, as described further below, as well as in “Other Regulation.” For a description of net capital requirements applicable to GS&Co., see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital — U.S. Regulated Broker-Dealer Subsidiaries” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

In Europe, we provide broker-dealer services that are subject to oversight by national regulators. These services are regulated in accordance with national laws, many of which implement E.U. directives, and, increasingly, by directly applicable E.U. regulations. These national and E.U. laws require, among other things, compliance with certain capital adequacy standards, customer protection requirements and market conduct and trade reporting rules.

Goldman Sachs Japan Co., Ltd. (GSJCL), our regulated Japanese broker-dealer, is subject to capital requirements imposed by Japan’s Financial Services Agency. GSJCL is also regulated by the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Osaka Exchange, the Tokyo Financial Exchange, the Japan Securities Dealers Association, the Tokyo Commodity Exchange, Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance, among others.

Also, the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the Korean Financial Supervisory Service, the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Securities Exchange, among others, regulate various of our subsidiaries and also have capital standards and other requirements comparable to the rules of the SEC.

Our exchange-based market-making activities are subject to extensive regulation by a number of securities exchanges. As a market maker on exchanges, we are required to maintain orderly markets in the securities to which we are assigned.

In April 2018, the SEC issued a proposed rule that would require broker-dealers to act in the best interest of their customers, and also proposed an interpretation clarifying the SEC’s views of the existing fiduciary duty owed by investment advisers to their clients. Additionally, the SEC issued a proposed rule that would require broker-dealers and investment advisers to provide a standardized, short-form disclosure highlighting services offered, applicable standards of conduct, fees and costs, the differences between brokerage and advisory services, and any conflicts of interest.

In November 2018, the SEC adopted a final rule requiring broker-dealers to provide to specified customers at their request individualized information about the execution of certain stock orders, including how such orders were routed and the average rebates received or fees paid.

GS&Co., GS Bank USA and other U.S. subsidiaries are also subject to rules adopted by U.S. federal agencies pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act that require any person who organizes or initiates certain asset-backed securities transactions to retain a portion (generally, at least five percent) of any credit risk that the person conveys to a third party. For certain securitization transactions, retention by third-party purchasers may satisfy this requirement.

Securitizations would also be affected by rules proposed by the SEC to implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition against securitization participants engaging in any transaction that would involve or result in any material conflict of interest with an investor in a securitization transaction. The proposed rules would exempt bona fide market-making activities and risk-mitigating hedging activities in connection with securitization activities from the general prohibition.

The SEC, FINRA and regulators in various non-U.S. jurisdictions have imposed both conduct-based and disclosure-based requirements with respect to research reports and research analysts and may impose additional regulations.

Swaps, Derivatives and Commodities Regulation

The commodity futures, commodity options and swaps industry in the U.S. is subject to regulation under the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The CFTC is the U.S. federal agency charged with the administration of the CEA. In addition, the SEC is the U.S. federal agency charged with the regulation of security-based swaps. The rules and regulations of various self-regulatory organizations, such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, other futures exchanges and the National Futures Association, also govern commodity futures, commodity options and swaps activities.

The terms “swaps” and “security-based swaps” include a wide variety of derivative instruments in addition to those conventionally referred to as swaps (including certain forward contracts and options), and relate to a wide variety of underlying assets or obligations, including currencies, commodities, interest or other monetary rates, yields, indices, securities, credit events, loans and other financial obligations.

CFTC rules require registration of swap dealers, mandatory clearing and execution of interest rate and credit default swaps and real-time public reporting and adherence to business conduct standards for all in-scope swaps. In December 2016, the CFTC proposed revised capital regulations for swap dealers that are not subject to the capital rules of a prudential regulator, such as the FRB, as well as a liquidity requirement for those swap dealers.

SEC rules govern the registration and regulation of security-based swap dealers but compliance with such rules is not currently required. In October 2018, the SEC re-proposed, and requested comment on, a number of its rules for security-based swap dealers, including capital, margin and segregation requirements.

GS&Co. is registered with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant, and several of our subsidiaries, including GS&Co., are registered with the CFTC and act as commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisors. GS&Co. and other subsidiaries, including GS Bank USA, GSI and J. Aron & Company LLC (J. Aron), are registered with the CFTC as swap dealers. In addition, GS&Co. and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. are registered with the SEC as OTC derivatives dealers.

Our affiliates registered as swap dealers are subject to the margin rules issued by the CFTC (in the case of our non-bank swap dealers) and the FRB (in the case of GS Bank USA). The rules for variation margin have become effective, and those for initial margin will phase in through September 2020 depending on certain activity levels of the swap dealer and the relevant counterparty. In contrast to the FRB margin rules, inter-affiliate transactions under the CFTC margin rules are generally exempt from initial margin requirements.

The CFTC has proposed position limit rules that will limit the size of positions in physical commodity derivatives that can be held by any entity, or any group of affiliates or other parties trading under common control, subject to certain exemptions, such as for bona fide hedging positions. These proposed rules would apply to positions in swaps, as well as futures and options on futures.

Similar types of swap regulation have been proposed or adopted in jurisdictions outside the U.S., including in the E.U. and Japan. For example, the E.U. has established regulatory requirements relating to portfolio reconciliation and reporting, clearing certain OTC derivatives and margining for uncleared derivatives activities under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation.

The CFTC has adopted rules relating to cross-border regulation of swaps, and has proposed cross-border business conduct and registration rules. The CFTC has entered into agreements with certain non-U.S. regulators, including in the E.U., regarding the cross-border regulation of derivatives and the mutual recognition of cross-border clearing houses, and has approved substituted compliance with certain non-U.S. regulations, including E.U. regulations, related to certain business conduct requirements and margin rules. The U.S. prudential regulators have not yet made a determination with respect to substituted compliance for transactions subject to non-U.S. margin rules.

J. Aron is authorized by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to sell wholesale physical power at market-based rates. As a FERC-authorized power marketer, J. Aron is subject to regulation under the U.S. Federal Power Act and FERC regulations and to the oversight of FERC. As a result of our investing activities, Group Inc. is also an “exempt holding company” under the U.S. Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 and applicable FERC rules.

In addition, as a result of our power-related and commodities activities, we are subject to energy, environmental and other governmental laws and regulations, as described in “Risk Factors — Our commodities activities, particularly our physical commodities activities, subject us to extensive regulation and involve certain potential risks, including environmental, reputational and other risks that may expose us to significant liabilities and costs” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K.

Investment Management Regulation

Our investment management business is subject to significant regulation in numerous jurisdictions around the world relating to, among other things, the safeguarding of client assets, offerings of funds, marketing activities, transactions among affiliates and our management of client funds.

The SEC has adopted rules relating to liquidity risk management that require registered open-end funds to classify and review the liquidity of their portfolio assets. In addition, the rules require funds to make disclosures relating to their liquidity risk management program and report to the SEC instances when a fund’s percentage of illiquid investments exceeds certain thresholds or when certain funds experience shortfalls in their highly liquid investments. While some rules became effective in December 2018, certain portfolio asset classification and disclosure requirements will become effective in June 2019 and December 2019.

Certain of our European subsidiaries, including GSAMI, are subject to the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and related regulations, which govern the approval, organizational, marketing and reporting requirements of E.U.-based alternative investment managers and the ability of alternative investment fund managers located outside the E.U. to access the E.U. market.

An E.U. regulation relating to money market funds, including provisions prescribing minimum levels of daily and weekly liquidity, clear labeling of money market funds and internal credit risk assessments, became effective in July 2018.

Compensation Practices

Our compensation practices are subject to oversight by the FRB and, with respect to some of our subsidiaries and employees, by other regulatory bodies worldwide. The scope and content of compensation regulation in the financial industry are continuing to develop, and we expect that these regulations and resulting market practices will evolve over a number of years.

The FSB has released standards for local regulators to implement certain compensation principles for banks and other financial companies designed to encourage sound compensation practices. The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies have provided guidance designed to ensure that incentive compensation arrangements at banking organizations take into account risk and are consistent with safe and sound practices. The guidance sets forth the following three key principles with respect to incentive compensation arrangements: (i) the arrangements should provide employees with incentives that appropriately balance risk and financial results in a manner that does not encourage employees to expose their organizations to imprudent risk; (ii) the arrangements should be compatible with effective controls and risk management; and (iii) the arrangements should be supported by strong corporate governance. The guidance provides that supervisory findings with respect to incentive compensation will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect its ability to make acquisitions or perform other actions. The guidance also provides that enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements or related risk management, control or governance processes pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the U.S. financial regulators, including the FRB and SEC, to adopt rules on incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities having at least $1 billion in total assets (including Group Inc. and some of its depository institution, broker-dealer and investment adviser subsidiaries). The U.S. financial regulators proposed revised rules in 2016, which have not been finalized.

In October 2016, the NYDFS issued guidance emphasizing that its regulated banking institutions, including GS Bank USA, must ensure that any incentive compensation arrangements tied to employee performance indicators are subject to effective risk management, oversight and control.

In the E.U., the CRR and CRD IV include compensation provisions designed to implement the FSB’s compensation standards. These rules have been implemented by E.U. member states and, among other things, limit the ratio of variable to fixed compensation of certain employees, including those identified as having a material impact on the risk profile of E.U.-regulated entities, including GSI.

The E.U. has also introduced rules regulating compensation for certain persons providing services to certain investment funds. These requirements are in addition to the guidance issued by U.S. financial regulators described above and the Dodd-Frank Act provision described above.

Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Bribery Rules and Regulations

The U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (PATRIOT Act), contains anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and mandates the implementation of various regulations applicable to all financial institutions, including standards for verifying client identification at account opening, and obligations to monitor client transactions and report suspicious activities. Through these and other provisions, the BSA and the PATRIOT Act seek to promote the identification of parties that may be involved in terrorism, money laundering or other suspicious activities. Anti-money laundering laws outside the U.S. contain some similar provisions.

In addition, we are subject to laws and regulations worldwide, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the U.K. Bribery Act, relating to corrupt and illegal payments to, and hiring practices with regard to, government officials and others. The scope of the types of payments or other benefits covered by these laws is very broad and regulators are frequently using enforcement proceedings to define the scope of these laws. The obligation of financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, to identify their clients, to monitor for and report suspicious transactions, to monitor direct and indirect payments to government officials, to respond to requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies, and to share information with other financial institutions, has required the implementation and maintenance of internal practices, procedures and controls.

Privacy and Cyber Security Regulation

Certain of our businesses are subject to laws and regulations enacted by U.S. federal and state governments, the E.U. or other non-U.S. jurisdictions and/or enacted by various regulatory organizations or exchanges relating to the privacy of the information of clients, employees or others, including the GLB Act, the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which took effect on May 25, 2018, the Japanese Personal Information Protection Act, the Hong Kong Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, the Australian Privacy Act and the Brazilian Bank Secrecy Law. The GDPR has heightened our privacy compliance obligations, impacted our businesses’ collection, processing and retention of personal data and imposed strict standards for reporting data breaches. The GDPR also provides for significant penalties for non-compliance. In addition, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was enacted in June 2018 and is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2020 and will impose privacy compliance obligations with regard to the personal information of California residents.

The NYDFS also requires financial institutions regulated by the NYDFS, including GS Bank USA, to, among other things, (i) establish and maintain a cyber security program designed to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of their information systems; (ii) implement and maintain a written cyber security policy setting forth policies and procedures for the protection of their information systems and nonpublic information; and (iii) designate a Chief Information Security Officer. In addition, in October 2016, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on potential enhanced cyber risk management standards for large financial institutions.

Other Regulation

U.S. and non-U.S. government agencies, regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations, as well as state securities commissions and other state regulators in the U.S., are empowered to conduct administrative proceedings that can result in censure, fine, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, or the suspension or expulsion of a regulated entity or its directors, officers or employees. In particular, state attorneys general have become much more active in seeking fines and penalties in enforcement led by the federal regulators. In addition, a number of our other activities require us to obtain licenses, adhere to applicable regulations and be subject to the oversight of various regulators in the jurisdictions in which we conduct these activities.

MiFID II includes extensive market structure reforms, such as the establishment of new trading venue categories for the purposes of discharging the obligation to trade OTC derivatives on a trading platform and enhanced pre- and post-trade transparency covering a wider range of financial instruments. In equities, MiFID II introduced volume caps on non-transparent liquidity trading for trading venues, limited the use of broker-dealer crossing networks and created a new regime for systematic internalizers, which are investment firms that execute client transactions outside a trading venue.

Additional control requirements were introduced for algorithmic trading, high frequency trading and direct electronic access. Commodities trading firms are required to calculate their positions and adhere to specific limits. Other reforms introduced enhanced transaction reporting, the publication of best execution data by investment firms and trading venues, transparency on costs and charges of service to investors, changes to the way investment managers can pay for the receipt of investment research and mandatory unbundling for broker-dealers between execution and other major services.

The E.U. and national financial legislators and regulators in the E.U. have proposed or adopted numerous further market reforms that may impact our businesses, including heightened corporate governance standards for financial institutions, rules on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products and rules on indices that are used as benchmarks for financial instruments or funds. In addition, the European Commission, the European Securities and Markets Authority and the European Banking Authority have announced or are formulating regulatory standards and other measures which will impact our European operations. Certain of our European subsidiaries are also regulated by the securities, derivatives and commodities exchanges of which they are members.

As described above, many of our subsidiaries are subject to regulatory capital requirements in jurisdictions throughout the world. Subsidiaries not subject to separate regulation may hold capital to satisfy local tax guidelines, rating agency requirements or internal policies, including policies concerning the minimum amount of capital a subsidiary should hold based upon its underlying risk.

Executive Officers of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Set forth below are the name, age, present title, principal occupation and certain biographical information for our executive officers. Our executive officers have been appointed by and serve at the pleasure of our Board of Directors.

Dane E. Holmes, 48

Mr. Holmes has been an Executive Vice President and Global Head of Human Capital Management since January 2018 and Global Head of Pine Street, our leadership development program, since 2016. He had previously served as Global Head of Investor Relations since October 2007.

John F.W. Rogers, 62

Mr. Rogers has been an Executive Vice President since April 2011 and Chief of Staff and Secretary to our Board of Directors since December 2001.

Stephen M. Scherr, 54

Mr. Scherr has been an Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since November 2018. He had previously served as Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs Bank USA since May 2016, and head of the Consumer & Commercial Banking Division from 2016 to 2018. From June 2014 to 2017, he was Chief Strategy Officer, and from 2011 to 2016 he was Head of the Latin America business. He was also Global Head of the Financing Group from 2008 to 2014.

Karen P. Seymour, 57

Ms. Seymour has been an Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, and Head or Co-Head of the Legal Department since January 2018. From 2000 through January 2002 and 2005 through 2017, she was a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, a global law firm, including serving as a member of its management committee from April 2015 to December 2017, and as the co-managing partner of its litigation group from December 2012 to April 2015.

Sarah E. Smith, 59

Ms. Smith has been an Executive Vice President and Global Head of Compliance since March 2017. She had previously served as Controller and Chief Accounting Officer since 2002.

David M. Solomon, 57

Mr. Solomon has been Chairman of the Board since January 2019, and Chief Executive Officer and a director since October 2018. He had previously served as President and Chief or Co-Chief Operating Officer since January 2017 and Co-Head of the Investment Banking Division from July 2006 to December 2016.

John E. Waldron, 49

Mr. Waldron has been President and Chief Operating Officer since October 2018. He had previously served as Co-Head of the Investment Banking Division since December 2014. Prior to that he was Global Head of Investment Banking Services/Client Coverage for the Investment Banking Division and had oversight of the Investment Banking Services Leadership Group, and from 2007 to 2009 was Global Co-Head of the Financial Sponsors Group.

Available Information

Our internet address is www.goldmansachs.com and the investor relations section of our website is located at www.goldmansachs.com/investor-relations. We make available free of charge through the investor relations section of our website, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), as well as proxy statements, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC.

Also posted on our website, and available in print upon request of any shareholder to our Investor Relations Department, are our certificate of incorporation and by-laws, charters for our Audit Committee, Risk Committee, Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, and Public Responsibilities Committee, our Policy Regarding Director Independence Determinations, our Policy on Reporting of Concerns Regarding Accounting and Other Matters, our Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics governing our directors, officers and employees. Within the time period required by the SEC, we will post on our website any amendment to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and any waiver applicable to any executive officer, director or senior financial officer.

In addition, our website includes information concerning:

Our Investor Relations Department can be contacted at The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 200 West Street, 29th Floor, New York, New York 10282, Attn: Investor Relations, telephone: 212-902-0300, e-mail: gs-investor-relations@gs.com.

From time to time, we use our website, our Twitter account (twitter.com/GoldmanSachs), our Instagram account (instagram.com/GoldmanSachs) and other social media channels as additional means of disclosing public information to investors, the media and others interested in Goldman Sachs. In addition, our officers may use similar social media channels to disclose public information. It is possible that certain information we or our officers post on our website and on social media could be deemed to be material information, and we encourage investors, the media and others interested in Goldman Sachs to review the business and financial information we or our officers post on our website and on the social media channels identified above. The information on our website and those social media channels is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K.

