BAC, §1A diff (2015 → 2016)

Item 1A. Risk Factors In the course of conducting our business operations, we are exposed to a variety of risks, some of which are inherent in the financial services industry and others of which are more specific to our own businesses. The discussion below addresses the most significant factors, of which we are currently aware, that could affect our businesses, results of operations and financial condition. Additional factors that could affect our businesses, results of operations and financial condition are discussed in Forward-looking Statements in the MD&A on page 21. However, other factors not discussed below or elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could also adversely affect our businesses, results of operations and financial condition. Therefore, the risk factors below should not be considered a complete list of potential risks that we may face. Any risk factor described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any of our other SEC filings could by itself, or together with other factors, materially adversely affect our liquidity, competitive position, business, reputation, results of operations, capital position or financial condition, including by materially increasing our expenses or decreasing our revenues, which could result in material losses. General Economic and Market Conditions Risk Our businesses and results of operations may be adversely affected by the U.S. and international financial markets, U.S. and non-U.S. fiscal and monetary policy, and economic conditions generally. Our businesses and results of operations are affected by the financial markets and general economic, market, political and social conditions in the U.S. and abroad, including factors such as the level and volatility of short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation, home prices, unemployment and under-employment levels, bankruptcies, household income, consumer spending, fluctuations in both debt and equity capital markets and currencies, liquidity of the global financial markets, the availability and cost of capital and credit, investor sentiment and confidence in the financial markets, political risks, the sustainability of economic growth in the U.S., Europe, China and Japan, and economic, market, political and social conditions in several larger emerging market countries. Continued economic challenges include under-employment, declines in energy prices, the ongoing low interest rate environment, restrained growth in consumer demand, the strengthening of the U.S. Dollar versus other currencies, and continued risk in the consumer and commercial real estate markets. Deterioration of any of these conditions could adversely affect our consumer and commercial businesses, our securities and derivatives portfolios, our level of charge-offs and provision for credit losses, the carrying value of our deferred tax assets, our capital levels and liquidity, and our results of operations. For instance, the recent sharp drop in oil prices, while likely a net positive for the U.S. economy, may also add stress to select regional markets that are energy industry dependent and may negatively impact certain commercial and consumer loan portfolios. Our businesses and results of operations are also affected by domestic and international fiscal and monetary policy. For example, the recent rate increase by the Federal Reserve in the U.S. and continued easing at many central banks internationally impact our cost of funds for lending, investing and capital raising activities and the return we earn on loans and investments. Central bank actions can also affect the value of financial instruments and other assets, such as debt securities and mortgage servicing rights (MSRs), and their policies can affect our borrowers, potentially increasing the risk that they may fail to repay their loans. Changes in domestic and international fiscal and monetary policies are beyond our control and difficult to predict but could have an adverse impact on our capital requirements and the costs of running our business. For more information about economic conditions and challenges discussed above, see Executive Summary - 2015 Economic and Business Environment in the MD&A on page 22. Liquidity Risk Liquidity Risk is the Potential Inability to Meet Expected or Unexpected Liquidity Needs While Continuing to Support our Business and Customer Needs Under a Range of Economic Conditions. If we are unable to access the capital markets, continue to maintain deposits, or our borrowing costs increase, our liquidity and competitive position will be negatively affected. Liquidity is essential to our businesses. We fund our assets primarily with globally sourced deposits in our bank entities, as well as secured and unsecured liabilities transacted in the capital markets. We rely on certain secured funding sources, such as repo markets, which are typically short-term and credit-sensitive in nature. We also engage in asset securitization transactions, including with the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), to fund consumer lending activities. Our liquidity could be adversely affected by any inability to access the capital markets; illiquidity or volatility in the capital markets; unforeseen outflows of cash, including customer deposits, funding for commitments and contingencies; increased regulatory liquidity requirements for our U.S. or international banks and their nonbank subsidiaries; or negative perceptions about our short- or long-term business prospects, including downgrades of our credit ratings. Several of these factors may arise due to circumstances beyond our control, such as a general market disruption, negative views about the financial services industry generally, changes in the regulatory environment, actions by credit rating agencies or an operational problem that affects third parties or us. Our cost of obtaining funding is directly related to prevailing market interest rates and to our credit spreads. Credit spreads are the amount in excess of the interest rate of U.S. Treasury securities, or other benchmark securities, of a similar maturity that we need to pay to our funding providers. Increases in interest rates and our credit spreads can increase the cost of our funding. Changes in our credit spreads are market-driven and may be influenced by market perceptions of our creditworthiness. Changes to interest rates and our credit spreads occur continuously and may be unpredictable and highly volatile. For more information about our liquidity position and other liquidity matters, including credit ratings and outlooks and the policies and procedures we use to manage our liquidity risks, see Liquidity Risk in the MD&A on page 60. Adverse changes to our credit ratings from the major credit rating agencies could significantly limit our access to funding or the capital markets, increase our borrowing costs, or trigger additional collateral or funding requirements. Our borrowing costs and ability to raise funds are directly impacted by our credit ratings. In addition, credit ratings may be important to customers or counterparties when we compete in certain markets and when we seek to engage in certain transactions, including OTC derivatives. Credit ratings and outlooks are opinions expressed by rating agencies on our creditworthiness and that of our obligations or securities, including long-term debt, short-term borrowings, preferred stock and other securities, including asset securitizations. Our credit ratings are subject to ongoing review by the rating agencies, which consider a number of factors, including our own financial strength, performance, prospects and operations as well as factors not under our control such as the likelihood of the U.S. government providing meaningful support to the Corporation or its subsidiaries in a crisis. The rating agencies could make adjustments to our credit ratings at any time, and there can be no assurance that downgrades will not occur. A reduction in certain of our credit ratings could negatively affect our liquidity, access to credit markets, the related cost of funds, our businesses and certain trading revenues, particularly in those businesses where counterparty creditworthiness is critical. If the short-term credit ratings of our parent company, bank or broker-dealer subsidiaries were downgraded by one or more levels, we may suffer the potential loss of access to short-term funding sources such as repo financing, and/or increased cost of funds. In addition, under the terms of certain OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements, in the event of a downgrade of our credit ratings or certain subsidiaries’ credit ratings, counterparties to those agreements may require us or certain subsidiaries to provide additional collateral, terminate these contracts or agreements, or provide other remedies. While certain potential impacts are contractual and quantifiable, the full consequences of a credit ratings downgrade to a financial institution are inherently uncertain, as they depend upon numerous dynamic, complex and inter-related factors and assumptions, including whether any downgrade of a firm’s long-term credit ratings precipitates downgrades to its short-term credit ratings, and assumptions about the potential behaviors of various customers, investors and counterparties. For information about the amount of additional collateral required and derivative liabilities that would be subject to unilateral termination at December 31, 2015 if the rating agencies had downgraded their long-term senior debt ratings for the Corporation or certain subsidiaries by each of two incremental notches, see Credit-related Contingent Features and Collateral in Note 2 - Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements. For more information about our credit ratings and their potential effects to our liquidity, see Liquidity Risk - Credit Ratings in the MD&A on page 63 and Note 2 - Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements. A downgrade in the U.S. government’s sovereign credit rating, or in the credit ratings of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by related institutions, agencies or instrumentalities, could result in risks to the Corporation and its credit ratings and general economic conditions that we are not able to predict. The ratings and perceived creditworthiness of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by institutions, agencies or instrumentalities directly linked to the U.S. government could also be correspondingly affected by any downgrade. Instruments of this nature are often held as trading, investment or excess liquidity positions on the balance sheets of financial institutions, including the Corporation, and are widely used as collateral by financial institutions to raise cash in the secured financing markets. A downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government and perceived creditworthiness of U.S. government-related obligations could impact our ability to obtain funding that is collateralized by affected instruments, as well as affecting the pricing of that funding when it is available. A downgrade may also adversely affect the market value of such instruments. We cannot predict if, when or how any changes to the credit ratings or perceived creditworthiness of these organizations will affect economic conditions. The credit rating for the Corporation or its subsidiaries could be directly or indirectly impacted by a downgrade of the U.S. government’s sovereign rating. In addition, the Corporation presently delivers a portion of the residential mortgage loans it originates into GSEs, agencies or instrumentalities (or instruments insured or guaranteed thereby). We cannot predict if, when or how any changes to the credit ratings of these organizations will affect their ability to finance residential mortgage loans. A downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government or the credit ratings of related institutions, agencies or instrumentalities would exacerbate the other risks to which the Corporation is subject and any related adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Bank of America Corporation is a holding company and we depend upon our subsidiaries for liquidity, including our ability to pay dividends to shareholders and to fund payments on our other obligations. Applicable laws and regulations, including capital and liquidity requirements, and actions taken pursuant to our resolution plan could restrict our ability to transfer funds from our subsidiaries to Bank of America Corporation or other subsidiaries. Bank of America Corporation, as the parent company, is a separate and distinct legal entity from our banking and nonbank subsidiaries. We evaluate and manage liquidity on a legal entity basis. Legal entity liquidity is an important consideration as there are legal and other limitations on our ability to utilize liquidity from one legal entity to satisfy the liquidity requirements of another, including the parent company. For instance, the parent company depends on dividends, distributions and other payments from our banking and nonbank subsidiaries to fund dividend payments on our common stock and preferred stock and to fund all payments on our other obligations, including debt obligations. Many of our subsidiaries, including our bank and broker-dealer 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 the parent company or other subsidiaries. Our bank and broker-dealer subsidiaries are subject to restrictions on their ability to lend or transact with affiliates and to minimum regulatory capital and liquidity requirements, as well as restrictions on their ability to use funds deposited with them in bank or brokerage accounts to fund their businesses. In addition, we have arrangements with our key operating subsidiaries regarding the implementation of our preferred single point of entry resolution strategy, which restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to provide funds to us through distributions and advances upon the occurrence of certain severely adverse capital and liquidity conditions. 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 the parent company and even require the parent company to provide additional funding to such subsidiaries. Also, additional liquidity may be required at each subsidiary entity. Regulatory action of that kind could impede access to funds we need to make payments on our obligations or dividend payments. In addition, our 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. For more information regarding our ability to pay dividends, see Capital Management in the MD&A on page 53 and Note 13 - Shareholders’ Equity to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Credit Risk Credit Risk is the Risk of Loss Arising from the Inability or Failure of a Borrower or Counterparty to Meet its Obligations. Economic or market disruptions, insufficient credit loss reserves or concentration of credit risk may result in an increase in the provision for credit losses, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. A number of our products expose us to credit risk, including loans, letters of credit, derivatives, debt securities, trading account assets and assets held-for-sale. The financial condition of our consumer and commercial borrowers and counterparties could adversely affect our earnings. Global and U.S. economic conditions may impact our credit portfolios. To the extent economic or market disruptions occur, such disruptions would likely increase the risk that borrowers or counterparties would default or become delinquent on their obligations to us. Increases in delinquencies and default rates could adversely affect our consumer credit card, home equity, residential mortgage and purchased credit-impaired portfolios through increased charge-offs and provision for credit losses. Additionally, increased credit risk could also adversely affect our commercial loan portfolios with weakened customer and collateral positions. We estimate and establish an allowance for credit losses for losses inherent in our lending activities (including unfunded lending commitments), excluding those measured at fair value, through a charge to earnings. The amount of allowance is determined based on our evaluation of credit losses included within our loan portfolios. The process for determining the amount of the allowance requires difficult and complex judgments, including loss forecasts on how borrowers will react to current economic conditions. The ability of our borrowers or counterparties to repay their obligations will likely be impacted by changes in economic conditions, which in turn could impact the accuracy of our loss forecasts and allowance estimate. There is also the chance that we will fail to accurately identify the appropriate economic indicators or that we will fail to accurately estimate their impacts. We may suffer unexpected losses if the models and assumptions we use to establish reserves and make judgments in extending credit to our borrowers or counterparties become less predictive of future events. Although we believe that our allowance for credit losses was in compliance with applicable accounting standards at December 31, 2015, there is no guarantee that it will be sufficient to address credit losses, particularly if economic conditions deteriorate. In such an event, we may increase the size of our allowance, which reduces our earnings. In the ordinary course of our business, we also may be subject to a concentration of credit risk in a particular industry, country, counterparty, borrower or issuer. A deterioration in the financial condition or prospects of a particular industry or a failure or downgrade of, or default by, any particular entity or group of entities could negatively affect our businesses and the processes 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. While our activities expose us to many different industries and counterparties, we routinely execute a high volume of transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers-dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, insurers, mutual and hedge funds, and other institutional clients. This has resulted in significant credit concentration with respect to this industry. Financial services institutions and other counterparties are inter-related because of trading, funding, clearing or other relationships. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about the financial stability of one or more financial services institutions, or the financial services industry generally, could lead to market-wide liquidity disruptions, losses and defaults. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of a counterparty. In addition, our credit risk may be heightened by market risk when the collateral held by us cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivatives exposure due to us. In the ordinary course of business, we also enter into transactions with sovereign nations, U.S. states and U.S. municipalities. Unfavorable economic or political conditions, disruptions to capital markets, currency fluctuations, changes in oil prices, social instability and changes in government policies could impact the operating budgets or credit ratings of sovereign nations, U.S. states and U.S. municipalities and expose us to credit risk. We also have a concentration of credit risk with respect to our consumer real estate, including home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), consumer credit card and commercial real estate portfolios, which represent a large percentage of our overall credit portfolio. In addition, our commercial portfolios include exposures to certain industries, including the energy sector, which may result in higher credit losses for the company due to adverse business conditions, market disruptions or greater volatility in those industries as the result of low energy prices or other factors. Economic downturns have adversely affected these portfolios. Continued economic weakness or deterioration in real estate values or household incomes could result in higher credit losses. For more information about our credit risk and credit risk management policies and procedures, see Credit Risk Management in the MD&A on page 65 and Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Our derivatives businesses may expose us to unexpected risks and potential losses. We are party to a large number of derivatives transactions, including credit derivatives. Our derivatives businesses may expose us to unexpected market, credit and operational risks that could cause us to suffer unexpected losses. Severe declines in asset values, unanticipated credit events or unforeseen circumstances that may cause previously uncorrelated factors to become correlated (and vice versa) may create losses resulting from risks not appropriately taken into account in the development, structuring or pricing of a derivative instrument. The terms of certain of our OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements provide that upon the occurrence of certain specified events, such as a change in our credit ratings, we may be required to provide additional collateral or to provide other remedies, or our counterparties may have the right to terminate or otherwise diminish our rights under these contracts or agreements. Many derivative instruments are individually negotiated and non-standardized, which can make exiting, transferring or settling some positions difficult. Many 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, and may not be able to obtain, the underlying security, loan or other obligation. In the event of a downgrade of the Corporation’s credit ratings, certain derivative and other counterparties may request we substitute BANA (which has generally had equal or higher credit ratings than the Corporation’s) as counterparty for certain derivative contracts and other trading agreements. The Corporation’s ability to substitute or make changes to these agreements to meet counterparties’ requests may be subject to certain limitations, including counterparty willingness, regulatory limitations on naming BANA as the new counterparty and the type or amount of collateral required. It is possible that such limitations on our ability to substitute or make changes to these agreements, including naming BANA as the new counterparty, could adversely affect our results of operations. Derivatives contracts, including new and more complex derivatives products, and other transactions entered into with third parties are not always confirmed by the counterparties or settled on a timely basis. While a transaction remains unconfirmed, or during any delay in settlement, we are subject to heightened credit, market and operational risk and, in the event of default, may find it more difficult to enforce the contract. In addition, disputes may arise with counterparties, including government entities, about the terms, enforceability and/or suitability of the underlying contracts. These factors could negatively impact our ability to effectively manage our risk exposures from these products and subject us to increased credit and operating costs and reputational risk. For more information on our derivatives exposure, see Note 2 - Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Market Risk Market Risk is the Risk that Changes in Market Conditions May Adversely Impact the Value of Assets or Liabilities or Otherwise Negatively Impact Earnings. Market Risk is Inherent in the Financial Instruments Associated with our Operations, Including Loans, Deposits, Securities, Short-term Borrowings, Long-term Debt, Trading Account Assets and Liabilities, and Derivatives. Increased market volatility and adverse changes in other financial or capital market conditions may increase our market risk. Our liquidity, competitive position, business, results of operations and financial condition are affected by market risk factors such as changes in interest and currency exchange rates, equity and futures prices, the implied volatility of interest rates, credit spreads and other economic and business factors. These market risks may adversely affect, among