Cautionary Statement Pursuant to the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

We have included or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, and from time to time our management may make, statements that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are not historical facts, but instead represent only our beliefs regarding future events, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and outside our control.

These statements include statements other than historical information or statements of current conditions and may relate to our future plans and objectives and results, among other things, and may also include statements about the effect of changes to the capital, leverage, liquidity, long-term debt and TLAC rules applicable to banks and BHCs, the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our businesses and operations, and various legal proceedings, governmental investigations or mortgage-related contingencies as set forth in both Notes 27 and 18 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K, as well as statements about the results of our Dodd-Frank Act and our stress tests, statements about the objectives and effectiveness of our business continuity plan, information security program, risk management and liquidity policies, statements about our resolution plan and resolution strategy and their implications for our debtholders and other stakeholders, statements about the design and effectiveness of our resolution capital and liquidity models and our triggers and alerts framework, statements about trends in or growth opportunities for our businesses, statements about our future status, activities or reporting under U.S. or non-U.S. banking and financial regulation, statements about our investment banking transaction backlog, statements about our expected tax rate, statements about the estimated impact of new accounting standards, statements about the level of capital actions, statements about our expected interest income, statements about our credit exposures, statements about our preparations for Brexit, including our plan to manage a hard Brexit scenario, statements about the replacement of LIBOR and other IBORs and the objectives of our program related to the transition from IBORs to alternative risk-free reference rates, and statements about the adequacy of our allowance for credit losses.

By identifying these statements for you in this manner, we are alerting you to the possibility that our actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ from those indicated in these forward-looking statements include, among others, those described below and in “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K.

Statements about our investment banking transaction backlog are subject to the risk that the terms of these transactions may be modified or that they may not be completed at all; therefore, the net revenues, if any, that we actually earn from these transactions may differ, possibly materially, from those currently expected. Important factors that could result in a modification of the terms of a transaction or a transaction not being completed include, in the case of underwriting transactions, a decline or continued weakness in general economic conditions, outbreak of hostilities, volatility in the securities markets generally or an adverse development with respect to the issuer of the securities and, in the case of financial advisory transactions, a decline in the securities markets, an inability to obtain adequate financing, an adverse development with respect to a party to the transaction or a failure to obtain a required regulatory approval. For information about other important factors that could adversely affect our investment banking transactions, see “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K.

Statements about our expected 2019 effective income tax rate are subject to the risk that our tax rate may differ from the anticipated rate indicated in such statements, possibly materially, due to, among other things, changes in our earnings mix, our profitability and entities in which we generate profits, the assumptions we have made in forecasting our expected tax rate, as well as guidance that may be issued by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

We provided in this filing information regarding our NSFR. The statements with respect to our NSFR are forward-looking statements, based on our current interpretation, expectations and understandings of the relevant proposal, and reflect significant assumptions about the treatment of various assets and liabilities and the manner in which our NSFR is calculated. As a result, the methods used to calculate our NSFR may differ, possibly materially, from those used in calculating our NSFR for any future disclosures. The ultimate methods of calculating our NSFR will depend on, among other things, rulemaking from the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies and the development of market practices and standards.

We face a variety of risks that are substantial and inherent in our businesses, including market, liquidity, credit, operational, legal, regulatory and reputational risks. The following are some of the more important factors that could affect our businesses.

Our businesses have been and may continue to be adversely affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic conditions generally.

Our businesses, by their nature, do not produce predictable earnings, and all of our businesses are materially affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic conditions generally, both directly and through their impact on client activity levels. These conditions can change suddenly and negatively.

Our financial performance is highly dependent on the environment in which our businesses operate. A favorable business environment is generally characterized by, among other factors, high global gross domestic product growth, regulatory and market conditions which result in transparent, liquid and efficient capital markets, low inflation, high business and investor confidence, stable geopolitical conditions, clear regulations and strong business earnings. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by: concerns about sovereign defaults; uncertainty concerning fiscal or monetary policy, government shutdowns, debt ceilings or funding; the extent of and uncertainty about tax and other regulatory changes; declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence; limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital; illiquid markets; increases in inflation, interest rates, exchange rate or basic commodity price volatility or default rates; the imposition of tariffs or other limitations on international trade and travel; outbreaks of domestic or international tensions or hostilities, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, cybersecurity threats or attacks and other forms of disruption to or curtailment of global communication, energy transmission or transportation networks or other geopolitical instability or uncertainty, such as Brexit; corporate, political or other scandals that reduce investor confidence in capital markets; extreme weather events or other natural disasters or pandemics; or a combination of these or other factors.

The financial services industry and the securities markets have been materially and adversely affected in the past by significant declines in the values of nearly all asset classes and by a serious lack of liquidity. In addition, concerns about European sovereign debt risk and its impact on the European banking system, the impact of Brexit, the imposition of tariffs by the U.S. and by other countries in response thereto, and changes in interest rates and other market conditions or actual changes in interest rates and other market conditions, have resulted, at times, in significant volatility while negatively impacting the levels of client activity.

General uncertainty about economic, political and market activities, and the scope, timing and impact of regulatory reform, as well as weak consumer, investor and CEO confidence resulting in large part from such uncertainty, continues to negatively impact client activity, which adversely affects many of our businesses. Periods of low volatility and periods of high volatility combined with a lack of liquidity, have at times had an unfavorable impact on our market-making businesses.

Financial institution returns in many countries may be negatively impacted by increased funding costs due in part to the lack of perceived government support of such institutions in the event of future financial crises relative to financial institutions in countries in which governmental support is maintained. In addition, liquidity in the financial markets has also been negatively impacted as market participants and market practices and structures continue to adjust to new regulations.

Our revenues and profitability and those of our competitors have been and will continue to be impacted by requirements relating to capital, additional loss-absorbing capacity, leverage, minimum liquidity and long-term funding levels, requirements related to resolution and recovery planning, derivatives clearing and margin rules and levels of regulatory oversight, as well as limitations on which and, if permitted, how certain business activities may be carried out by financial institutions.

The degree to which these and other changes since the financial crisis continue to have an impact on the profitability of financial institutions will depend on the effect of regulations adopted after 2008 and new regulations, the manner in which markets, market participants and financial institutions have continued to adapt to these regulations, and the prevailing economic and financial market conditions. However, there is a significant risk that such changes will negatively impact the absolute level of revenues, profitability and return on equity for us and other financial institutions.

Our businesses and those of our clients are subject to extensive and pervasive regulation around the world.

As a participant in the financial services industry and a systemically important financial institution, we are subject to extensive regulation in jurisdictions around the world. We face the risk of significant intervention by law enforcement, regulatory and taxing authorities, as well as private litigation, in all jurisdictions in which we conduct our businesses. In many cases, our activities may be subject to overlapping and divergent regulation in different jurisdictions. Among other things, as a result of law enforcement authorities, regulators or private parties challenging our compliance with existing laws and regulations, we or our employees could be fined or criminally sanctioned, prohibited from engaging in some of our business activities, subject to limitations or conditions on our business activities, including higher capital requirements, or subjected to new or substantially higher taxes or other governmental charges in connection with the conduct of our businesses or with respect to our employees. Such limitations or conditions may limit our business activities and negatively impact our profitability.

In addition to the impact on the scope and profitability of our business activities, day-to-day compliance with existing laws and regulations, in particular those adopted since 2008, has involved and will, except to the extent that some of such regulations are modified or otherwise repealed, continue to involve significant amounts of time, including that of our senior leaders and that of a large number of dedicated compliance and other reporting and operational personnel, all of which may negatively impact our profitability.

If there are new laws or regulations or changes in the enforcement of existing laws or regulations applicable to our businesses or those of our clients, including capital, liquidity, leverage, long-term debt, total loss-absorbing capacity and margin requirements, restrictions on leveraged lending or other business practices, reporting requirements, requirements relating to recovery and resolution planning, tax burdens and compensation restrictions, that are imposed on a limited subset of financial institutions (either based on size, method of funding, activities, geography or other criteria), compliance with these new laws or regulations, or changes in the enforcement of existing laws or regulations, could adversely affect our ability to compete effectively with other institutions that are not affected in the same way. In addition, regulation imposed on financial institutions or market participants generally, such as taxes on financial transactions, could adversely impact levels of market activity more broadly, and thus impact our businesses.

These developments could impact our profitability in the affected jurisdictions, or even make it uneconomic for us to continue to conduct all or certain of our businesses in such jurisdictions, or could cause us to incur significant costs associated with changing our business practices, restructuring our businesses, moving all or certain of our businesses and our employees to other locations or complying with applicable capital requirements, including reducing dividends or share repurchases, liquidating assets or raising capital in a manner that adversely increases our funding costs or otherwise adversely affects our shareholders and creditors.

U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory developments, in particular the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, have significantly altered the regulatory framework within which we operate and have adversely affected and may in the future affect our profitability.

Among the aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act that have affected or may in the future affect our businesses are: increased capital, liquidity and reporting requirements; limitations on activities in which we may engage; increased regulation of and restrictions on OTC derivatives markets and transactions; limitations on incentive compensation; limitations on affiliate transactions; requirements to reorganize or limit activities in connection with recovery and resolution planning; increased deposit insurance assessments; and increased standards of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers in dealing with clients. The implementation of higher capital requirements, the LCR, the NSFR, requirements relating to long-term debt and total loss-absorbing capacity and the prohibition on proprietary trading and the sponsorship of, or investment in, covered funds by the Volcker Rule may continue to adversely affect our profitability and competitive position, particularly if these requirements do not apply equally to our competitors or are not implemented uniformly across jurisdictions.

As described in “Business — Regulation — Banking Supervision and Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K, Group Inc.’s proposed capital actions and capital plan are reviewed by the FRB as part of the CCAR process. If the FRB objects to our proposed capital actions in our capital plan, Group Inc. could be prohibited from taking some or all of the proposed capital actions, including increasing or paying dividends on common or preferred stock or repurchasing common stock or other capital securities. Our inability to carry out our proposed capital actions could, among other things, prevent us from returning capital to our shareholders and impact our return on equity. Additionally, as a consequence of our designation as a G-SIB, we are subject to the G-SIB buffer. Our G-SIB buffer is updated annually based on financial data from the prior year. Expansion of our businesses or growth in our balance sheet may result in an increase in our G-SIB buffer and a corresponding increase in our capital requirements.

We are also subject to laws and regulations, such as the GDPR, relating to the privacy of the information of clients, employees or others, and any failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to liability and/or reputational damage. As new privacy-related laws and regulations are implemented, the time and resources needed for us to comply with such laws and regulations, as well as our potential liability for non-compliance and reporting obligations in the case of data breaches, may significantly increase.

In addition, our businesses are increasingly subject to laws and regulations relating to surveillance, encryption and data on-shoring in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Compliance with these laws and regulations may require us to change our policies, procedures and technology for information security, which could, among other things, make us more vulnerable to cyber attacks and misappropriation, corruption or loss of information or technology.

We have entered into new consumer-oriented deposit-taking and lending businesses, and we currently expect to expand the product and geographic scope of our offerings. Entering into such new businesses, as with any new business, subjects us to numerous additional regulations in the jurisdictions in which these businesses operate. Not only are these regulations extensive, but they involve types of regulations and supervision, as well as regulatory compliance risks, that we have not previously encountered. The level of regulatory scrutiny and the scope of regulations affecting financial interactions with consumers is often much greater than that associated with doing business with institutions and high-net-worth individuals. Complying with such new regulations is time-consuming, costly and presents new and increased risks.

Increasingly, regulators and courts have sought to hold financial institutions liable for the misconduct of their clients where such regulators and courts have determined that the financial institution should have detected that the client was engaged in wrongdoing, even though the financial institution had no direct knowledge of the activities engaged in by its client. Regulators and courts have also increasingly found liability as a “control person” for activities of entities in which financial institutions or funds controlled by financial institutions have an investment, but which they do not actively manage. In addition, regulators and courts continue to seek to establish “fiduciary” obligations to counterparties to which no such duty had been assumed to exist. To the extent that such efforts are successful, the cost of, and liabilities associated with, engaging in brokerage, clearing, market-making, prime brokerage, investing and other similar activities could increase significantly. To the extent that we have fiduciary obligations in connection with acting as a financial adviser, investment adviser or in other roles for individual, institutional, sovereign or investment fund clients, any breach, or even an alleged breach, of such obligations could have materially negative legal, regulatory and reputational consequences.

For information about the extensive regulation to which our businesses are subject, see “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K.

Our businesses have been and may be adversely affected by declining asset values. This is particularly true for those businesses in which we have net “long” positions, receive fees based on the value of assets managed, or receive or post collateral.

Many of our businesses have net “long” positions in debt securities, loans, derivatives, mortgages, equities (including private equity and real estate) and most other asset classes. These include positions we take when we act as a principal to facilitate our clients’ activities, including our exchange-based market-making activities, or commit large amounts of capital to maintain positions in interest rate and credit products, as well as through our currencies, commodities, equities and mortgage-related activities. In addition, we invest in similar asset classes. Substantially all of our investing and market-making positions and a portion of our loans are marked-to-market on a daily basis and declines in asset values directly and immediately impact our earnings, unless we have effectively “hedged” our exposures to such declines.

In certain circumstances (particularly in the case of credit products, including leveraged loans, and private equities or other securities that are not freely tradable or lack established and liquid trading markets), it may not be possible or economic to hedge such exposures and to the extent that we do so the hedge may be ineffective or may greatly reduce our ability to profit from increases in the values of the assets. Sudden declines and significant volatility in the prices of assets may substantially curtail or eliminate the trading markets for certain assets, which may make it difficult to sell, hedge or value such assets. The inability to sell or effectively hedge assets reduces our ability to limit losses in such positions and the difficulty in valuing assets may negatively affect our capital, liquidity or leverage ratios, increase our funding costs and generally require us to maintain additional capital.

In our exchange-based market-making activities, we are obligated by stock exchange rules to maintain an orderly market, including by purchasing securities in a declining market. In markets where asset values are declining and in volatile markets, this results in losses and an increased need for liquidity.

We receive asset-based management fees based on the value of our clients’ portfolios or investment in funds managed by us and, in some cases, we also receive incentive fees based on increases in the value of such investments. Declines in asset values reduce the value of our clients’ portfolios or fund assets, which in turn reduce the fees we earn for managing such assets.

We post collateral to support our obligations and receive collateral to support the obligations of our clients and counterparties in connection with our client execution businesses. When the value of the assets posted as collateral or the credit ratings of the party posting collateral decline, the party posting the collateral may need to provide additional collateral or, if possible, reduce its trading position. An example of such a situation is a “margin call” in connection with a brokerage account. Therefore, declines in the value of asset classes used as collateral mean that either the cost of funding positions is increased or the size of positions is decreased.

If we are the party providing collateral, this can increase our costs and reduce our profitability and if we are the party receiving collateral, this can also reduce our profitability by reducing the level of business done with our clients and counterparties. In addition, volatile or less liquid markets increase the difficulty of valuing assets, which can lead to costly and time-consuming disputes over asset values and the level of required collateral, as well as increased credit risk to the recipient of the collateral due to delays in receiving adequate collateral.

In cases where we foreclose on collateral, sudden declines in the value or liquidity of such collateral may, despite credit monitoring, over-collateralization, the ability to call for additional collateral or the ability to force repayment of the underlying obligation, result in significant losses to us, especially where there is a single type of collateral supporting the obligation. In addition, we have been, and may in the future be, subject to claims that the foreclosure was not permitted under the legal documents, was conducted in an improper manner or caused a client or counterparty to go out of business.

Our businesses have been and may be adversely affected by disruptions in the credit markets, including reduced access to credit and higher costs of obtaining credit.

Widening credit spreads, as well as significant declines in the availability of credit, have in the past adversely affected our ability to borrow on a secured and unsecured basis and may do so in the future. We fund ourselves on an unsecured basis by issuing long-term debt, by accepting deposits at our bank subsidiaries, by issuing hybrid financial instruments or by obtaining loans or lines of credit from commercial or other banking entities. We seek to finance many of our assets on a secured basis. Any disruptions in the credit markets may make it harder and more expensive to obtain funding for our businesses. If our available funding is limited or we are forced to fund our operations at a higher cost, these conditions may require us to curtail our business activities and increase our cost of funding, both of which could reduce our profitability, particularly in our businesses that involve investing, lending and market making.

Our clients engaging in mergers, acquisitions and other types of strategic transactions often rely on access to the secured and unsecured credit markets to finance their transactions. A lack of available credit or an increased cost of credit can adversely affect the size, volume and timing of our clients’ merger and acquisition transactions, particularly large transactions, and adversely affect our financial advisory and underwriting businesses.

Our credit businesses have been and may in the future be negatively affected by a lack of liquidity in credit markets. A lack of liquidity reduces price transparency, increases price volatility and decreases transaction volumes and size, all of which can increase transaction risk or decrease the profitability of such businesses.

Our market-making activities have been and may be affected by changes in the levels of market volatility.