other things, (i) the value of our on- and off-balance sheet securities, trading assets, other financial instruments, and MSRs, (ii) the cost of debt capital and our access to credit markets, (iii) the value of assets under management (AUM), (iv) fee income relating to AUM, (v) customer allocation of capital among investment alternatives, (vi) the volume of client activity in our trading operations, (vii) investment banking fees, and (viii) the general profitability and risk level of the transactions in which we engage. For example, the value of certain of our assets is sensitive to changes in market interest rates. If the Federal Reserve, or central banks internationally, change or signal a change in monetary policy, market interest rates could be affected, which could adversely impact the value of such assets. In addition, the ongoing prolonged low interest rate environment could negatively impact our liquidity, financial condition or results of operations, including future revenue and earnings growth. We use various models and strategies to assess and control our market risk exposures but those are subject to inherent limitations. Our models, which rely on historical trends and assumptions, may not be sufficiently predictive of future results due to limited historical patterns, extreme or unanticipated market movements and illiquidity, especially during severe market downturns or stress events. The models that we use to assess and control our market risk exposures also reflect assumptions about the degree of correlation among prices of various asset classes or other market indicators. In addition, market conditions in recent years have involved unprecedented dislocations and highlight the limitations inherent in using historical data to manage risk. In times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances, such as the market conditions experienced in 2008 and 2009, previously uncorrelated indicators may become correlated, or 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. To the extent that we own securities 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, challenging market conditions may also adversely affect our investment banking fees. For more information about market risk and our market risk management policies and procedures, see Market Risk Management in the MD&A on page 92. We may incur losses if the values of certain assets decline, including due to changes in interest rates and prepayment speeds. We have a large portfolio of financial instruments, including, among others, certain loans and loan commitments, loans held-for-sale, securities financing agreements, asset-backed secured financings, long-term deposits, long-term debt, trading account assets and liabilities, derivative assets and liabilities, available-for-sale (AFS) debt and equity securities, other debt securities, certain MSRs and certain other assets and liabilities that we measure at fair value. We determine the fair values of these instruments based on the fair value hierarchy under applicable accounting guidance. The fair values of these financial instruments include adjustments for market liquidity, credit quality, funding impact on certain derivatives and other transaction-specific factors, where appropriate. Gains or losses on these instruments can have a direct impact on our results of operations, including higher or lower mortgage banking income and earnings, unless we have effectively hedged our exposures. For example, decreases in interest rates and increases in mortgage prepayment speeds, which are influenced by interest rates and other factors such as reductions in mortgage insurance premiums and origination costs, could adversely impact the value of our MSR asset, cause a significant acceleration of purchase premium amortization on our mortgage portfolio, because a decline in long-term interest rates shortens the expected lives of the securities, and adversely affect our net interest margin. Conversely, increases in interest rates may result in a decrease in residential mortgage loan originations. In addition, increases in interest rates may adversely impact the fair value of debt securities and, accordingly, for debt securities classified as AFS, may adversely affect accumulated other comprehensive income and, thus, capital levels. Fair values may be impacted by declining values of the underlying assets or the prices at which observable market transactions occur and the continued availability of these transactions. The financial strength of counterparties, with whom we have economically hedged some of our exposure to these assets, also will affect the fair value of these assets. Sudden declines and volatility in the prices of assets may curtail or eliminate the trading activity for these 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 increase our risk-weighted assets, which requires us to maintain additional capital and increases our funding costs. Asset values also directly impact revenues in our asset management businesses. We receive asset-based management fees based on the value of our clients’ portfolios or investments in funds managed by us and, in some cases, we also receive performance fees based on increases in the value of such investments. Declines in asset values can reduce the value of our clients’ portfolios or fund assets, which in turn can result in lower fees earned for managing such assets. For more information about fair value measurements, see Note 20 - Fair Value Measurements to the Consolidated Financial Statements. For more information about our asset management businesses, see GWIM in the MD&A on page 36. For more information about interest rate risk management, see Interest Rate Risk Management for Non-trading Activities in the MD&A on page 97. Mortgage and Housing Market-Related Risk Our mortgage loan repurchase obligations or claims from third parties could result in additional losses. We and our legacy companies have sold significant amounts of residential mortgage loans. In connection with these sales, we or certain of our subsidiaries or legacy companies made various representations and warranties, breaches of which may result in a requirement that we repurchase the mortgage loans, or otherwise make whole or provide other remedies to counterparties (collectively, repurchases). At December 31, 2015, we had approximately $18.4 billion of unresolved repurchase claims, net of duplicate claims. These repurchase claims primarily related to private-label securitizations and exclude claims in the amount of $7.4 billion at December 31, 2015 where the statute of limitations has expired without litigation being commenced. We have also received notifications pertaining to loans for which we have not received a repurchase request from sponsors of third-party securitizations with whom the Corporation engaged in whole-loan transactions and for which we may owe indemnity obligations. We have recorded a liability of $11.3 billion for obligations under representations and warranties exposures. We also have an estimated range of possible loss of up to $2 billion over our recorded liability. Our recorded liability and estimated range of possible loss for representations and warranties exposures are based on currently available information and are necessarily dependent on, and limited by, a number of factors including our historical claims and settlement experiences as well as significant judgment and a number of assumptions that are subject to change. As a result, our liability and estimated range of possible loss related to our representations and warranties exposures may materially change in the future. Investors and other residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) counterparties have been engaged in judicial efforts to attempt to avoid or circumvent the impact of recent court rulings concerning the statute of limitations applicable to representations and warranties claims against RMBS sponsors, as well as pursuing other parties to such transaction. Future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of our recorded liability and estimated range of possible loss and such losses could have an adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations. For example, future representations and warranties losses could exceed our recorded liability and estimated range of possible loss if future settlement rates exceed our historical experience, or if investors and other RMBS counterparties are successful in their judicial efforts to avoid or circumvent the impact of recent court rulings concerning the statute of limitations applicable to representation and warranties claims against RMBS sponsors or pursue other parties to the RMBS transactions. Additionally, our recorded liability for representations and warranties exposures and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss do not consider losses related to servicing foreclosure and related costs, fraud, indemnity, or claims (including for RMBS) related to securities law or monoline litigations. Losses with respect to one or more of these matters could be material to the Corporation’s results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period. For more information about our representations and warranties exposure, including the estimated range of possible loss, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations - Representations and Warranties in the MD&A on page 46, Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management in the MD&A on page 66 and Note 7 - Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Failure to satisfy our obligations as servicer for residential mortgage securitizations, along with other losses we could incur in our capacity as servicer, and continued foreclosure delays and/or investigations into our residential mortgage foreclosure practices could cause losses. We and our legacy companies have securitized a significant portion of the residential mortgage loans that we originated or acquired. We service a large portion of the loans we have securitized and also service loans on behalf of third-party securitization vehicles and other investors. If we commit a material breach of our obligations as servicer or master servicer, we may be subject to termination if the breach is not cured within a specified period of time following notice, which could cause us to lose servicing income. In addition, for loans principally held in private-label securitization trusts, we may have liability for any failure by us, as a servicer or master servicer, for any act or omission on our part that involves willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our duties. If any such breach were found to have occurred, it may harm our reputation, increase our servicing costs or adversely impact our results of operations. Additionally, with respect to foreclosures, we may incur costs or losses due to irregularities in the underlying documentation, or if the validity of a foreclosure action is challenged by a borrower or overturned by a court because of errors or deficiencies in the foreclosure process. We may also incur costs or losses relating to delays or alleged deficiencies in processing documents necessary to comply with state law governing foreclosures. If the U.S. housing market weakens, or home prices decline, our consumer loan portfolios, credit quality, credit losses, representations and warranties exposures, and earnings may be adversely affected. Although U.S. home prices continued to improve during 2015, the declines in prior years have negatively impacted the demand for many of our products. Additionally, our mortgage loan production volume is generally influenced by the rate of growth in residential mortgage debt outstanding and the size of the residential mortgage market. Conditions in the U.S. housing market in prior years have also resulted in significant write-downs of asset values in several asset classes, notably mortgage-backed securities, and increased exposure to monolines. If the U.S. housing market were to weaken, the value of real estate could decline, which could negatively affect our exposure to representations and warranties and could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our home equity portfolio contains a significant percentage of loans in second-lien or more junior-lien positions, and such loans have elevated risk characteristics. Our home equity portfolio is largely comprised of HELOCs that have not yet entered their amortization period. HELOCs that have entered the amortization period have experienced a higher percentage of early stage delinquencies and nonperforming status when compared to the HELOC portfolio as a whole. Loans in our HELOC portfolio generally have an initial draw period of 10 years and 44 percent of these loans will enter the amortization period in 2016 and 2017. As a result, delinquencies and defaults may increase in future periods. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations in the MD&A on page 46 and Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 66. Changes in the structure of the GSEs and the relationship among the GSEs, the government and the private markets, or the conversion of the current conservatorship of the GSEs into receivership, could result in significant changes to our business operations and may adversely impact our business. During 2015, we sold approximately $36.1 billion of loans to the GSEs. Each GSE is currently in a conservatorship with its primary regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, acting as conservator. We cannot predict if, when or how the conservatorships will end, or any associated changes to the GSEs’ business structure that could result. We also cannot predict whether the conservatorships will end in receivership. There are several proposed approaches to reform the GSEs that, if enacted, could change the structure of the GSEs and the relationship among the GSEs, the government and the private markets, including the trading markets for agency conforming mortgage loans and markets for mortgage-related securities in which we participate. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of legislative or rulemaking proposals regarding the future status of the GSEs. Accordingly, there continues to be uncertainty regarding the future of the GSEs, including whether they will continue to exist in their current form. Regulatory, Compliance and Legal Risk U.S. federal banking agencies may require us to hold higher levels of regulatory capital, increase our regulatory capital ratios or increase liquidity, which could result in the need to issue additional securities that qualify as regulatory capital or to take other actions, such as to sell company assets. We are subject to U.S. regulators’ risk-based capital and liquidity rules. These rules, among other things, establish minimum requirements to qualify as a “well-capitalized” institution. If any of our subsidiary insured depository institutions fail to maintain its status as “well capitalized” under the applicable regulatory capital rules, the Federal Reserve will require us to agree to bring the insured depository institution or institutions back to “well-capitalized” status. For the duration of such an agreement, the Federal Reserve may impose restrictions on our activities. If we were to fail to enter into such an agreement, or fail to comply with the terms of such agreement, the Federal Reserve may impose more severe restrictions on our activities, including requiring us to cease and desist activities permitted under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The current regulatory environment is fluid, with requirements frequently being introduced and amended. It is possible that increases in regulatory capital requirements, changes in how regulatory capital is calculated or increases to liquidity requirements could cause us to increase our capital levels by issuing additional common stock, thus diluting our existing shareholders, or by taking other actions, such as selling company assets. For example, we have been designated as a global systemically important bank (G-SIB) and as such, are subject to a risk-based