Certain of our market-making activities depend on market volatility to provide trading and arbitrage opportunities to our clients, and decreases in volatility have reduced and may in the future reduce these opportunities and the level of client activity associated with them and adversely affect the results of these activities. On the other hand, increased volatility, while it can increase trading volumes and spreads, also increases risk as measured by Value-at-Risk (VaR) and may expose us to increased risks in connection with our market-making activities or cause us to reduce our market-making inventory in order to avoid increasing our VaR. Limiting the size of our market-making positions can adversely affect our profitability. In periods when volatility is increasing, but asset values are declining significantly, it may not be possible to sell assets at all or it may only be possible to do so at steep discounts. In such circumstances we may be forced to either take on additional risk or to realize losses in order to decrease our VaR. In addition, increases in volatility increase the level of our RWAs, which increases our capital requirements.

Our investment banking, client execution and investment management businesses have been adversely affected and may in the future be adversely affected by market uncertainty or lack of confidence among investors and CEOs due to general declines in economic activity and other unfavorable economic, geopolitical or market conditions.

Our investment banking business has been, and may in the future be, adversely affected by market conditions. Poor economic conditions and other adverse geopolitical conditions can adversely affect and have in the past adversely affected investor and CEO confidence, resulting in significant industry-wide declines in the size and number of underwritings and of financial advisory transactions, which could have an adverse effect on our revenues and our profit margins. In particular, because a significant portion of our investment banking revenues is derived from our participation in large transactions, a decline in the number of large transactions would adversely affect our investment banking business.

In certain circumstances, market uncertainty or general declines in market or economic activity may affect our client execution businesses by decreasing levels of overall activity or by decreasing volatility, but at other times market uncertainty and even declining economic activity may result in higher trading volumes or higher spreads or both.

Market uncertainty, volatility and adverse economic conditions, as well as declines in asset values, may cause our clients to transfer their assets out of our funds or other products or their brokerage accounts and result in reduced net revenues, principally in our investment management business. Even if clients do not withdraw their funds, they may invest them in products that generate less fee income.

Our investment management business may be affected by the poor investment performance of our investment products or a client preference for products other than those which we offer or for products that generate lower fees.

Poor investment returns in our investment management business, due to either general market conditions or underperformance (relative to our competitors or to benchmarks) by funds or accounts that we manage or investment products that we design or sell, affects our ability to retain existing assets and to attract new clients or additional assets from existing clients. This could affect the management and incentive fees that we earn on assets under supervision or the commissions and net spreads that we earn for selling other investment products, such as structured notes or derivatives. To the extent that our clients choose to invest in products that we do not currently offer, we will suffer outflows and a loss of management fees. Further, if, due to changes in investor sentiment or the relative performance of certain asset classes or otherwise, clients invest in products that generate lower fees, our investment management business could be adversely affected.

We may incur losses as a result of ineffective risk management processes and strategies.

We seek to monitor and control our risk exposure through a risk and control framework encompassing a variety of separate but complementary financial, credit, operational, compliance and legal reporting systems, internal controls, management review processes and other mechanisms. Our risk management process seeks to balance our ability to profit from market-making, investing or lending positions, and underwriting activities, with our exposure to potential losses. While we employ a broad and diversified set of risk monitoring and risk mitigation techniques, those techniques and the judgments that accompany their application cannot anticipate every economic and financial outcome or the specifics and timing of such outcomes. Thus, we may, in the course of our activities, incur losses. Market conditions in recent years have involved unprecedented dislocations and highlight the limitations inherent in using historical data to manage risk.

The models that we use to assess and control our risk exposures reflect assumptions about the degrees of correlation or lack thereof among prices of various asset classes or other market indicators. In times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances, such as those that occurred during 2008 and early 2009, and to some extent since 2011, previously uncorrelated indicators may become correlated, or conversely previously correlated indicators may move in different directions. These types of market movements have at times limited the effectiveness of our hedging strategies and have caused us to incur significant losses, and they may do so in the future. These changes in correlation can be exacerbated where other market participants are using risk or trading models with assumptions or algorithms that are similar to ours. In these and other cases, it may be difficult to reduce our risk positions due to the activity of other market participants or widespread market dislocations, including circumstances where asset values are declining significantly or no market exists for certain assets.

In addition, the use of models in connection with risk management and numerous other critical activities presents risks that such models may be ineffective, either because of poor design or ineffective testing, improper or flawed inputs, as well as unpermitted access to such models resulting in unapproved or malicious changes to the model or its inputs.

To the extent that we have positions through our market-making or origination activities or we make investments directly through our investing activities, including private equity, that do not have an established liquid trading market or are otherwise subject to restrictions on sale or hedging, we may not be able to reduce our positions and therefore reduce our risk associated with such positions. In addition, to the extent permitted by applicable law and regulation, we invest our own capital in private equity, credit, real estate and hedge funds that we manage and limitations on our ability to withdraw some or all of our investments in these funds, whether for legal, reputational or other reasons, may make it more difficult for us to control the risk exposures relating to these investments.

Prudent risk management, as well as regulatory restrictions, may cause us to limit our exposure to counterparties, geographic areas or markets, which may limit our business opportunities and increase the cost of our funding or hedging activities.

As we have expanded and intend to continue to expand the product and geographic scope of our offerings of credit products to consumers, we are presented with different credit risks and must expand and adapt our credit risk monitoring and mitigation activities to account for these new business activities. A failure to adequately assess and control such risk exposures could result in losses to us.

For further information about our risk management policies and procedures, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

Our liquidity, profitability and businesses may be adversely affected by an inability to access the debt capital markets or to sell assets or by a reduction in our credit ratings or by an increase in our credit spreads.

Liquidity is essential to our businesses. It is of critical importance to us, as most of the failures of financial institutions have occurred in large part due to insufficient liquidity. Our liquidity may be impaired by an inability to access secured and/or unsecured debt markets, an inability to access funds from our subsidiaries or otherwise allocate liquidity optimally, an inability to sell assets or redeem our investments, or unforeseen outflows of cash or collateral. This situation may arise due to circumstances that we may be unable to control, such as a general market disruption or an operational problem that affects third parties or us, or even by the perception among market participants that we, or other market participants, are experiencing greater liquidity risk.

We employ structured products to benefit our clients and hedge our own risks. The financial instruments that we hold and the contracts to which we are a party are often complex, and these complex structured products often do not have readily available markets to access in times of liquidity stress. Our investing and lending activities may lead to situations where the holdings from these activities represent a significant portion of specific markets, which could restrict liquidity for our positions.

Further, our ability to sell assets may be impaired if there is not generally a liquid market for such assets, as well as in circumstances where other market participants are seeking to sell similar otherwise generally liquid assets at the same time, as is likely to occur in a liquidity or other market crisis or in response to changes to rules or regulations. In addition, financial institutions with which we interact may exercise set-off rights or the right to require additional collateral, including in difficult market conditions, which could further impair our liquidity.

Our credit ratings are important to our liquidity. A reduction in our credit ratings could adversely affect our liquidity and competitive position, increase our borrowing costs, limit our access to the capital markets or trigger our obligations under certain provisions in some of our trading and collateralized financing contracts. Under these provisions, counterparties could be permitted to terminate contracts with us or require us to post additional collateral. Termination of our trading and collateralized financing contracts could cause us to sustain losses and impair our liquidity by requiring us to find other sources of financing or to make significant cash payments or securities movements.

As of December 2018, our counterparties could have called for additional collateral or termination payments related to our net derivative liabilities under bilateral agreements in an aggregate amount of $262 million in the event of a one-notch downgrade of our credit ratings and $959 million in the event of a two-notch downgrade of our credit ratings. A downgrade by any one rating agency, depending on the agency’s relative ratings of us at the time of the downgrade, may have an impact which is comparable to the impact of a downgrade by all rating agencies. For further information about our credit ratings, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management — Liquidity Risk Management — Credit Ratings” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

Our cost of obtaining long-term unsecured funding is directly related to our credit spreads (the amount in excess of the interest rate of U.S. Treasury securities (or other benchmark securities) of the same maturity that we need to pay to our debt investors). Increases in our credit spreads can significantly increase our cost of this funding. Changes in credit spreads are continuous, market-driven, and subject at times to unpredictable and highly volatile movements. Our credit spreads are also influenced by market perceptions of our creditworthiness. In addition, our credit spreads may be influenced by movements in the costs to purchasers of credit default swaps referenced to our long-term debt. The market for credit default swaps has proven to be extremely volatile and at times has lacked a high degree of transparency or liquidity.

Regulatory changes relating to liquidity may also negatively impact our results of operations and competitive position. Recently, numerous regulations have been adopted or proposed to introduce more stringent liquidity requirements for large financial institutions. These regulations address, among other matters, liquidity stress testing, minimum liquidity requirements, wholesale funding, limitations on the issuance of short-term debt and structured notes and prohibitions on parent guarantees that are subject to certain cross-defaults. New and prospective liquidity-related regulations may overlap with, and be impacted by, other regulatory changes, including rules relating to minimum long-term debt requirements and TLAC, guidance on the treatment of brokered deposits and the capital, leverage and resolution and recovery frameworks applicable to large financial institutions. Given the overlap and complex interactions among these new and prospective regulations, they may have unintended cumulative effects, and their full impact will remain uncertain, while regulatory reforms are being adopted and market practices develop in response to such reforms.

A failure to appropriately identify and address potential conflicts of interest could adversely affect our businesses.

Due to the broad scope of our businesses and our client base, we regularly address potential conflicts of interest, including situations where our services to a particular client or our own investments or other interests conflict, or are perceived to conflict, with the interests of another client, as well as situations where one or more of our businesses have access to material non-public information that may not be shared with our other businesses and situations where we may be a creditor of an entity with which we also have an advisory or other relationship.

In addition, our status as a BHC subjects us to heightened regulation and increased regulatory scrutiny by the FRB with respect to transactions between GS Bank USA and entities that are or could be viewed as affiliates of ours and, under the Volcker Rule, transactions between Goldman Sachs and certain covered funds.

We have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to identify and address conflicts of interest, including those designed to prevent the improper sharing of information among our businesses. However, appropriately identifying and dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult, and our reputation, which is one of our most important assets, could be damaged and the willingness of clients to enter into transactions with us may be affected if we fail, or appear to fail, to identify, disclose and deal appropriately with conflicts of interest. In addition, potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to litigation or regulatory enforcement actions.

A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, as well as human error or malfeasance, could impair our liquidity, disrupt our businesses, result in the disclosure of confidential information, damage our reputation and cause losses.

Our businesses are highly dependent on our ability to process and monitor, on a daily basis, a very large number of transactions, many of which are highly complex and occur at high volumes and frequencies, across numerous and diverse markets in many currencies. These transactions, as well as the information technology services we provide to clients, often must adhere to client-specific guidelines, as well as legal and regulatory standards.

Many rules and regulations worldwide govern our obligations to execute transactions and report such transactions and other information to regulators, exchanges and investors. Compliance with these legal and reporting requirements can be challenging, and we have been, and may in the future be, subject to regulatory fines and penalties for failing to follow these rules or to report timely, accurate and complete information in accordance with such rules. As such requirements expand, compliance with these rules and regulations has become more challenging.

As our client base, including through our consumer businesses, and our geographical reach expand and the volume, speed, frequency and complexity of transactions, especially electronic transactions (as well as the requirements to report such transactions on a real-time basis to clients, regulators and exchanges) increase, developing and maintaining our operational systems and infrastructure becomes more challenging, and the risk of systems or human error in connection with such transactions increases, as well as the potential consequences of such errors due to the speed and volume of transactions involved and the potential difficulty associated with discovering such errors quickly enough to limit the resulting consequences.

Our financial, accounting, data processing or other operational systems and facilities may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, such as a spike in transaction volume, adversely affecting our ability to process these transactions or provide these services. We must continuously update these systems to support our operations and growth and to respond to changes in regulations and markets, and invest heavily in systemic controls and training to ensure that such transactions do not violate applicable rules and regulations or, due to errors in processing such transactions, adversely affect markets, our clients and counterparties or us.

Enhancements and updates to systems, as well as the requisite training, including in connection with the integration of new businesses, entail significant costs and create risks associated with implementing new systems and integrating them with existing ones.

The use of computing devices and phones is critical to the work done by our employees and the operation of our systems and businesses and those of our clients and our third-party service providers and vendors. Fundamental security flaws in computer chips found in many types of these computing devices and phones have been reported in the past and may be discovered in the future. Addressing this and similar issues could be costly and affect the performance of these businesses and systems, and operational risks may be incurred in applying fixes and there may still be residual security risks.

Additionally, although the prevalence and scope of applications of distributed ledger technology and similar technologies is growing, the technology is also nascent and may be vulnerable to cyber attacks or have other inherent weaknesses. We may be, or may become, exposed to risks related to distributed ledger technology through our facilitation of clients’ activities involving financial products linked to distributed ledger technology, such as blockchain or cryptocurrencies, our investments in companies that seek to develop platforms based on distributed ledger technology, and the use of distributed ledger technology by third-party vendors, clients, counterparties, clearing houses and other financial intermediaries.

Notwithstanding the proliferation of technology and technology-based risk and control systems, our businesses ultimately rely on people as our greatest resource, and, from time-to-time, they make mistakes or engage in violations of applicable policies, laws, rules or procedures that are not always caught immediately by our technological processes or by our controls and other procedures, which are intended to prevent and detect such errors or violations. These can include calculation errors, mistakes in addressing emails, errors in software or model development or implementation, or simple errors in judgment, as well as intentional efforts to ignore or circumvent applicable policies, laws, rules or procedures. Human errors and malfeasance, even if promptly discovered and remediated, can result in material losses and liabilities for us.

In addition, we face the risk of operational failure or significant operational delay, termination or capacity constraints of any of the clearing agents, exchanges, clearing houses or other financial intermediaries we use to facilitate our securities and derivatives transactions, and as our interconnectivity with our clients grows, we increasingly face the risk of operational failure or significant operational delay with respect to our clients’ systems.

In recent years, there has been significant consolidation among clearing agents, exchanges and clearing houses and an increasing number of derivative transactions are now or in the near future will be cleared on exchanges, which has increased our exposure to operational failure or significant operational delay, termination or capacity constraints of the particular financial intermediaries that we use and could affect our ability to find adequate and cost-effective alternatives in the event of any such failure, delay, termination or constraint. Industry consolidation, whether among market participants or financial intermediaries, increases the risk of operational failure or significant operational delay as disparate complex systems need to be integrated, often on an accelerated basis.

Furthermore, the interconnectivity of multiple financial institutions with central agents, exchanges and clearing houses, and the increased centrality of these entities, increases the risk that an operational failure at one institution or entity may cause an industry-wide operational failure that could materially impact our ability to conduct business. Any such failure, termination or constraint could adversely affect our ability to effect transactions, service our clients, manage our exposure to risk or expand our businesses or result in financial loss or liability to our clients, impairment of our liquidity, disruption of our businesses, regulatory intervention or reputational damage.

Despite the resiliency plans and facilities we have in place, our ability to conduct business may be adversely impacted by a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our businesses and the communities in which we are located. This may include a disruption involving electrical, satellite, undersea cable or other communications, internet, transportation or other services facilities used by us, our employees or third parties with which we conduct business, including cloud service providers. These disruptions may occur as a result of events that affect only our buildings or systems or those of such third parties, or as a result of events with a broader impact globally, regionally or in the cities where those buildings or systems are located, including, but not limited to, natural disasters, war, civil unrest, terrorism, economic or political developments, pandemics and weather events.

In addition, although we seek to diversify our third-party vendors to increase our resiliency, we are also exposed to the risk that a disruption or other information technology event at a common service provider to our vendors could impede their ability to provide products or services to us. We may not be able to effectively monitor or mitigate operational risks relating to our vendors’ use of common service providers.

Nearly all of our employees in our primary locations, including the New York metropolitan area, London, Bengaluru, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Salt Lake City, work in close proximity to one another, in one or more buildings. Notwithstanding our efforts to maintain business continuity, given that our headquarters and the largest concentration of our employees are in the New York metropolitan area, and our two principal office buildings in the New York area both are located on the waterfront of the Hudson River, depending on the intensity and longevity of the event, a catastrophic event impacting our New York metropolitan area offices, including a terrorist attack, extreme weather event or other hostile or catastrophic event, could negatively affect our business. If a disruption occurs in one location and our employees in that location are unable to occupy our offices or communicate with or travel to other locations, our ability to service and interact with our clients may suffer, and we may not be able to successfully implement contingency plans that depend on communication or travel.

A failure to protect our computer systems, networks and information, and our clients’ information, against cyber attacks and similar threats could impair our ability to conduct our businesses, result in the disclosure, theft or destruction of confidential information, damage our reputation and cause losses.

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. There have been a number of highly publicized cases involving financial services companies, consumer-based companies, governmental agencies and other organizations reporting the unauthorized disclosure of client, customer or other confidential information in recent years, as well as cyber attacks involving the dissemination, theft and destruction of corporate information or other assets, as a result of failure to follow procedures by employees or contractors or as a result of actions by third parties, including actions by foreign governments. There have also been several highly publicized cases where hackers have requested “ransom” payments in exchange for not disclosing customer information or for restoring access to information or systems.