capital surcharge (G-SIB surcharge) which could increase our capital ratio requirements higher than our estimated G-SIB of 3.0 percent. Further, the G-SIB surcharge applicable to us may change from time to time. Under the final U.S. rules, the G-SIB surcharge is being phased in beginning on January 1, 2016, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019. Compliance with the regulatory capital and liquidity requirements may impact our ability to return capital to shareholders and may impact our operations by requiring us to liquidate assets, increase borrowings, issue additional equity or other securities, cease or alter certain operations, or hold highly liquid assets, which may adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, we are required to submit a capital plan to the Federal Reserve on an annual basis. We may be prohibited from taking capital actions such as paying or increasing dividends, or repurchasing securities if the Federal Reserve objects to our capital plan. For additional information, see Capital Management - Regulatory Capital in the MD&A on page 54. The ultimate impact of the Federal Reserve Board’s recently proposed rules requiring U.S. G-SIBs to maintain minimum amounts of long-term debt meeting specified eligibility requirements is uncertain. On October 30, 2015, the Federal Reserve released for comment proposed rules (the Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, or TLAC, Rules) that would require the eight U.S. G-SIBs, including Bank of America, to, among other things, maintain minimum amounts of long-term debt satisfying certain eligibility criteria commencing January 1, 2019. As proposed, the TLAC Rules would disqualify from TLAC eligible long-term debt, among other instruments, debt securities that permit acceleration for reasons other than insolvency or payment default, as well as debt securities defined as structured notes in the TLAC Rules and debt securities not governed by U.S. law. Our currently outstanding senior long-term debt typically permits acceleration for reasons other than insolvency or payment default and, as a result, neither such outstanding senior long-term debt nor any subsequently issued senior long-term debt with similar terms would qualify as TLAC eligible long-term debt under the proposed rules. We may need to take action to comply with the final TLAC Rules depending in substantial part on the ultimate eligibility requirements for senior long-term debt and any grandfathering provisions, including actions to conform or replace our existing debt securities. In the event of our resolution under our preferred single point of entry resolution strategy, such resolution could materially adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to shareholders and to pay our obligations. We are required to annually submit a plan to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC describing our resolution strategy under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the event of material financial distress or failure. In our current plan, our preferred resolution strategy is a single point of entry strategy. Under the strategy, upon certain severely adverse capital and liquidity conditions, before filing for resolution with the U.S. Bankruptcy court, we would recapitalize certain key operating subsidiaries by contributing substantially all of our assets (other than the stock of our direct subsidiaries and a reserve for expenses in resolution) with the goal of enabling these subsidiaries to continue operating. Following this recapitalization, only Bank of America Corporation would be resolved under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We have arrangements with these key subsidiaries that govern these recapitalizations, which restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to provide funds to us through distributions and advances upon the occurrence of such capital and liquidity conditions. Our obligations under these arrangements are secured by certain of our assets. Any such recapitalizations under our resolution plan and/or these arrangements, or restrictions on the ability of our subsidiaries to provide funds to us, could (i) adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders and to pay our obligations, and (ii) result in holders of our securities being in a worse position as a result thereof and suffering greater losses than would have been the case under bankruptcy, FDIC receivership or a different resolution plan. Further, if the FDIC and Federal Reserve jointly determine that our resolution plan is not credible and we fail to cure the deficiencies, they could impose more stringent capital, leverage or liquidity requirements or restrictions on our growth, activities or operations, and we could be required to take certain actions that could impose operating costs and could potentially result in the divestiture or restructuring of certain businesses and subsidiaries. In addition, under the Financial Reform Act, when a G-SIB such as the Corporation is in default or danger of default, the FDIC may be appointed receiver in order to conduct an orderly liquidation of such institution. In the event of such appointment, the FDIC could, among other things, invoke the orderly liquidation authority, instead of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, if the Secretary of the Treasury makes certain financial distress and systemic risk determinations. In 2013, the FDIC issued a notice describing its preferred “single point of entry” strategy for resolving a G-SIB. Under this approach, the FDIC could replace the Corporation with a bridge holding company, which could continue operations and result in an orderly resolution of the underlying bank, but whose equity is held solely for the benefit of our creditors. The FDIC’s single point of entry strategy may result in our security holders suffering greater losses than would have been the case under a different resolution plan than the losses that may have resulted from the application of a bankruptcy proceeding or a different resolution strategy. We are subject to comprehensive government legislation and regulations, both domestically and internationally, which impact our operating costs, and could require us to make changes to our operations and result in an adverse impact on our results of operations. Additionally, these regulations and uncertainty surrounding the scope and requirements of the final rules implementing recently enacted and proposed legislation, as well as certain settlements and consent orders we have entered into, have increased and will continue to increase our compliance and operational risks and costs. We are subject to comprehensive regulation under federal and state laws in the U.S. and the laws of the various jurisdictions in which we operate. These laws and regulations significantly affect our business, and have the potential to restrict the scope of our existing businesses, limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities or make our products and services more expensive for clients and customers. Significant new legislation and regulations affecting the financial services industry have been enacted or proposed in recent years, both in the U.S. and globally. In response to the financial crisis, the U.S. adopted the Financial Reform Act, which has resulted in significant rulemaking and proposed rulemaking by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the CFPB, Financial Stability Oversight Council, the FDIC, the SEC and CFTC. Under the provisions of the Financial Reform Act known as the “Volcker Rule,” we are prohibited from proprietary trading and limited in our sponsorship of, and investment in, hedge funds, private equity funds and certain other covered private funds. Non-U.S. regulators, such as the U.K. financial regulators and the European Parliament and Commission, have adopted or proposed laws and regulations regarding financial institutions located in their jurisdictions. Recent EU legislative and regulatory initiatives, including those relating to the resolution of financial institutions, the proposed separation of trading activities from core banking services, mandatory on-exchange trading, position limits and reporting rules for derivatives, governance and conduct of business requirements, interchange, and restrictions on compensation, could require us to make significant modifications to our non-U.S. businesses, operations and legal entity structure in order to comply with these requirements. We continue to make adjustments to our business and operations, legal entity structure and capital and liquidity management policies, procedures and controls to comply with these new and proposed laws and regulations. However, a number of provisions still require final rulemaking, guidance and interpretation by regulatory authorities. Further, we could become subject to regulatory requirements beyond those currently proposed, adopted or contemplated. Accordingly, the cumulative effect of all of the new and proposed legislation and regulations on our business, operations and profitability remains uncertain. This uncertainty necessitates that in our business planning we make certain assumptions with respect to the scope and requirements of the proposed rules. If these assumptions prove incorrect, we could be subject to increased regulatory and compliance risks and costs as well as potential reputational harm. In addition, U.S. and international regulatory initiatives may overlap, and non-U.S. regulations and initiatives may be inconsistent or may conflict with current or proposed regulations in the U.S., which could lead to compliance risks and increased costs. Our regulators’ prudential and supervisory authority gives them broad power and discretion to direct our actions, and they have assumed an increasingly active oversight, inspection and investigatory role across the financial services industry. Regulatory focus is not limited to laws and regulations applicable to the financial services industry specifically, but also extends to other significant regulations such as Office of Foreign Assets Control, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and U.S. and international anti-money laundering regulations. The number of investigations and proceedings brought by regulators against the financial services industry generally has increased. As part of their enforcement authority, our regulators have the authority to, among other things, assess significant civil or criminal monetary penalties, fines or restitution, issue cease and desist or removal orders and initiate injunctive actions. Recently, the amounts paid by us and other financial institutions to settle proceedings or investigations have been increasing and are likely to continue to increase. In some cases, governmental authorities have required criminal pleas or other extraordinary terms as part of such settlements, which could have significant consequences for a financial institution, including reputational harm, loss of customers, restrictions on the ability to access capital markets, and the inability to operate certain businesses or offer certain products for a period of time. The complexity of the federal and state regulatory and enforcement regimes in the U.S., coupled with the global scope of our operations and the increasing aggressiveness of the regulatory environment worldwide, also means that a single event or practice or a series of related events or practices may give rise to a large number of overlapping investigations and regulatory proceedings, either by multiple federal and state agencies in the U.S. or by multiple regulators and other governmental entities in different jurisdictions. Responding to inquiries, investigations, lawsuits and proceedings, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the matter, is time-consuming and expensive and can divert the attention of our senior management from our business. The outcome of such proceedings may be difficult to predict or estimate until late in the proceedings, which may last a number of years. We are currently subject to the terms of settlements and consent orders that we have entered into with government agencies and may become subject to additional settlements or orders in the future. Such settlements and consent orders impose significant operational and compliance costs on us as they typically require us to enhance our procedures and controls, expand our risk and control functions within our lines of business, invest in technology and hire significant numbers of additional risk, control and compliance personnel. Moreover, if we fail to meet the requirements of the regulatory settlements and orders to which we are subject, or more generally, to maintain risk and control procedures and processes that meet the heightened standards established by our regulators and other government agencies, we could be required to enter into further settlements and orders, pay additional fines, penalties or judgments, or accept material regulatory restrictions on our businesses. While we believe that we have adopted appropriate risk management and compliance programs, compliance risks will continue to exist, particularly as we adapt to new rules and regulations. We also rely upon third parties who may expose us to compliance and legal risk. Future legislative or regulatory actions, and any required changes to our business or operations, or those of third parties upon whom we rely, resulting from such developments and actions, could result in a significant loss of revenue, impose additional compliance and other costs or otherwise reduce our profitability, limit the products and services that we offer or our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, require us to dispose of or curtail certain businesses, affect the value of assets that we hold, require us to increase our prices and therefore reduce demand for our products, or otherwise adversely affect our businesses. In addition, legal and regulatory proceedings and other contingencies will arise from time to time that may result in fines, penalties, equitable relief and changes to our business practices. As a result, we are and will continue to be subject to heightened compliance and operating costs that could adversely affect our results of operations. We are subject to significant financial and reputational risks from potential liability arising from lawsuits, and regulatory and government action. We face significant legal risks in our business, and the volume of claims and amount of damages, penalties and fines claimed in litigation, and regulatory and government proceedings against us and other financial institutions remains high. Greater than expected litigation and investigation costs, substantial legal liability or significant regulatory or government action against us could have adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations or cause significant reputational harm to us, which in turn could adversely impact our business results and prospects. We continue to experience a significant volume of litigation and other disputes, including claims for contractual indemnification, with counterparties regarding relative rights and responsibilities. Consumers, clients and other counterparties have grown more litigious. Among other things, financial institutions, including the Corporation, increasingly have been the subject of claims alleging anti-competitive conduct with respect to various products and markets, including U.S. antitrust class actions claiming joint and several liability for treble damages. Our experience with certain regulatory authorities suggests an increasing supervisory focus on enforcement, including in connection with alleged violations of law and customer harm. Recent actions by regulators and government agencies indicate that they may, on an industry basis, increasingly pursue claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement act of 1989 (FIRREA) and the False Claims Act, as well as claims under the antitrust laws. FIRREA contemplates civil monetary penalties as high as $1.1 million per violation or, if permitted by the