We are regularly the target of attempted cyber attacks, including denial-of-service attacks, and must continuously monitor and develop our systems to protect our technology infrastructure and data from misappropriation or corruption. We may face an increasing number of attempted cyber attacks as we expand our mobile- and other internet-based products and services, as well as our usage of mobile and cloud technologies and as we provide more of these services to a greater number of individual consumers. The increasing migration of firm communication and other platforms from firm-provided devices to employee-owned devices presents additional risks of cyber attacks. In addition, due to our interconnectivity with third-party vendors (and their respective service providers), central agents, exchanges, clearing houses and other financial institutions, we could be adversely impacted if any of them is subject to a successful cyber attack or other information security event. These effects could include the loss of access to information or services from the third party subject to the cyber attack or other information security event, which could, in turn, interrupt certain of our businesses.

Despite our efforts to ensure the integrity of our systems and information, we may not be able to anticipate, detect or implement effective preventive measures against all cyber threats, especially because the techniques used are increasingly sophisticated, change frequently and are often not recognized until launched. Cyber attacks can originate from a variety of sources, including third parties who are affiliated with or sponsored by foreign governments or are involved with organized crime or terrorist organizations. Third parties may also attempt to place individuals within the firm or induce employees, clients or other users of our systems to disclose sensitive information or provide access to our data or that of our clients, and these types of risks may be difficult to detect or prevent.

Although we take protective measures and endeavor to modify them as circumstances warrant, our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, misuse, computer viruses or other malicious code, cyber attacks on our vendors and other events that could have a security impact. Due to the complexity and interconnectedness of our systems, the process of enhancing our protective measures can itself create a risk of systems disruptions and security issues.

If one or more of such events occur, this potentially could jeopardize our or our clients’ or counterparties’ confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, our clients’, our counterparties’ or third parties’ operations, which could impact their ability to transact with us or otherwise result in legal or regulatory action, significant losses or reputational damage. In addition, such an event could persist for an extended period of time before being detected, and, following detection, it could take considerable time for us to obtain full and reliable information about the extent, amount and type of information compromised. During the course of an investigation, we may not know the full impact of the event and how to remediate it, and actions, decisions and mistakes that are taken or made may further increase the negative effects of the event on our business, results of operations and reputation.

The increased use of mobile and cloud technologies can heighten these and other operational risks. We expect to expend significant additional resources on an ongoing basis to modify our protective measures and to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures, but these measures may be ineffective and we may be subject to legal or regulatory action, and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered through any insurance maintained by us. Certain aspects of the security of such technologies are unpredictable or beyond our control, and the failure by mobile technology and cloud service providers to adequately safeguard their systems and prevent cyber attacks could disrupt our operations and result in misappropriation, corruption or loss of confidential and other information. In addition, there is a risk that encryption and other protective measures, despite their sophistication, may be defeated, particularly to the extent that new computing technologies vastly increase the speed and computing power available.

We routinely transmit and receive personal, confidential and proprietary information by email and other electronic means. We have discussed and worked with clients, vendors, service providers, counterparties and other third parties to develop secure transmission capabilities and protect against cyber attacks, but we do not have, and may be unable to put in place, secure capabilities with all of our clients, vendors, service providers, counterparties and other third parties and we may not be able to ensure that these third parties have appropriate controls in place to protect the confidentiality of the information. An interception, misuse or mishandling of personal, confidential or proprietary information being sent to or received from a client, vendor, service provider, counterparty or other third party could result in legal liability, regulatory action and reputational harm.

Group Inc. is a holding company and is dependent for liquidity on payments from its subsidiaries, many of which are subject to restrictions.

Group Inc. is a holding company and, therefore, depends on dividends, distributions and other payments from its subsidiaries to fund dividend payments and to fund all payments on its obligations, including debt obligations. Many of our subsidiaries, including our broker-dealer and bank subsidiaries, are subject to laws that restrict dividend payments or authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the flow of funds from those subsidiaries to Group Inc.

In addition, our broker-dealer and bank subsidiaries are subject to restrictions on their ability to lend or transact with affiliates and to minimum regulatory capital and other requirements, as well as restrictions on their ability to use funds deposited with them in brokerage or bank accounts to fund their businesses. Additional restrictions on related-party transactions, increased capital and liquidity requirements and additional limitations on the use of funds on deposit in bank or brokerage accounts, as well as lower earnings, can reduce the amount of funds available to meet the obligations of Group Inc., including under the FRB’s source of strength requirement, and even require Group Inc. to provide additional funding to such subsidiaries. Restrictions or regulatory action of that kind could impede access to funds that Group Inc. needs to make payments on its obligations, including debt obligations, or dividend payments. In addition, Group Inc.’s right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors.

There has been a trend towards increased regulation and supervision of our subsidiaries by the governments and regulators in the countries in which those subsidiaries are located or do business. Concerns about protecting clients and creditors of financial institutions that are controlled by persons or entities located outside of the country in which such entities are located or do business have caused or may cause a number of governments and regulators to take additional steps to “ring fence” or require internal total loss-absorbing capacity at such entities in order to protect clients and creditors of such entities in the event of financial difficulties involving such entities. The result has been and may continue to be additional limitations on our ability to efficiently move capital and liquidity among our affiliated entities, thereby increasing the overall level of capital and liquidity required by us on a consolidated basis.

Furthermore, Group Inc. has guaranteed the payment obligations of certain of its subsidiaries, including GS&Co. and GS Bank USA, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, Group Inc. guarantees many of the obligations of its other consolidated subsidiaries on a transaction-by-transaction basis, as negotiated with counterparties. These guarantees may require Group Inc. to provide substantial funds or assets to its subsidiaries or their creditors or counterparties at a time when Group Inc. is in need of liquidity to fund its own obligations.

The requirements for Group Inc. and GS Bank USA to develop and submit recovery and resolution plans to regulators, and the incorporation of feedback received from regulators, may require us to increase capital or liquidity levels or issue additional long-term debt at Group Inc. or particular subsidiaries or otherwise incur additional or duplicative operational or other costs at multiple entities, and may reduce our ability to provide Group Inc. guarantees of the obligations of our subsidiaries or raise debt at Group Inc. Resolution planning may also impair our ability to structure our intercompany and external activities in a manner that we may otherwise deem most operationally efficient. Furthermore, arrangements to facilitate our resolution planning may cause us to be subject to additional taxes. Any such limitations or requirements would be in addition to the legal and regulatory restrictions described above on our ability to engage in capital actions or make intercompany dividends or payments.

See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K for further information about regulatory restrictions.

The application of regulatory strategies and requirements in the U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions to facilitate the orderly resolution of large financial institutions could create greater risk of loss for Group Inc.’s security holders.

As described in “Business — Regulation — Banking Supervision and Regulation — Insolvency of an Insured Depository Institution or a Bank Holding Company,” if the FDIC is appointed as receiver under OLA, the rights of Group Inc.’s creditors would be determined under OLA, and substantial differences exist in the rights of creditors between OLA and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including the right of the FDIC under OLA to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims in some circumstances, which could have a material adverse effect on debtholders.

The FDIC has announced that a single point of entry strategy may be a desirable strategy under OLA to resolve a large financial institution such as Group Inc. in a manner that would, among other things, impose losses on shareholders, debtholders and other creditors of the top-tier BHC (in our case, Group Inc.), while the BHC’s subsidiaries may continue to operate. It is possible that the application of the single point of entry strategy under OLA, in which Group Inc. would be the only entity to enter resolution proceedings (and its material broker-dealer, bank and other operating entities would not enter resolution proceedings), would result in greater losses to Group Inc.’s security holders (including holders of our fixed rate, floating rate and indexed debt securities), than the losses that would result from the application of a bankruptcy proceeding or a different resolution strategy, such as a multiple point of entry resolution strategy for Group Inc. and certain of its material subsidiaries.

Assuming Group Inc. entered resolution proceedings and that support from Group Inc. to its subsidiaries was sufficient to enable the subsidiaries to remain solvent, losses at the subsidiary level would be transferred to Group Inc. and ultimately borne by Group Inc.’s security holders, third-party creditors of Group Inc.’s subsidiaries would receive full recoveries on their claims, and Group Inc.’s security holders (including our shareholders, debtholders and other unsecured creditors) could face significant and possibly complete losses. In that case, Group Inc.’s security holders would face losses while the third-party creditors of Group Inc.’s subsidiaries would incur no losses because the subsidiaries would continue to operate and would not enter resolution or bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, holders of Group Inc.’s eligible long-term debt and holders of Group Inc.’s other debt securities could face losses ahead of its other similarly situated creditors in a resolution under OLA if the FDIC exercised its right, described above, to disregard the priority of creditor claims.

OLA also provides the FDIC with authority to cause creditors and shareholders of the financial company (such as Group Inc.) in receivership to bear losses before taxpayers are exposed to such losses, and amounts owed to the U.S. government would generally receive a statutory payment priority over the claims of private creditors, including senior creditors.

In addition, under OLA, claims of creditors (including debtholders) could be satisfied through the issuance of equity or other securities in a bridge entity to which Group Inc.’s assets are transferred. If such a securities-for-claims exchange were implemented, there can be no assurance that the value of the securities of the bridge entity would be sufficient to repay or satisfy all or any part of the creditor claims for which the securities were exchanged. While the FDIC has issued regulations to implement OLA, not all aspects of how the FDIC might exercise this authority are known and additional rulemaking is possible.

In addition, certain jurisdictions, including the U.K. and the E.U., have implemented, or are considering, changes to resolution regimes to provide resolution authorities with the ability to recapitalize a failing entity by writing down its unsecured debt or converting its unsecured debt into equity. Such “bail-in” powers are intended to enable the recapitalization of a failing institution by allocating losses to its shareholders and unsecured debtholders. If the intercompany funding we provide to our subsidiaries is “bailed in,” Group Inc.’s claims on its subsidiaries would be subordinated to the claims of the subsidiaries’ third-party creditors or written down. U.S. regulators are considering and non-U.S. authorities have adopted requirements that certain subsidiaries of large financial institutions maintain minimum amounts of total loss-absorbing capacity that would pass losses up from the subsidiaries to the top-tier BHC and, ultimately, to security holders of the top-tier BHC in the event of failure.

The application of Group Inc.’s proposed resolution strategy could result in greater losses for Group Inc.’s security holders.

In our resolution plan, Group Inc. would be resolved under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The strategy described in our resolution plan is a variant of the single point of entry strategy: Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs Funding LLC (Funding IHC), a wholly-owned, direct subsidiary of Group Inc., would recapitalize and provide liquidity to certain major subsidiaries, including through the forgiveness of intercompany indebtedness, the extension of the maturities of intercompany indebtedness and the extension of additional intercompany loans. If this strategy were successful, creditors of some or all of Group Inc.’s major subsidiaries would receive full recoveries on their claims, while Group Inc.’s security holders could face significant and possibly complete losses.

To facilitate the execution of our resolution plan, we formed Funding IHC. In exchange for an unsecured subordinated funding note and equity interest, Group Inc. transferred certain intercompany receivables and substantially all of its global core liquid assets (GCLA) to Funding IHC, and agreed to transfer additional GCLA above prescribed thresholds.

We also put in place a Capital and Liquidity Support Agreement (CLSA) among Group Inc., Funding IHC and our major subsidiaries. Under the CLSA, Funding IHC has provided Group Inc. with a committed line of credit that allows Group Inc. to draw sufficient funds to meet its cash needs during the ordinary course of business. In addition, if our financial resources deteriorate so severely that resolution may be imminent, (i) the committed line of credit will automatically terminate and the unsecured subordinated funding note will automatically be forgiven, (ii) all intercompany receivables owed by the major subsidiaries to Group Inc. will be transferred to Funding IHC or their maturities will be extended to five years, (iii) Group Inc. will be obligated to transfer substantially all of its remaining intercompany receivables and GCLA (other than an amount to fund anticipated bankruptcy expenses) to Funding IHC, and (iv) Funding IHC will be obligated to provide capital and liquidity support to the major subsidiaries. Group Inc.’s and Funding IHC’s obligations under the CLSA are secured pursuant to a related security agreement. Such actions would materially and adversely affect Group Inc.’s liquidity. As a result, during a period of severe stress, Group Inc. might commence bankruptcy proceedings at an earlier time than it otherwise would if the CLSA and related security agreement had not been implemented.

If Group Inc.’s proposed resolution strategy were successful, Group Inc.’s security holders could face losses while the third-party creditors of Group Inc.’s major subsidiaries would incur no losses because those subsidiaries would continue to operate and not enter resolution or bankruptcy proceedings. As part of the strategy, Group Inc. could also seek to elevate the priority of its guarantee obligations relating to its major subsidiaries’ derivative contracts or transfer them to another entity so that cross-default and early termination rights would be stayed under the ISDA Universal Protocol or U.S. ISDA Protocol (ISDA Protocols), as applicable, which would result in holders of Group Inc.’s eligible long-term debt and holders of Group Inc.’s other debt securities incurring losses ahead of the beneficiaries of those guarantee obligations. It is also possible that holders of Group Inc.’s eligible long-term debt and other debt securities could incur losses ahead of other similarly situated creditors.

If Group Inc.’s proposed resolution strategy were not successful, Group Inc.’s financial condition would be adversely impacted and Group Inc.’s security holders, including debtholders, may as a consequence be in a worse position than if the strategy had not been implemented. In all cases, any payments to debtholders are dependent on our ability to make such payments and are therefore subject to our credit risk.

As a result of our recovery and resolution planning processes, including incorporating feedback from our regulators, we may incur increased operational, funding or other costs and face limitations on our ability to structure our internal organization or engage in internal or external activities in a manner that we may otherwise deem most operationally efficient.

Our businesses, profitability and liquidity may be adversely affected by Brexit.

In March 2017, the U.K. notified the European Council of its decision to leave the E.U. (Brexit). As discussed in “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K there is considerable uncertainty as to the regulatory framework that will govern transactions and business undertaken by our U.K. subsidiaries in the E.U., both in the near term and the long term. As a result, we face numerous risks that could adversely affect how we conduct our businesses or our profitability and liquidity.

Our principal E.U. operating subsidiaries, GSI, GSIB and GSAMI, are incorporated and headquartered in the U.K. They all currently benefit from non-discriminatory access to E.U. clients and infrastructure based on E.U. treaties and E.U. legislation, including arrangements for cross-border “passporting” and the establishment of E.U. branches. Because the Withdrawal Agreement has not been ratified by the U.K. and E.U. Parliaments, it is uncertain whether GSI, GSIB and GSAMI will continue to benefit from the existing access arrangements for financial services following March 29, 2019, the date on which the U.K. is scheduled to leave the E.U. Further, even if the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified, there is uncertainty regarding the terms of the long-term trading relationship between the E.U. and the U.K., including the terms of access to each other’s financial markets.

In a hard Brexit scenario or as otherwise necessary, our German bank subsidiary, GSBE, will act as our main operating subsidiary in the E.U. and will assume certain functions that can no longer be efficiently and effectively performed by our U.K. operating subsidiaries, including GSI, GSIB and GSAMI. Implementing this strategy could materially adversely affect the manner in which we operate certain businesses in Europe, require us to restructure certain of our operations and expose us to higher operational, regulatory and compliance costs, higher taxes, higher subsidiary-level capital and liquidity requirements, additional restrictions on intercompany transactions, and new restrictions on the ability of our subsidiaries to share personal data, including client data, all of which could adversely affect our liquidity and profitability.

GSBE has not been one of our main operating subsidiaries in the E.U. Depending on the outcome, Brexit could necessitate a rapid and significant expansion in the scope of GSBE’s activities, as well as its headcount, balance sheet, and capital and funding needs. Although we have invested significant resources to plan for and address Brexit, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully execute our strategy. In addition, even if we are able to successfully execute our strategy, we face the risk that Brexit could have a disproportionately adverse effect on our E.U operations compared to some of our competitors who have more extensive pre-existing operations in the E.U. outside of the U.K.

In addition, Brexit has created an uncertain political and economic environment in the U.K., and may create such environments in other E.U. member states. Political and economic uncertainty has in the past led to, and the outcome of Brexit could lead to, declines in market liquidity and activity levels, volatile market conditions, a contraction of available credit, changes in interest rates or exchange rates, weaker economic growth and reduced business confidence all of which could adversely impact our business.

Our businesses, profitability and liquidity may be adversely affected by deterioration in the credit quality of, or defaults by, third parties who owe us money, securities or other assets or whose securities or obligations we hold.

We are exposed to the risk that third parties that owe us money, securities or other assets will not perform their obligations. These parties may default on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons. A failure of a significant market participant, or even concerns about a default by such an institution, could lead to significant liquidity problems, losses or defaults by other institutions, which in turn could adversely affect us.

We are also subject to the risk that our rights against third parties may not be enforceable in all circumstances. In addition, deterioration in the credit quality of third parties whose securities or obligations we hold, including a deterioration in the value of collateral posted by third parties to secure their obligations to us under derivative contracts and loan agreements, could result in losses and/or adversely affect our ability to rehypothecate or otherwise use those securities or obligations for liquidity purposes.

A significant downgrade in the credit ratings of our counterparties could also have a negative impact on our results. While in many cases we are permitted to require additional collateral from counterparties that experience financial difficulty, disputes may arise as to the amount of collateral we are entitled to receive and the value of pledged assets. The termination of contracts and the foreclosure on collateral may subject us to claims for the improper exercise of our rights. Default rates, downgrades and disputes with counterparties as to the valuation of collateral increase significantly in times of market stress, increased volatility and illiquidity.

As part of our clearing and prime brokerage activities, we finance our clients’ positions, and we could be held responsible for the defaults or misconduct of our clients. Although we regularly review credit exposures to specific clients and counterparties and to specific industries, countries and regions that we believe may present credit concerns, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect or foresee.

Concentration of risk increases the potential for significant losses in our market-making, underwriting, investing and lending activities.

Concentration of risk increases the potential for significant losses in our market-making, underwriting, investing and lending activities. The number and size of such transactions may affect our results of operations in a given period. Moreover, because of concentration of risk, we may suffer losses even when economic and market conditions are generally favorable for our competitors. Disruptions in the credit markets can make it difficult to hedge these credit exposures effectively or economically. In addition, we extend large commitments as part of our credit origination activities.

Rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act, and similar rules adopted in other jurisdictions, require issuers of certain asset-backed securities and any person who organizes and initiates certain asset-backed securities transactions to retain economic exposure to the asset, which has affected the cost of and structures used in connection with these securitization activities. Our inability to reduce our credit risk by selling, syndicating or securitizing these positions, including during periods of market stress, could negatively affect our results of operations due to a decrease in the fair value of the positions, including due to the insolvency or bankruptcy of the borrower, as well as the loss of revenues associated with selling such securities or loans.

In the ordinary course of business, we may be subject to a concentration of credit risk to a particular counterparty, borrower, issuer, including sovereign issuers, or geographic area or group of related countries, such as the E.U., and a failure or downgrade of, or default by, such entity could negatively impact our businesses, perhaps materially, and the systems by which we set limits and monitor the level of our credit exposure to individual entities, industries and countries may not function as we have anticipated. Regulatory reform, including the Dodd-Frank Act, has led to increased centralization of trading activity through particular clearing houses, central agents or exchanges, which has significantly increased our concentration of risk with respect to these entities. While our activities expose us to many different industries, counterparties and countries, we routinely execute a high volume of transactions with counterparties engaged in financial services activities, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, clearing houses, exchanges and investment funds. This has resulted in significant credit concentration with respect to these counterparties.

The financial services industry is both highly competitive and interrelated.

The financial services industry and all of our businesses are intensely competitive, and we expect them to remain so. We compete on the basis of a number of factors, including transaction execution, our products and services, innovation, reputation, creditworthiness and price. There has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the financial services industry. This consolidation and convergence has hastened the globalization of the securities and other financial services markets. As a result, we have had to commit capital to support our international operations and to execute large global transactions. To the extent we expand into new business areas and new geographic regions, we will face competitors with more experience and more established relationships with clients, regulators and industry participants in the relevant market, which could adversely affect our ability to expand.

Governments and regulators have recently adopted regulations, imposed taxes, adopted compensation restrictions or otherwise put forward various proposals that have or may impact our ability to conduct certain of our businesses in a cost-effective manner or at all in certain or all jurisdictions, including proposals relating to restrictions on the type of activities in which financial institutions are permitted to engage. These or other similar rules, many of which do not apply to all our U.S. or non-U.S. competitors, could impact our ability to compete effectively.

Pricing and other competitive pressures in our businesses have continued to increase, particularly in situations where some of our competitors may seek to increase market share by reducing prices. For example, in connection with investment banking and other assignments, in response to competitive pressure we have experienced, we have extended and priced credit at levels that may not always fully compensate us for the risks we take.

The financial services industry is highly interrelated in that a significant volume of transactions occur among a limited number of members of that industry. Many transactions are syndicated to other financial institutions and financial institutions are often counterparties in transactions. This has led to claims by other market participants and regulators that such institutions have colluded in order to manipulate markets or market prices, including allegations that antitrust laws have been violated. While we have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to identify and prevent such activities, allegations of such activities, particularly by regulators, can have a negative reputational impact and can subject us to large fines and settlements, and potentially significant penalties, including treble damages.

We face enhanced risks as new business initiatives lead us to transact with a broader array of clients and counterparties and expose us to new asset classes and new markets.

A number of our recent and planned business initiatives and expansions of existing businesses may bring us into contact, directly or indirectly, with individuals and entities that are not within our traditional client and counterparty base and expose us to new asset classes and new markets. For example, we continue to transact business and invest in new regions, including a wide range of emerging and growth markets. Furthermore, in a number of our businesses, including where we make markets, invest and lend, we directly or indirectly own interests in, or otherwise become affiliated with the ownership and operation of public services, such as airports, toll roads and shipping ports, as well as physical commodities and commodities infrastructure components, both within and outside the U.S.

We have increased and intend to further increase our consumer-oriented deposit-taking and lending activities. To the extent we engage in such activities or similar consumer-oriented activities, we could face additional compliance, legal and regulatory risk, increased reputational risk and increased operational risk due to, among other things, higher transaction volumes and significantly increased retention and transmission of customer and client information. As a result of a recent information security event involving a credit reporting agency, identity fraud may increase and industry practices may change in a manner that makes it more difficult for financial institutions, such as us, to evaluate the creditworthiness of consumers.

New business initiatives expose us to new and enhanced risks, including risks associated with dealing with governmental entities, reputational concerns arising from dealing with less sophisticated clients, counterparties and investors, greater regulatory scrutiny of these activities, increased credit-related, market, sovereign and operational risks, risks arising from accidents or acts of terrorism, and reputational concerns with the manner in which certain assets are being operated or held or in which we interact with these counterparties. Legal, regulatory and reputational risks may also exist in connection with activities and transactions involving new products or markets where there is regulatory uncertainty or where there are different or conflicting regulations depending on the regulator or the jurisdiction involved, particularly where transactions in such products may involve multiple jurisdictions.

In recent years, we have invested, and may continue to invest, more in businesses that we expect will generate a higher level of more consistent revenues. Such investments may not be successful or have returns similar to our other businesses.

Our results may be adversely affected by the composition of our client base.

Our client base is not the same as that of our major competitors. Our businesses may have a higher or lower percentage of clients in certain industries or markets than some or all of our competitors. Therefore, unfavorable industry developments or market conditions affecting certain industries or markets may result in our businesses underperforming relative to similar businesses of a competitor if our businesses have a higher concentration of clients in such industries or markets. For example, our market-making businesses have a higher percentage of clients with actively managed assets than our competitors and such clients have been disproportionately affected during recent periods of low volatility.

Correspondingly, favorable or simply less adverse developments or market conditions involving industries or markets in a business where we have a lower concentration of clients in such industry or market may also result in our underperforming relative to a similar business of a competitor that has a higher concentration of clients in such industry or market. For example, we have a smaller corporate client base in our market-making businesses than many of our peers and therefore such competitors may benefit more from increased activity by corporate clients.

Derivative transactions and delayed settlements may expose us to unexpected risk and potential losses.

We are party to a large number of derivative transactions, including credit derivatives. Many of these derivative instruments are individually negotiated and non-standardized, which can make exiting, transferring or settling positions difficult. Many credit derivatives require that we deliver to the counterparty the underlying security, loan or other obligation in order to receive payment. In a number of cases, we do not hold the underlying security, loan or other obligation and may not be able to obtain the underlying security, loan or other obligation. This could cause us to forfeit the payments due to us under these contracts or result in settlement delays with the attendant credit and operational risk, as well as increased costs to us.

Derivative transactions may also involve the risk that documentation has not been properly executed, that executed agreements may not be enforceable against the counterparty, or that obligations under such agreements may not be able to be “netted” against other obligations with such counterparty. In addition, counterparties may claim that such transactions were not appropriate or authorized.

As a signatory to the ISDA Protocols and being subject to the FRB’s and FDIC’s rules on QFCs and similar rules in other jurisdictions, we may not be able to exercise remedies against counterparties and, as this new regime has not yet been tested, we may suffer risks or losses that we would not have expected to suffer if we could immediately close out transactions upon a termination event. Various non-U.S. regulators have also proposed regulations contemplated by the ISDA Universal Protocol, and those implementing regulations may result in additional limitations on our ability to exercise remedies against counterparties. The impact of the ISDA Protocols and these rules and regulations will depend on the development of market practices and structures, and they extend to repurchase agreements and other instruments that are not derivative contracts.

Derivative contracts and other transactions, including secondary bank loan purchases and sales, entered into with third parties are not always confirmed by the counterparties or settled on a timely basis. While the transaction remains unconfirmed or during any delay in settlement, we are subject to heightened credit and operational risk and in the event of a default may find it more difficult to enforce our rights.

In addition, as new complex derivative products are created, covering a wider array of underlying credit and other instruments, disputes about the terms of the underlying contracts could arise, which could impair our ability to effectively manage our risk exposures from these products and subject us to increased costs. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring central clearing of credit derivatives and other OTC derivatives, or a market shift toward standardized derivatives, could reduce the risk associated with such transactions, but under certain circumstances could also limit our ability to develop derivatives that best suit the needs of our clients and to hedge our own risks, and could adversely affect our profitability and increase our credit exposure to central clearing platforms.

Certain of our businesses, our funding and financial products may be adversely affected by changes in or the discontinuance of Interbank Offered Rates (IBORs), in particular LIBOR.

The FCA, which regulates LIBOR, has announced that it will not compel panel banks to contribute to LIBOR after 2021. It is likely that banks will not continue to provide submissions for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021 and possibly prior to then. Similarly, it is not possible to know whether LIBOR will continue to be viewed as an acceptable market benchmark, what rate or rates may become accepted alternatives to LIBOR, or what the effect of any such changes in views or alternatives may have on the financial markets for LIBOR-linked financial instruments. Similar statements have been made with respect to other IBORs.

Uncertainty regarding IBORs and the taking of discretionary actions or negotiation of fallback provisions could result in pricing volatility, loss of market share in certain products, adverse tax or accounting impacts, compliance, legal and operational costs and risks associated with client disclosures, as well as systems disruption, model disruption and other business continuity issues. In addition, uncertainty relating to IBORs could result in increased capital requirements for the firm given potential low transaction volumes, a lack of liquidity or limited observability for exposures linked to IBORs or any emerging successor rates and operational incidents associated with changes in and the discontinuance of IBORs.

The language in our contracts and financial instruments that define IBORs, in particular LIBOR, have developed over time and may have various events that trigger when a successor rate to the designated rate would be selected. If a trigger is satisfied, contracts and financial instruments may give the calculation agent (which may be us) discretion over the successor rate or benchmark to be selected. As a result, there is considerable uncertainty as to how the financial services industry will address the discontinuance of designated rates in contracts and financial instruments or such designated rates ceasing to be acceptable reference rates. This uncertainty could ultimately result in client disputes and litigation surrounding the proper interpretation of our IBOR-based contracts and financial instruments.

Further, the discontinuation of an IBOR, changes in an IBOR or changes in market acceptance of any IBOR as a reference rate may also adversely affect the yield on loans or securities held by us, amounts paid on securities we have issued, amounts received and paid on derivative instruments we have entered into, the value of such loans, securities or derivative instruments, the trading market for securities, the terms of new loans being made using different or modified reference rates, our ability to effectively use derivative instruments to manage risk, or the availability or cost of our floating-rate funding and our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates.

Certain of our businesses and our funding may be adversely affected by changes in other reference rates, currencies, indexes, baskets or ETFs to which products we offer or funding that we raise are linked.

All of our floating rate funding pays interest by reference to rates, such as LIBOR or Federal Funds. In addition, many of the products that we own or that we offer, such as structured notes, warrants, swaps or security-based swaps, pay interest or determine the principal amount to be paid at maturity or in the event of default by reference to rates or by reference to an index, currency, basket, ETF or other financial metric (the underlier). In the event that the composition of the underlier is significantly changed, by reference to rules governing such underlier or otherwise, the underlier ceases to exist (for example, in the event that a country withdraws from the Euro or links its currency to or delinks its currency from another currency or benchmark, or an index or ETF sponsor materially alters the composition of an index or ETF) or the underlier ceases to be recognized as an acceptable market benchmark, we may experience adverse effects consistent with those described above for IBORs.

Our businesses may be adversely affected if we are unable to hire and retain qualified employees.

Our performance is largely dependent on the talents and efforts of highly skilled people; therefore, our continued ability to compete effectively in our businesses, to manage our businesses effectively and to expand into new businesses and geographic areas depends on our ability to attract new talented and diverse employees and to retain and motivate our existing employees. Factors that affect our ability to attract and retain such employees include the level and composition of our compensation and benefits, and our reputation as a successful business with a culture of fairly hiring, training and promoting qualified employees. As a significant portion of the compensation that we pay to our employees is in the form of year-end discretionary compensation, a significant portion of which is in the form of deferred equity-related awards, declines in our profitability, or in the outlook for our future profitability, as well as regulatory limitations on compensation levels and terms, can negatively impact our ability to hire and retain highly qualified employees.

Competition from within the financial services industry and from businesses outside the financial services industry, including the technology industry, for qualified employees has often been intense. Recently, we have experienced increased competition in hiring and retaining employees to address the demands of new regulatory requirements, expanding consumer-oriented businesses and our technology initiatives. This is also the case in emerging and growth markets, where we are often competing for qualified employees with entities that have a significantly greater presence or more extensive experience in the region.

Changes in law or regulation in jurisdictions in which our operations are located that affect taxes on our employees’ income, or the amount or composition of compensation, may also adversely affect our ability to hire and retain qualified employees in those jurisdictions.

As described further in “Business — Regulation —Compensation Practices” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K, our compensation practices are subject to review by, and the standards of, the FRB. As a large global financial and banking institution, we are subject to limitations on compensation practices (which may or may not affect our competitors) by the FRB, the PRA, the FCA, the FDIC and other regulators worldwide. These limitations, including any imposed by or as a result of future legislation or regulation, may require us to alter our compensation practices in ways that could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain talented employees.

We may be adversely affected by increased governmental and regulatory scrutiny or negative publicity.

Governmental scrutiny from regulators, legislative bodies and law enforcement agencies with respect to matters relating to compensation, our business practices, our past actions and other matters has increased dramatically in the past several years. The financial crisis and the current political and public sentiment regarding financial institutions has resulted in a significant amount of adverse press coverage, as well as adverse statements or charges by regulators or other government officials. Press coverage and other public statements that assert some form of wrongdoing (including, in some cases, press coverage and public statements that do not directly involve us) often result in some type of investigation by regulators, legislators and law enforcement officials or in lawsuits.

Responding to these investigations and lawsuits, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the proceeding, is time-consuming and expensive and can divert the time and effort of our senior management from our business. Penalties and fines sought by regulatory authorities have increased substantially over the last several years, and certain regulators have been more likely in recent years to commence enforcement actions or to advance or support legislation targeted at the financial services industry. Adverse publicity, governmental scrutiny and legal and enforcement proceedings can also have a negative impact on our reputation and on the morale and performance of our employees, which could adversely affect our businesses and results of operations.

Substantial civil or criminal liability or significant regulatory action against us could have material adverse financial effects or cause us significant reputational harm, which in turn could seriously harm our business prospects.

We face significant legal risks in our businesses, and the volume of claims and amount of damages and penalties claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against financial institutions remain high. See Notes 18 and 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information about certain legal and regulatory proceedings and investigations in which we are involved. Our experience has been that legal claims by customers and clients increase in a market downturn and that employment-related claims increase following periods in which we have reduced our headcount. Additionally, governmental entities have been and are plaintiffs in certain of the legal proceedings in which we are involved, and we may face future civil or criminal actions or claims by the same or other governmental entities, as well as follow-on civil litigation that is often commenced after regulatory settlements.

Significant settlements by several large financial institutions, including, in some cases, us, with governmental entities have been publicly announced. The trend of large settlements with governmental entities may adversely affect the outcomes for other financial institutions in similar actions, especially where governmental officials have announced that the large settlements will be used as the basis or a template for other settlements. The uncertain regulatory enforcement environment makes it difficult to estimate probable losses, which can lead to substantial disparities between legal reserves and subsequent actual settlements or penalties.

Recently, claims of collusion or anti-competitive conduct have become more common. Civil cases have been brought against financial institutions (including us) alleging bid rigging, group boycotts or other anti-competitive practices. Antitrust laws generally provide for joint and several liability and treble damages. These claims have in the past, and may in the future, result in significant settlements.

We are subject to laws and regulations worldwide, including the FCPA and the U.K. Bribery Act, relating to corrupt and illegal payments to, and hiring practices with regard to, government officials and others. Violation of these or similar laws and regulations could result in significant monetary penalties, severe restrictions on our activities and damage to our reputation.

Certain law enforcement authorities have recently required admissions of wrongdoing, and, in some cases, criminal pleas, as part of the resolutions of matters brought by them against financial institutions or their employees. Any such resolution of a criminal matter involving us or our employees could lead to increased exposure to civil litigation, could adversely affect our reputation, could result in penalties or limitations on our ability to conduct our activities generally or in certain circumstances and could have other negative effects.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a policy of requiring companies to provide investigators with all relevant facts relating to the individuals substantially involved in or responsible for the alleged misconduct in order to qualify for any cooperation credit in criminal investigations of corporate wrongdoing, or maximum cooperation credit in civil investigations of corporate wrongdoing. This policy may result in us incurring increased fines and penalties if the DOJ determines that we have not provided sufficient information about applicable individuals in connection with an investigation, as well as increased costs in responding to DOJ investigations. It is possible that other governmental authorities will adopt similar policies.

The growth of electronic trading and the introduction of new trading technology may adversely affect our business and may increase competition.

Technology is fundamental to our business and our industry. The growth of electronic trading and the introduction of new technologies is changing our businesses and presenting us with new challenges. Securities, futures and options transactions are increasingly occurring electronically, both on our own systems and through other alternative trading systems, and it appears that the trend toward alternative trading systems will continue. Some of these alternative trading systems compete with us, particularly our exchange-based market-making activities, and we may experience continued competitive pressures in these and other areas. In addition, the increased use by our clients of low-cost electronic trading systems and direct electronic access to trading markets could cause a reduction in commissions and spreads. As our clients increasingly use our systems to trade directly in the markets, we may incur liabilities as a result of their use of our order routing and execution infrastructure. We have invested significant resources into the development of electronic trading systems and expect to continue to do so, but there is no assurance that the revenues generated by these systems will yield an adequate return on our investment, particularly given the generally lower commissions arising from electronic trades.

Our commodities activities, particularly our physical commodities activities, subject us to extensive regulation and involve certain potential risks, including environmental, reputational and other risks that may expose us to significant liabilities and costs.

As part of our commodities business, we purchase and sell certain physical commodities, arrange for their storage and transport, and engage in market making of commodities. The commodities involved in these activities may include crude oil, refined oil products, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, electric power, agricultural products, metals (base and precious), minerals (including unenriched uranium), emission credits, coal, freight and related products and indices.

In our investing and lending businesses, we make investments in and finance entities that engage in the production, storage and transportation of numerous commodities, including many of the commodities referenced above.

These activities subject us and/or the entities in which we invest to extensive and evolving federal, state and local energy, environmental, antitrust and other governmental laws and regulations worldwide, including environmental laws and regulations relating to, among others, air quality, water quality, waste management, transportation of hazardous substances, natural resources, site remediation and health and safety. Additionally, rising climate change concerns may lead to additional regulation that could increase the operating costs and adversely affect the profitability of certain of our investments.

There may be substantial costs in complying with current or future laws and regulations relating to our commodities-related activities and investments. Compliance with these laws and regulations could require significant commitments of capital toward environmental monitoring, renovation of storage facilities or transport vessels, payment of emission fees and carbon or other taxes, and application for, and holding of, permits and licenses.

Commodities involved in our intermediation activities and investments are also subject to the risk of unforeseen or catastrophic events, which are likely to be outside of our control, including those arising from the breakdown or failure of transport vessels, storage facilities or other equipment or processes or other mechanical malfunctions, fires, leaks, spills or release of hazardous substances, performance below expected levels of output or efficiency, terrorist attacks, extreme weather events or other natural disasters or other hostile or catastrophic events. In addition, we rely on third-party suppliers or service providers to perform their contractual obligations and any failure on their part, including the failure to obtain raw materials at reasonable prices or to safely transport or store commodities, could expose us to costs or losses. Also, while we seek to insure against potential risks, we may not be able to obtain insurance to cover some of these risks and the insurance that we have may be inadequate to cover our losses.

The occurrence of any of such events may prevent us from performing under our agreements with clients, may impair our operations or financial results and may result in litigation, regulatory action, negative publicity or other reputational harm.

We may also be required to divest or discontinue certain of these activities for regulatory or legal reasons. For example, the FRB has proposed regulations that could impose significant additional capital requirements on certain commodity-related activities. If that occurs, we may receive a value that is less than the then carrying value, as we may be unable to exit these activities in an orderly transaction.

In conducting our businesses around the world, we are subject to political, economic, legal, operational and other risks that are inherent in operating in many countries.

In conducting our businesses and maintaining and supporting our global operations, we are subject to risks of possible nationalization, expropriation, price controls, capital controls, exchange controls and other restrictive governmental actions, as well as the outbreak of hostilities or acts of terrorism. For example, sanctions have been imposed by the U.S. and the E.U. on certain individuals and companies in Russia. In many countries, the laws and regulations applicable to the securities and financial services industries and many of the transactions in which we are involved are uncertain and evolving, and it may be difficult for us to determine the exact requirements of local laws in every market. Any determination by local regulators that we have not acted in compliance with the application of local laws in a particular market or our failure to develop effective working relationships with local regulators could have a significant and negative effect not only on our businesses in that market, but also on our reputation generally. Further, in some jurisdictions a failure to comply with laws and regulations may subject us and our personnel not only to civil actions, but also criminal actions. We are also subject to the enhanced risk that transactions we structure might not be legally enforceable in all cases.

Our businesses and operations are increasingly expanding throughout the world, including in emerging and growth markets, and we expect this trend to continue. Various emerging and growth market countries have experienced severe economic and financial disruptions, including significant devaluations of their currencies, defaults or threatened defaults on sovereign debt, capital and currency exchange controls, and low or negative growth rates in their economies, as well as military activity, civil unrest or acts of terrorism. The possible effects of any of these conditions include an adverse impact on our businesses and increased volatility in financial markets generally.

While business and other practices throughout the world differ, our principal entities are subject in their operations worldwide to rules and regulations relating to corrupt and illegal payments, hiring practices and money laundering, as well as laws relating to doing business with certain individuals, groups and countries, such as the FCPA, the USA PATRIOT Act and the U.K. Bribery Act. While we have invested and continue to invest significant resources in training and in compliance monitoring, the geographical diversity of our operations, employees, clients and customers, as well as the vendors and other third parties that we deal with, greatly increases the risk that we may be found in violation of such rules or regulations and any such violation could subject us to significant penalties or adversely affect our reputation.

In addition, there have been a number of highly publicized cases around the world, involving actual or alleged fraud or other misconduct by employees in the financial services industry in recent years, and we run the risk that employee misconduct could occur. This misconduct may include intentional efforts to ignore or circumvent applicable policies, rules or procedures. This misconduct has included and may also include in the future the theft of proprietary information, including proprietary software. It is not always possible to deter or prevent employee misconduct and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity have not been and may not be effective in all cases. See for example, “1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB)-Related Matters” in Note 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

We may incur losses as a result of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including the emergence of a pandemic, terrorist attacks, extreme weather events or other natural disasters.

The occurrence of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including the emergence of a pandemic, such as the Ebola or Zika viruses, or other widespread health emergency (or concerns over the possibility of such an emergency), terrorist attacks, extreme terrestrial or solar weather events or other natural disasters, could create economic and financial disruptions, and could lead to operational difficulties (including travel limitations) that could impair our ability to manage our businesses.

There are no material unresolved written comments that were received from the SEC staff 180 days or more before the end of our fiscal year relating to our periodic or current reports under the Exchange Act.

Our principal executive offices are located at 200 West Street, New York, New York and consist of approximately 2.1 million square feet. The building is located on a parcel leased from Battery Park City Authority pursuant to a ground lease. Under the lease, Battery Park City Authority holds title to all improvements, including the office building, subject to Goldman Sachs’ right of exclusive possession and use until June 2069, the expiration date of the lease. Under the terms of the ground lease, we made a lump sum ground rent payment in June 2007 of $161 million for rent through the term of the lease. We have offices at 30 Hudson Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, which we own and which include approximately 1.6 million square feet of office space. We have additional offices and commercial space in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Americas, which together consist of approximately 2.6 million square feet of leased and owned space.

In Europe, the Middle East and Africa, we have offices that total approximately 1.6 million square feet of leased and owned space. Our European headquarters is located in London at Peterborough Court, pursuant to a lease that we can terminate in 2019. In total, we have offices with approximately 1.2 million square feet in London, relating to various properties. We have substantially completed the construction of a 826,000 square foot office in London. We entered into a sale and leaseback agreement for the property, which closed in January 2019. We expect initial occupancy during 2019.

In Asia, Australia and New Zealand, we have offices with approximately 3.1 million square feet. Our headquarters in this region are in Tokyo, at the Roppongi Hills Mori Tower, and in Hong Kong, at the Cheung Kong Center. In Japan, we currently have offices with approximately 219,000 square feet, the majority of which have leases that will expire in 2023. In Hong Kong, we currently have offices with approximately 300,000 square feet, the majority of which will expire in 2026.

In the preceding paragraphs, square footage figures are provided only for properties that are used in the operation of our businesses.

Our occupancy expenses include costs for office space held in excess of our current requirements. This excess space, the cost of which is charged to earnings as incurred, is being held for potential growth or to replace currently occupied space that we may exit in the future. We regularly evaluate our space capacity in relation to current and projected headcount levels. We may incur exit costs in the future if we (i) reduce our space capacity or (ii) commit to, or occupy, new properties in locations in which we operate and dispose of existing space that had been held for potential growth. These costs may be material to our operating results in a given period.

We are involved in a number of judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our businesses. Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. However, we believe, based on currently available information, that the results of such proceedings, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, but may be material to our operating results in a given period. Given the range of litigation and investigations presently under way, our litigation expenses can be expected to remain high. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Use of Estimates” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K. See Notes 18 and 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information about certain judicial, regulatory and legal proceedings.

Not applicable.

The principal market on which our common stock is traded is the NYSE under the symbol “GS.” Information relating to the performance of our common stock from December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2018 is set forth in “Supplemental Financial Information — Common Stock Performance” in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. As of February 8, 2019, there were 7,137 holders of record of our common stock.

The declaration of dividends by Group Inc. is subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors of Group Inc. (Board). Our Board will take into account such matters as general business conditions, our financial results, capital requirements, contractual, legal and regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends by us to our shareholders or by our subsidiaries to us, the effect on our debt ratings and such other factors as our Board may deem relevant. The holders of our common stock share proportionately on a per share basis in all dividends and other distributions on common stock declared by our Board.

The table below presents purchases made by or on behalf of Group Inc. or any “affiliated purchaser” (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Exchange Act) of our common stock during the fourth quarter of 2018.

Since March 2000, our Board has approved a repurchase program authorizing repurchases of up to 555 million shares of our common stock. The repurchase program is effected primarily through regular open-market purchases (which may include repurchase plans designed to comply with Rule 10b5-1), the amounts and timing of which are determined primarily by our current and projected capital position, but which may also be influenced by general market conditions and the prevailing price and trading volumes of our common stock. The repurchase program has no set expiration or termination date. Prior to repurchasing common stock, we must receive confirmation that the FRB does not object to such capital action.

Information relating to compensation plans under which our equity securities are authorized for issuance is presented in Part III, Item 12 of this Form 10-K.

The Selected Financial Data table is set forth in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc. or parent company), a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. Founded in 1869, we are headquartered in New York and maintain offices in all major financial centers around the world.

When we use the terms “we,” “us” and “our,” we mean Group Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. We report our activities in four business segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending and Investment Management. See “Results of Operations” for further information about our business segments.

References to “this Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018. All references to “the consolidated financial statements” or “Supplemental Financial Information” are to Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. All references to 2018, 2017 and 2016 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2018, December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Any reference to a future year refers to a year ending on December 31 of that year. Certain reclassifications have been made to previously reported amounts to conform to the current presentation.

In this discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations, we have included information that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are not historical facts, but instead represent only our beliefs regarding future events, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and outside our control.

These statements include statements other than historical information or statements of current conditions and may relate to our future plans and objectives and results, among other things, and may also include statements about the effect of changes to the capital, leverage, liquidity, long-term debt and total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) rules applicable to banks and bank holding companies (BHCs), the impact of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) on our businesses and operations, and various legal proceedings, governmental investigations or mortgage-related contingencies as set forth in both Notes 27 and 18 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K, as well as statements about the results of our Dodd-Frank Act and our stress tests, statements about the objectives and effectiveness of our business continuity plan, information security program, risk management and liquidity policies, statements about our resolution plan and resolution strategy and their implications for our debtholders and other stakeholders, statements about the design and effectiveness of our resolution capital and liquidity models and our triggers and alerts framework, statements about trends in or growth opportunities for our businesses, statements about our future status, activities or reporting under U.S. or non-U.S. banking and financial regulation, statements about our investment banking transaction backlog, statements about our expected tax rate, statements about the estimated impact of new accounting standards, statements about the level of capital actions, statements about our expected interest income, statements about our credit exposures, statements about our preparations following the U.K.’s notification to the European Council of its decision to leave the E.U. (Brexit), including our plan to manage a hard Brexit scenario, statements about the replacement of LIBOR and other IBORs and the objectives of our program related to the transition from IBORs to alternative risk-free reference rates, and statements about the adequacy of our allowance for credit losses.

By identifying these statements for you in this manner, we are alerting you to the possibility that our actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ from those indicated in these forward-looking statements include, among others, those described in “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K and “Cautionary Statement Pursuant to the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K.

2018 versus 2017. We generated net earnings of $10.46 billion for 2018, significantly higher compared with $4.29 billion for 2017. Diluted earnings per common share was $25.27 for 2018, significantly higher compared with $9.01 for 2017. Return on average common shareholders’ equity (ROE) was 13.3% for 2018, compared with 4.9% for 2017. Book value per common share was $207.36 as of December 2018, 14.6% higher compared with December 2017.

In 2018, we recorded a $487 million income tax benefit as we finalized the estimated income tax expense of $4.40 billion related to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Legislation) recorded in the fourth quarter of 2017. Excluding these items, diluted earnings per common share was $24.02 for 2018, compared with $19.76 for 2017, and ROE was 12.7% for 2018, compared with 10.8% for 2017. See “Results of Operations — Financial Overview” for further information about non-GAAP measures that exclude the impact of Tax Legislation. See “Results of Operations — Provision for Taxes” for further information about Tax Legislation.

Net revenues were $36.62 billion for 2018, 12% higher than 2017, reflecting higher net revenues across all segments. Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were higher, due to higher net revenues in both Equities and Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution (FICC Client Execution). Net revenues in Investing & Lending increased, driven by significantly higher net interest income in debt securities and loans. Net revenues were also higher in Investment Management, primarily due to significantly higher incentive fees, and Investment Banking, reflecting strong net revenues in both Financial Advisory and Underwriting during 2018.

Provision for credit losses was $674 million for 2018, compared with $657 million for 2017, as the higher provision for credit losses primarily related to consumer loan growth in 2018 was partially offset by an impairment of approximately $130 million on a secured loan in 2017.

Operating expenses were $23.46 billion for 2018, 12% higher than 2017, primarily due to higher compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting improved operating performance, and significantly higher net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings.

We returned $4.52 billion of capital to common shareholders during 2018, including $3.29 billion of common share repurchases and $1.23 billion in common stock dividends. As of December 2018, our Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio as calculated in accordance with the Standardized approach was 13.3% and the Basel III Advanced approach was 13.1%. See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our capital ratios.

2017 versus 2016. We generated net earnings of $4.29 billion for 2017, a decrease of 42%, compared with $7.40 billion in 2016. Diluted earnings per common share was $9.01 for 2017, a decrease of 45%, compared with $16.29 for 2016. ROE was 4.9% for 2017, compared with 9.4% for 2016. Book value per common share was $181.00 as of December 2017, 0.8% lower compared with December 2016.

Net revenues were $32.73 billion for 2017, 6% higher than 2016, due to significantly higher net revenues in Investing & Lending and higher net revenues in both Investment Banking and Investment Management. These increases were partially offset by lower net revenues in Institutional Client Services, primarily reflecting significantly lower net revenues in FICC Client Execution.

Provision for credit losses was $657 million for 2017, compared with $182 million for 2016, reflecting an increase in impairments, which included an impairment of approximately $130 million on a secured loan in 2017, and higher provision for credit losses primarily related to consumer loan growth.

Operating expenses were $20.94 billion for 2017, 3% higher than 2016, primarily driven by slightly higher compensation and benefits expenses and our investments to fund growth.

We returned $7.90 billion of capital to common shareholders during 2017, including $6.72 billion of common share repurchases and $1.18 billion in common stock dividends. As of December 2017, our CET1 ratio as calculated in accordance with the Standardized approach was 12.1% and the Basel III Advanced approach was 10.9%, in each case reflecting the applicable transitional provisions. See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our capital ratios.

Global

During 2018, real gross domestic product (GDP) growth appeared to increase in the U.S. but generally decreased in other major economies. In advanced economies, growth in the Euro area, U.K., and Japan each was lower and, in emerging markets, growth in China decreased slightly. Economic activity in several major emerging market economies was impacted by concerns about the vulnerability of these economies to a stronger U.S. dollar and higher U.S. Treasury rates. Global asset markets experienced significant periods of volatility in the first and fourth quarters of 2018 driven by concerns about the prospect of slowing global growth and tighter monetary policy. The U.S. presidential administration implemented and proposed new tariffs on imports from China, which prompted retaliatory measures, and rising global trade tensions remained a meaningful source of uncertainty affecting asset prices throughout 2018. Political uncertainty in Europe increased as a new coalition government formed in Italy in May 2018 and the future of the relationship between the U.K. and E.U. remained uncertain. During 2018, the U.S. Federal Reserve increased the target federal funds rate four times and the Bank of England increased its official target interest rate in August 2018, while the Bank of Japan introduced forward guidance and expanded the permissible range of fluctuations for the 10-year interest rate.

In investment banking, industry-wide announced and completed mergers and acquisitions volumes increased compared with 2017, while industry-wide underwriting transactions decreased.

United States

In the U.S., real GDP appeared to increase by 2.9% in 2018, compared with 2.2% in 2017, as growth in total fixed investment and government spending increased. Measures of consumer confidence were stronger on average compared with the prior year, and the unemployment rate declined to 3.9% as of December 2018. Housing starts, sales and prices increased compared with 2017. Measures of headline inflation were stable compared with 2017, while measures of core inflation (excluding food and energy) increased. The U.S. Federal Reserve increased the target federal funds rate by 25 basis points in each quarter of 2018 to a range of 2.25% to 2.50% as of December 2018. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note ended the year at 2.69%, 29 basis points higher compared with the end of 2017. The price of crude oil (WTI) ended the year at approximately $45 per barrel, a decrease of 25% compared with the end of 2017. In equity markets, the Dow Jones Industrial Average decreased by 6%, the S&P 500 Index decreased by 6% and the NASDAQ Composite Index decreased by 4% compared with the end of 2017.

Europe

In the Euro area, real GDP increased by 1.8% in 2018, compared with 2.4% in 2017, while measures of inflation remained low. The European Central Bank maintained its main refinancing operations rate at 0% and its deposit rate at (0.40)%, but reduced its monthly asset purchases to a pace of €15 billion per month after September 2018 and through December 2018, after which net asset purchases ended. Measures of unemployment decreased, and the Euro depreciated by 4% against the U.S. dollar compared with the end of 2017. Following the formation of a new coalition government in May 2018, political uncertainty in Italy remained high and the yield on 10-year government bonds in Italy increased significantly. Elsewhere in the Euro area, yields on 10-year government bonds mostly decreased. In equity markets, the DAX Index decreased by 18%, the Euro Stoxx 50 Index decreased by 14% and the CAC 40 Index decreased by 11% compared with the end of 2017. In March 2018, it was announced that terms were agreed upon for the transitional period of the U.K.’s withdrawal from the E.U. and, in November 2018, the U.K. and the E.U. agreed on a draft Brexit withdrawal agreement. However, as of the end of the year, there was significant uncertainty about the future relationship between the U.K. and the E.U.

In the U.K., real GDP increased by 1.4% in 2018, compared with 1.8% in 2017. The Bank of England increased its official bank rate by 25 basis points to 0.75% in August 2018, and the British pound depreciated by 6% against the U.S. dollar. The yield on 10-year government bonds increased by 8 basis points and, in equity markets, the FTSE 100 Index decreased by 12% compared with the end of 2017.

Asia

In Japan, real GDP increased by 0.7% in 2018, compared with 1.9% in 2017. The Bank of Japan maintained its asset purchase program and continued to target a yield on 10-year government bonds of approximately 0%. In July 2018, the Bank of Japan introduced forward guidance for its interest rate policy and expanded the permissible range of deviations from the 0% target yield for the 10-year government bond. The yield on 10-year government bonds decreased by 3 basis points, the U.S. dollar depreciated by 3% against the Japanese yen and the Nikkei 225 Index decreased by 12% compared with the end of 2017.

In China, real GDP increased by 6.6% in 2018, compared with 6.8% in 2017. The U.S. dollar appreciated by 6% against the Chinese yuan compared with the end of 2017, while in equity markets, the Shanghai Composite Index decreased by 25% and the Hang Seng Index decreased by 14%.

In India, real GDP appeared to increase by 7.5% in 2018, compared with 6.3% in 2017. The U.S. dollar appreciated by 9% against the Indian rupee and the BSE Sensex Index increased by 6% compared with the end of 2017.

Other Markets

In Brazil, real GDP appeared to increase by 1.2% in 2018, compared with 1.1% in 2017. The U.S. dollar appreciated by 17% against the Brazilian real and the Bovespa Index increased by 15% compared with the end of 2017. In Russia, real GDP appeared to increase by 2.3% in 2018, compared with 1.5% in 2017. The U.S. dollar appreciated by 21% against the Russian ruble and the MOEX Russia Index increased by 12% compared with the end of 2017.

Critical Accounting Policies

Fair Value

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

The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. We measure certain financial assets and financial liabilities as a portfolio (i.e., based on its net exposure to market and/or credit risks). In determining fair value, the hierarchy under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) gives (i) the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities (level 1 inputs), (ii) the next priority to inputs other than level 1 inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly (level 2 inputs), and (iii) the lowest priority to inputs that cannot be observed in market activity (level 3 inputs). In evaluating the significance of a valuation input, we consider, among other factors, a portfolio’s net risk exposure to that input. Assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to their fair value measurement.

The fair values for substantially all of our financial assets and financial liabilities are based on observable prices and inputs and are classified in levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Certain level 2 and level 3 financial assets and financial liabilities may require appropriate valuation adjustments that a market participant would require to arrive at fair value for factors such as counterparty and our credit quality, funding risk, transfer restrictions, liquidity and bid/offer spreads.

Instruments classified in level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are those which require one or more significant inputs that are not observable. Level 3 financial assets represented 2.4% as of December 2018 and 2.1% as of December 2017, of our total assets. See Notes 5 through 8 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about level 3 financial assets, including changes in level 3 financial assets and related fair value measurements. Absent evidence to the contrary, instruments classified in level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are initially valued at transaction price, which is considered to be the best initial estimate of fair value. Subsequent to the transaction date, we use other methodologies to determine fair value, which vary based on the type of instrument. Estimating the fair value of level 3 financial instruments requires judgments to be made. These judgments include:

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

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

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

See Notes 5 through 8 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about fair value measurements.

Review of Net Revenues. Independent risk oversight and control functions ensure adherence to our pricing policy through a combination of daily procedures, including the explanation and attribution of net revenues based on the underlying factors. Through this process, we independently validate net revenues, identify and resolve potential fair value or trade booking issues on a timely basis and seek to ensure that risks are being properly categorized and quantified.

Review of Valuation Models. Our independent model risk management group (Model Risk Management), consisting of quantitative professionals who are separate from model developers, performs an independent model review and validation process of our valuation models. New or changed models are reviewed and approved prior to being put into use. Models are evaluated and re-approved annually to assess the impact of any changes in the product or market and any market developments in pricing theories. See “Risk Management — Model Risk Management” for further information about the review and validation of our valuation models.

Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets

Goodwill. Goodwill is the cost of acquired companies in excess of the fair value of net assets, including identifiable intangible assets, at the acquisition date.

Goodwill is assessed for impairment annually in the fourth quarter or more frequently if events occur or circumstances change that indicate an impairment may exist. When assessing goodwill for impairment, first, qualitative factors are assessed to determine whether it is more likely than not that the estimated fair value of a reporting unit is less than its estimated carrying value. If the results of the qualitative assessment are not conclusive, a quantitative goodwill test is performed by comparing the estimated fair value of each reporting unit with its estimated carrying value.

In the fourth quarter of 2018, we assessed goodwill for impairment for each of our reporting units by performing a qualitative assessment. The qualitative assessment required management to make judgments and to evaluate several factors, which included, but were not limited to, performance indicators, firm and industry events, macroeconomic indicators and fair value indicators. Based on our evaluation of these factors, we determined that it was more likely than not that the estimated fair value of each of the reporting units exceeded its respective estimated carrying value. Therefore, we determined that goodwill for each reporting unit was not impaired and that a quantitative goodwill test was not required.

See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our goodwill.

Estimating the fair value of our reporting units requires management to make judgments. Critical inputs to the fair value estimates include projected earnings and attributed equity. There is inherent uncertainty in the projected earnings. The estimated net book value of each reporting unit reflects an allocation of total shareholders’ equity and represents the estimated amount of total shareholders’ equity required to support the activities of the reporting unit under currently applicable regulatory capital requirements. See “Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital” for further information about our capital requirements.

If we experience a prolonged or severe period of weakness in the business environment, financial markets, our performance or our common stock price, or additional increases in capital requirements, our goodwill could be impaired in the future.

Identifiable Intangible Assets. We amortize our identifiable intangible assets over their estimated useful lives generally using the straight-line method. Identifiable intangible assets are tested for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances suggest that an asset’s or asset group’s carrying value may not be fully recoverable.

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

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

See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our identifiable intangible assets.

Recent Accounting Developments

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

Use of Estimates

U.S. GAAP requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions. In addition to the estimates we make in connection with fair value measurements and the accounting for goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, the use of estimates and assumptions is also important in determining the allowance for credit losses on loans receivable and lending commitments held for investment, provisions for losses that may arise from litigation and regulatory proceedings (including governmental investigations), and provisions for losses that may arise from tax audits.

We estimate and record an allowance for credit losses related to our loans receivable and lending commitments held for investment. Management’s estimate of credit losses entails judgment about collectability at the reporting dates, and there are uncertainties inherent in those judgments. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about the allowance for credit losses.

We also estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation and regulatory proceedings to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. In addition, we estimate the upper end of the range of reasonably possible aggregate loss in excess of the related reserves for litigation and regulatory proceedings where we believe the risk of loss is more than slight. See Notes 18 and 27 to the consolidated financial statements for information about certain judicial, litigation and regulatory proceedings.

Significant judgment is required in making these estimates and our final liabilities may ultimately be materially different. Our total estimated liability in respect of litigation and regulatory proceedings is determined on a case-by-case basis and represents an estimate of probable losses after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case, proceeding or investigation, our experience and the experience of others in similar cases, proceedings or investigations, and the opinions and views of legal counsel.

In accounting for income taxes, we recognize tax positions in the financial statements only when it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained on examination by the relevant taxing authority based on the technical merits of the position. See Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about income taxes.

Results of Operations

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

The table below presents an overview of financial results and selected financial ratios.

In the table above:

Net Revenues

The table below presents net revenues by line item.

In the table above:

Operating Environment. During 2018, our market-making activities reflected generally higher levels of volatility and improved client activity, compared with a low volatility environment in 2017. In investment banking, industry-wide mergers and acquisitions volumes increased compared with 2017, while industry-wide underwriting transactions decreased. Our other principal transactions revenues benefited from company-specific events, including sales, and strong corporate performance, while investments in public equities reflected losses, as global equity prices generally decreased in 2018, particularly towards the end of the year. In investment management, our assets under supervision increased reflecting net inflows in liquidity products, fixed income assets and equity assets, partially offset by depreciation in client assets, primarily in equity assets.

If market-making or investment banking activity levels decline, or assets under supervision decline, or asset prices continue to decline, net revenues would likely be negatively impacted. See “Segment Operating Results” for further information about the operating environment and material trends and uncertainties that may impact our results of operations.

During 2017, generally higher asset prices and tighter credit spreads were supportive of industry-wide underwriting activities, investment management performance and other principal transactions. However, low levels of volatility in equity, fixed income, currency and commodity markets continued to negatively affect our market-making activities.

2018 versus 2017

Net revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $36.62 billion for 2018, 12% higher than 2017, primarily due to significantly higher market making revenues and net interest income, as well as higher investment management revenues and investment banking revenues.

Non-Interest Revenues. Investment banking revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $7.86 billion for 2018, 7% higher than 2017. Revenues in financial advisory were higher, reflecting an increase in industry-wide completed mergers and acquisitions volumes. Revenues in underwriting were slightly higher, due to significantly higher revenues in equity underwriting, driven by initial public offerings, partially offset by lower revenues in debt underwriting, reflecting a decline in leveraged finance activity.

Investment management revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $6.51 billion for 2018, 12% higher than 2017, primarily due to significantly higher incentive fees, as a result of harvesting. Management and other fees were also higher, reflecting higher average assets under supervision and the impact of the recently adopted revenue recognition standard, partially offset by shifts in the mix of client assets and strategies. See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).”

Commissions and fees in the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.20 billion for 2018, 5% higher than 2017, reflecting an increase in our listed cash equity and futures volumes, generally consistent with market volumes.

Market making revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $9.45 billion for 2018, 23% higher than 2017, due to significantly higher revenues in equity products, interest rate products and commodities. These increases were partially offset by significantly lower results in mortgages and lower revenues in credit products.

Other principal transactions revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.82 billion for 2018, 2% lower than 2017, reflecting net losses from investments in public equities compared with net gains in the prior year, partially offset by significantly higher net gains from investments in private equities, driven by company-specific events, including sales, and corporate performance.

Net Interest Income. Net interest income in the consolidated statements of earnings was $3.77 billion for 2018, 28% higher than 2017, reflecting an increase in interest income primarily due to the impact of higher interest rates on collateralized agreements, other interest-earning assets and deposits with banks, increases in total average loans receivable and financial instruments owned, and higher yields on financial instruments owned and loans receivable. The increase in interest income was partially offset by higher interest expense primarily due to the impact of higher interest rates on other interest-bearing liabilities, collateralized financings, deposits and long-term borrowings, and increases in total average long-term borrowings and deposits. See “Statistical Disclosures — Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity” for further information about our sources of net interest income.

2017 versus 2016

Net revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $32.73 billion for 2017, 6% higher than 2016, due to significantly higher other principal transactions revenues, and higher investment banking revenues, investment management revenues and net interest income. These increases were partially offset by significantly lower market making revenues and lower commissions and fees.

Non-Interest Revenues. Investment banking revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $7.37 billion for 2017, 18% higher than 2016. Revenues in financial advisory were higher compared with 2016, reflecting an increase in completed mergers and acquisitions transactions. Revenues in underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2016, due to significantly higher revenues in both debt underwriting, primarily reflecting an increase in industry-wide leveraged finance activity, and equity underwriting, reflecting an increase in industry-wide secondary offerings.

Investment management revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.80 billion for 2017, 7% higher than 2016, due to higher management and other fees, reflecting higher average assets under supervision, and higher transaction revenues.

Commissions and fees in the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.05 billion for 2017, 5% lower than 2016, reflecting a decline in our listed cash equity volumes in the U.S. Market volumes in the U.S. also declined.

Market making revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $7.66 billion for 2017, 23% lower than 2016, due to significantly lower revenues in commodities, currencies, credit products, interest rate products and equity derivative products. These results were partially offset by significantly higher revenues in equity cash products and significantly improved results in mortgages.

Other principal transactions revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.91 billion for 2017, 75% higher than 2016, primarily reflecting a significant increase in net gains from private equities, which were positively impacted by company-specific events and corporate performance. In addition, net gains from public equities were significantly higher, as global equity prices increased during the year.

Net Interest Income. Net interest income in the consolidated statements of earnings was $2.93 billion for 2017, 13% higher than 2016, reflecting an increase in interest income primarily due to the impact of higher interest rates on collateralized agreements, higher interest income from loans receivable due to higher yields and an increase in total average loans receivable, an increase in total average financial instruments owned, and the impact of higher interest rates on other interest-earning assets and deposits with banks. The increase in interest income was partially offset by higher interest expense primarily due to the impact of higher interest rates on other interest-bearing liabilities, an increase in total average long-term borrowings, and the impact of higher interest rates on interest-bearing deposits, short-term borrowings and collateralized financings. See “Statistical Disclosures — Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity” for further information about our sources of net interest income.

Provision for Credit Losses

Provision for credit losses consists of provision for credit losses on loans receivable and lending commitments held for investment. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about the provision for credit losses.

The table below presents the provision for credit losses.

2018 versus 2017. Provision for credit losses in the consolidated statements of earnings was $674 million for 2018, compared with $657 million for 2017, as the higher provision for credit losses primarily related to consumer loan growth in 2018 was partially offset by an impairment of approximately $130 million on a secured loan in 2017.

2017 versus 2016. Provision for credit losses in the consolidated statements of earnings was $657 million for 2017, compared with $182 million for 2016, reflecting an increase in impairments, which included an impairment of approximately $130 million on a secured loan in 2017, and higher provision for credit losses primarily related to consumer loan growth.

Operating Expenses

Our operating expenses are primarily influenced by compensation, headcount and levels of business activity. Compensation and benefits includes salaries, discretionary compensation, amortization of equity awards and other items such as benefits. Discretionary compensation is significantly impacted by, among other factors, the level of net revenues, overall financial performance, prevailing labor markets, business mix, the structure of our share-based compensation programs and the external environment. In addition, see “Use of Estimates” for further information about expenses that may arise from litigation and regulatory proceedings.

The table below presents operating expenses by line item and headcount.

In the table above, the following reclassifications have been made to previously reported amounts to conform to the current presentation:

2018 versus 2017. Operating expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings were $23.46 billion for 2018, 12% higher than 2017. Our efficiency ratio (total operating expenses divided by total net revenues) for 2018 was 64.1%, compared with 64.0% for 2017.

The increase in operating expenses compared with 2017 was primarily due to higher compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting improved operating performance, and significantly higher net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings. Brokerage, clearing, exchange and distribution fees were also higher, reflecting an increase in activity levels, and technology expenses increased, reflecting higher expenses related to computing services. In addition, expenses related to consolidated investments and our digital lending and deposit platform increased, with the increases primarily in depreciation and amortization expenses, market development expenses and other expenses. The increase compared with 2017 also included $297 million related to the recently adopted revenue recognition standard. See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).”

Net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings for 2018 were $844 million compared with $188 million for 2017. 2018 included a $132 million charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives, our donor-advised fund. Compensation was reduced to fund this charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives. We ask our participating managing directors to make recommendations regarding potential charitable recipients for this contribution.

As of December 2018, headcount increased 9% compared with December 2017, reflecting an increase in technology professionals and investments in new business initiatives.

2017 versus 2016. Operating expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings were $20.94 billion for 2017, 3% higher than 2016. Our efficiency ratio for 2017 was 64.0% compared with 65.9% for 2016.

The increase in operating expenses compared with 2016 was primarily driven by slightly higher compensation and benefits expenses and our investments to fund growth. Higher expenses related to consolidated investments and our digital lending and deposit platform were primarily included in depreciation and amortization expenses, market development expenses and other expenses. In addition, technology expenses increased, reflecting higher expenses related to cloud-based services and software depreciation, and professional fees increased, primarily related to consulting costs. These increases were partially offset by lower net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings, and lower occupancy expenses (primarily related to exit costs in 2016).

Net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings for 2017 were $188 million compared with $396 million for 2016. 2017 included a $127 million charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives, our donor-advised fund. Compensation was reduced to fund this charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives. We ask our participating managing directors to make recommendations regarding potential charitable recipients for this contribution.

As of December 2017, headcount increased 4% compared with December 2016, reflecting an increase in employees of our digital lending and deposit platform, and in support of our regulatory efforts.

Provision for Taxes

The effective income tax rate for 2018 was 16.2%, down from 61.5% for 2017, as 2017 included the estimated impact of Tax Legislation, which increased our effective income tax rate by 39.5 percentage points. Additionally, the decrease compared with 2017 reflected the impact of the lower U.S. corporate income tax rate in 2018. The estimated impact of Tax Legislation was an increase in income tax expense of $4.40 billion for 2017. During 2018, we finalized this estimate to reflect the impact of updated information, including subsequent guidance issued by the IRS, resulting in a $487 million income tax benefit for 2018.

The effective income tax rate for 2017 was 61.5%, up from 28.2% for 2016. The increase compared with 2016 was primarily due to the estimated impact of Tax Legislation, which was enacted on December 22, 2017, partially offset by tax benefits on the settlement of employee share-based awards in accordance with ASU No. 2016-09.

Effective January 1, 2018, Tax Legislation reduced the U.S. corporate tax rate to 21%, eliminated tax deductions for certain expenses and enacted two new taxes, Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) and Global Intangible Low Taxed Income (GILTI). BEAT is an alternative minimum tax that applies to banks that pay more than 2% of total deductible expenses to certain foreign subsidiaries. GILTI is effectively a 10.5% tax, before allowable credits for foreign taxes paid, on the annual taxable income of certain foreign subsidiaries. Income tax expense associated with GILTI is recognized as incurred. During 2018, the IRS issued proposed regulations relating to BEAT and GILTI. Our 2018 effective income tax rate includes estimates for BEAT and GILTI that are based on our current interpretation of these proposed regulations. We do not expect that the finalization of these proposed regulations will have a material impact on these estimates.

Based on our current interpretations of the rules and legislative guidance to date, we expect our 2019 tax rate to be between 22% and 23%, excluding the impact of equity-based compensation.

Segment Operating Results

The table below presents the net revenues, provision for credit losses, operating expenses and pre-tax earnings by segment.

In the table above:

Net revenues in our segments include allocations of interest income and expense to specific securities, commodities and other positions in relation to the cash generated by, or funding requirements of, such positions. See Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our business segments.

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

Our Investment Banking segment consists of:

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

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

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

The table below presents our financial advisory and underwriting transaction volumes.

In the table above:

Operating Environment. During 2018, industry-wide announced and completed mergers and acquisitions activity was strong and volumes increased compared with 2017.

In underwriting, industry-wide equity and debt underwriting transactions decreased compared with 2017, reflecting a challenging market environment for financing towards the end of 2018. However, demand for initial public offerings increased compared with 2017.

In the future, if industry-wide mergers and acquisitions volumes decline, or if equity or debt underwriting transactions continue to decline, net revenues in Investment Banking would likely be negatively impacted.

During 2017, Investment Banking operated in an environment characterized by solid industry-wide mergers and acquisitions transactions, although volumes declined compared with 2016. Industry-wide debt underwriting offerings remained strong and industry-wide equity underwriting offerings increased significantly compared with 2016.

2018 versus 2017. Net revenues in Investment Banking were $7.86 billion for 2018, 7% higher than 2017.

Net revenues in Financial Advisory were $3.51 billion, 10% higher than 2017, reflecting an increase in industry-wide completed mergers and acquisitions volumes.

Net revenues in Underwriting were $4.36 billion, 4% higher than 2017, due to significantly higher net revenues in equity underwriting, driven by initial public offerings, partially offset by lower net revenues in debt underwriting, reflecting a decline in leveraged finance activity.

Operating expenses were $4.35 billion for 2018, 23% higher than 2017, primarily due to higher net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings, increased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting higher net revenues, and the impact of the recently adopted revenue recognition standard. Pre-tax earnings were $3.52 billion in 2018, 9% lower than 2017. See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).”

As of December 2018, our investment banking transaction backlog increased compared with December 2017, primarily due to significantly higher estimated net revenues from potential advisory transactions. Estimated net revenues from potential debt underwriting transactions were also higher, while estimated net revenues from equity underwriting transactions were essentially unchanged.

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

2017 versus 2016. Net revenues in Investment Banking were $7.37 billion for 2017, 18% higher than 2016.

Net revenues in Financial Advisory were $3.19 billion, 9% higher than 2016, reflecting an increase in completed mergers and acquisitions transactions.

Net revenues in Underwriting were $4.18 billion, 25% higher than 2016, due to significantly higher net revenues in both debt underwriting, primarily reflecting an increase in industry-wide leveraged finance activity, and equity underwriting, reflecting an increase in industry-wide secondary offerings.

Operating expenses were $3.53 billion for 2017, 3% higher than 2016, due to increased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting higher net revenues. Pre-tax earnings were $3.85 billion in 2017, 36% higher than 2016.

As of December 2017, our investment banking transaction backlog increased compared with December 2016, due to significantly higher estimated net revenues from potential debt underwriting transactions and significantly higher estimated net revenues from potential equity underwriting transactions, primarily in initial public offerings. These increases were partially offset by lower estimated net revenues from potential advisory transactions, principally related to mergers and acquisitions.

Institutional Client Services

Our Institutional Client Services segment consists of:

FICC Client Execution. Includes client execution activities related to making markets in both cash and derivative instruments for interest rate products, credit products, mortgages, currencies and commodities.

Equities. Includes client execution activities related to making markets in equity products and commissions and fees from executing and clearing institutional client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide, as well as OTC transactions. Equities also includes our securities services business, which provides financing, securities lending and other prime brokerage services to institutional clients, including hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds and foundations, and generates revenues primarily in the form of interest rate spreads or fees.

As a market maker, we facilitate transactions in both liquid and less liquid markets, primarily for institutional clients, such as corporations, financial institutions, investment funds and governments, to assist clients in meeting their investment objectives and in managing their risks. In this role, we seek to earn the difference between the price at which a market participant is willing to sell an instrument to us and the price at which another market participant is willing to buy it from us, and vice versa (i.e., bid/offer spread). In addition, we maintain inventory, typically for a short period of time, in response to, or in anticipation of, client demand. We also hold inventory to actively manage our risk exposures that arise from these market-making activities. Our market-making inventory is recorded in financial instruments owned (long positions) or financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased (short positions) in our consolidated statements of financial condition.

Our results are influenced by a combination of interconnected drivers, including (i) client activity levels and transactional bid/offer spreads (collectively, client activity), and (ii) changes in the fair value of our inventory and interest income and interest expense related to the holding, hedging and funding of our inventory (collectively, market-making inventory changes). Due to the integrated nature of our market-making activities, disaggregation of net revenues into client activity and market-making inventory changes is judgmental and has inherent complexities and limitations.

The amount and composition of our net revenues vary over time as these drivers are impacted by multiple interrelated factors affecting economic and market conditions, including volatility and liquidity in the market, changes in interest rates, currency exchange rates, credit spreads, equity prices and commodity prices, investor confidence, and other macroeconomic concerns and uncertainties.

In general, assuming all other market-making conditions remain constant, increases in client activity levels or bid/offer spreads tend to result in increases in net revenues, and decreases tend to have the opposite effect. However, changes in market-making conditions can materially impact client activity levels and bid/offer spreads, as well as the fair value of our inventory. For example, a decrease in liquidity in the market could have the impact of (i) increasing our bid/offer spread, (ii) decreasing investor confidence and thereby decreasing client activity levels, and (iii) wider credit spreads on our inventory positions.

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

The table below presents the net revenues of our Institutional Client Services segment by line item in the consolidated statements of earnings.

In the table above:

Operating Environment. During 2018, Institutional Client Services operated in an environment characterized by generally higher levels of volatility and improved client activity, compared with a low volatility environment in 2017. The average daily VIX for 2018 increased to 17, reflecting periods of high volatility in the first and fourth quarters of 2018, compared with 11 for 2017. In 2018, global equity markets generally decreased (with the MSCI World Index down 11%) and in credit markets, spreads generally widened (with U.S. high-yield credit spreads wider by 139 basis points), both particularly towards the end of the year. Oil prices decreased to $45 per barrel (WTI), while natural gas prices were essentially unchanged at $2.94 per million British thermal units compared to the end of 2017. If activity levels decline, net revenues in Institutional Client Services would likely be negatively impacted. See “Business Environment” for further information about economic and market conditions in the global operating environment during the year.

During 2017, low volatility levels in equity, fixed income, currency and commodity markets impacted the operating environment for Institutional Client Services. This negatively affected client activity across businesses, particularly in FICC Client Execution. Although market-making conditions were challenged, global equity markets increased compared with 2016, and credit spreads generally tightened.

2018 versus 2017. Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were $13.48 billion for 2018, 13% higher than 2017.

Net revenues in FICC Client Execution were $5.88 billion, 11% higher than 2017, primarily reflecting higher client activity.

The following provides information about our FICC Client Execution net revenues by business, compared with 2017 results:

For 2018, approximately 90% of the net revenues in FICC Client Execution were generated from market intermediation and approximately 10% were generated from financing. FICC Client Execution financing net revenues include net revenues primarily from short-term repurchase agreement activities.

Net revenues in Equities were $7.60 billion, 15% higher than 2017, primarily due to significantly higher net revenues in equities client execution, reflecting significantly higher net revenues in both cash products and derivatives. In addition, commissions and fees were higher, reflecting an increase in our listed cash equity and futures volumes, generally consistent with market volumes. Net revenues in securities services were slightly higher.

For 2018, approximately 60% of the net revenues in Equities were generated from market intermediation and approximately 40% were generated from financing. Equities financing net revenues include net revenues from prime brokerage and other financing activities, including securities lending, margin lending and swaps.

Operating expenses were $10.35 billion for 2018, 7% higher than 2017, primarily due to increased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting higher net revenues, higher net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings, and higher brokerage, clearing and exchange fees. Pre-tax earnings were $3.13 billion in 2018, 42% higher than 2017.

2017 versus 2016. Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were $11.90 billion for 2017, 18% lower than 2016.

Net revenues in FICC Client Execution were $5.30 billion, 30% lower than 2016, reflecting significantly lower client activity. Approximately one-third of the decline in FICC Client Execution net revenues was due to significantly lower results in commodities.

The following provides information about our FICC Client Execution net revenues by business, compared with 2016 results:

Net revenues in Equities were $6.60 billion, 4% lower than 2016, primarily due to lower commissions and fees, reflecting a decline in our listed cash equity volumes in the U.S. Market volumes in the U.S. also declined. In addition, net revenues in equities client execution were lower, reflecting lower net revenues in derivatives, partially offset by higher net revenues in cash products. Net revenues in securities services were essentially unchanged.

Operating expenses were $9.69 billion for 2017, essentially unchanged compared with 2016, due to decreased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting lower net revenues, largely offset by increased technology expenses, reflecting higher expenses related to cloud-based services and software depreciation, and increased consulting costs. Pre-tax earnings were $2.21 billion in 2017, 54% lower than 2016.

Investing & Lending

Investing & Lending includes our investing activities and the origination of loans, including our relationship lending activities, to provide financing to clients. These investments and loans are typically longer-term in nature. We make investments, some of which are consolidated, including through our Merchant Banking business and our Special Situations Group, in debt securities and loans, public and private equity securities, infrastructure and real estate entities. Some of these investments are made indirectly through funds that we manage. We also make unsecured loans through our digital platform, Marcus: by Goldman Sachs and secured loans through our digital platform, Goldman Sachs Private Bank Select.

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

Operating Environment. During 2018, our investments in private equities benefited from company-specific events, including sales, and strong corporate performance, while investments in public equities reflected losses, as global equity prices generally decreased. Results for our investments in debt securities and loans reflected continued growth in loans receivables, resulting in higher net interest income. If macroeconomic concerns negatively affect corporate performance or the origination of loans, or if global equity prices continue to decline, net revenues in Investing & Lending would likely be negatively impacted.

During 2017, generally higher global equity prices and tighter credit spreads contributed to a favorable environment for our equity and debt investments. Results also reflected net gains from company-specific events, including sales, and corporate performance.

2018 versus 2017. Net revenues in Investing & Lending were $8.25 billion for 2018, 14% higher than 2017.

Net revenues in equity securities were $4.46 billion, 3% lower than 2017, reflecting net losses from investments in public equities (2018 included $183 million of net losses) compared with net gains in the prior year, partially offset by significantly higher net gains from investments in private equities (2018 included $4.64 billion of net gains), driven by company-specific events, including sales, and corporate performance. For 2018, 60% of the net revenues in equity securities were generated from corporate investments and 40% were generated from real estate.

Net revenues in debt securities and loans were $3.80 billion, 43% higher than 2017, primarily driven by significantly higher net interest income. 2018 included net interest income of approximately $2.70 billion compared with approximately $1.80 billion in 2017.

Provision for credit losses was $674 million for 2018, compared with $657 million for 2017, as the higher provision for credit losses primarily related to consumer loan growth in 2018 was partially offset by an impairment of approximately $130 million on a secured loan in 2017.

Operating expenses were $3.37 billion for 2018, 20% higher than 2017, primarily due to increased expenses related to consolidated investments and our digital lending and deposit platform, and increased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting higher net revenues. Pre-tax earnings were $4.21 billion in 2018, 11% higher than 2017.

2017 versus 2016. Net revenues in Investing & Lending were $7.24 billion for 2017, 70% higher than 2016.

Net revenues in equity securities were $4.58 billion, 78% higher than 2016, primarily reflecting a significant increase in net gains from private equities (2017 included $3.82 billion of net gains), which were positively impacted by company-specific events and corporate performance. In addition, net gains from public equities (2017 included $762 million of net gains) were significantly higher, as global equity prices increased during the year. For 2017, 64% of the net revenues in equity securities were generated from corporate investments and 36% were generated from real estate.

Net revenues in debt securities and loans were $2.66 billion, 57% higher than 2016, reflecting significantly higher net interest income (2017 included approximately $1.80 billion of net interest income).

Provision for credit losses was $657 million for 2017, compared with $182 million for 2016, reflecting an increase in impairments, which included an impairment of approximately $130 million on a secured loan in 2017, and higher provision for credit losses primarily related to consumer loan growth.

Operating expenses were $2.80 billion for 2017, 17% higher than 2016, due to increased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting higher net revenues, increased expenses related to consolidated investments, and increased expenses related to our digital lending and deposit platform. Pre-tax earnings were $3.79 billion in 2017 compared with $1.69 billion in 2016.

Investment Management

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

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

Assets under supervision typically generate fees as a percentage of net asset value, which vary by asset class, distribution channel and the type of services provided, and are affected by investment performance, as well as asset inflows and redemptions. Asset classes such as alternative investment and equity assets typically generate higher fees relative to fixed income and liquidity product assets. The average effective management fee (which excludes non-asset-based fees) we earned on our assets under supervision was 34 basis points for 2018 and 35 basis points for both 2017 and 2016.

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

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