court, based on pecuniary gain derived or pecuniary loss suffered as a result of the violation. Treble damages are potentially available for False Claims Act and antitrust claims. The ongoing environment of additional regulation, increased regulatory compliance burdens, and enhanced regulatory and governmental enforcement, combined with ongoing uncertainty related to the continuing evolution of the regulatory environment, has resulted in operational and compliance costs and may limit our ability to continue providing certain products and services. For more information on litigation risks, see Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements. We may be adversely affected by changes in U.S. and non-U.S. tax and other laws and regulations. The U.S. Congress and the Administration have indicated an interest in reforming the U.S. corporate income tax code. Possible approaches include lowering the 35 percent corporate tax rate, modifying the taxation of income earned outside the U.S. and limiting or eliminating various other deductions, tax credits and/or other tax preferences. It is not possible at this time to quantify either the one-time impacts from the remeasurement of deferred tax assets and liabilities that might result upon tax reform enactment or the ongoing impacts reform proposals might have on income tax expense. The Corporation has $7.3 billion of U.K. net deferred tax assets which consist primarily of net operating losses that are expected to be realized by certain subsidiaries over an extended number of years. Adjusted pretax income for these subsidiaries for 2015, 2014 and 2013 on a cumulative basis totaled $2.1 billion, excluding the impact of debit valuation adjustments and the adoption impact of a funding valuation adjustment. Adverse developments with respect to tax laws or to other material factors, such as a prolonged worsening of Europe’s capital markets, could lead management to reassess and/or change its current conclusion that no valuation allowance is necessary with respect to our U.K. net deferred tax assets. Other countries have also proposed and adopted certain regulatory changes targeted at financial institutions or that otherwise affect us. The EU has adopted increased capital requirements and the U.K. has (i) increased liquidity requirements for local financial institutions, including regulated U.K. subsidiaries of non-U.K. BHCs and other financial institutions as well as branches of non-U.K. banks located in the U.K.; (ii) adopted a Bank Levy, which applies to the aggregate balance sheet of branches and subsidiaries of non-U.K. banks and banking groups operating in the U.K.; and (iii) proposed the creation and production of recovery and resolution plans by U.K.-regulated entities. Risk of the Competitive Environment in which We Operate We face significant and increasing competition in the financial services industry. We operate in a highly competitive environment and will continue to experience intense competition from local and global financial institutions as well as new entrants, in both domestic and foreign markets. Additionally, the changing regulatory environment may create competitive disadvantages for certain financial institutions given geography-driven capital and liquidity requirements. For example, U.S. regulators have in certain instances adopted stricter capital and liquidity requirements than those applicable to non-U.S. institutions. To the extent we expand into new business areas and new geographic regions, we may 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 compete. In addition, technological advances and the growth of e-commerce have made it easier for non-depository institutions to offer products and services that traditionally were banking products, and for financial institutions to compete with technology companies in providing electronic and internet-based financial solutions including electronic securities trading, marketplace lending, and payment processing. Increased competition may negatively affect our earnings by creating pressure to lower prices or credit standards on our products and services requiring additional investment to improve the quality and delivery of our technology and/or reducing our market share. Damage to our reputation could harm our businesses, including our competitive position and business prospects. Our ability to attract and retain customers, clients, investors and employees is impacted by our reputation. We continue to face increased public and regulatory scrutiny as well as alleged irregularities in servicing, foreclosure, consumer collections, mortgage loan modifications and other practices, compensation practices, and the suitability or reasonableness of recommending particular trading or investment strategies. Harm to our reputation can also arise from other sources, including employee misconduct, security breaches, unethical behavior, litigation or regulatory outcomes, failing to deliver standards of service and quality expected by our customers and clients, compliance failures, inadequacy of responsiveness to internal controls, unintended disclosure of confidential information, and the activities of our clients, customers and counterparties, including vendors. In addition, adverse publicity or negative information posted on social media websites, whether or not factually correct, may adversely impact our business prospects or financial results. Actions by the financial services industry generally or by certain members or individuals in the industry also can adversely affect our reputation. We are subject to complex and evolving laws and regulations regarding privacy, data protections and other matters. Principles concerning the appropriate scope of consumer and commercial privacy vary considerably in different jurisdictions, and regulatory and public expectations regarding the definition and scope of consumer and commercial privacy may remain fluid. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied by various jurisdictions in a manner inconsistent with our current or future practices, or that is inconsistent with one another. We face regulatory, reputational and operational risks if personal, confidential or proprietary information of customers or clients in our possession is mishandled or misused. We could suffer reputational harm if we fail to properly identify and manage potential conflicts of interest. Management of potential conflicts of interests has become increasingly complex as we expand our business activities through more numerous transactions, obligations and interests with and among our clients. The failure to adequately address, or the perceived failure to adequately address, conflicts of interest could affect the willingness of clients to deal with us, or give rise to litigation or enforcement actions, which could adversely affect our businesses. Our actual or perceived failure to address these and other issues gives rise to reputational risk that could cause harm to us and our business prospects, including failure to properly address operational risks. Failure to appropriately address any of these issues could also give rise to additional regulatory restrictions, legal risks and reputational harm, which could, among other consequences, increase the size and number of litigation claims and damages asserted or subject us to enforcement actions, fines and penalties and cause us to incur related costs and expenses. Our ability to attract and retain qualified employees is critical to the success of our business and failure to do so could hurt our business prospects and competitive position. Our performance is heavily dependent on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals. Competition for qualified personnel within the financial services industry and from businesses outside the financial services industry has been, and is expected to continue to be, intense. Our competitors include non-U.S. based institutions and institutions subject to different compensation and hiring regulations than those imposed on U.S. institutions and financial institutions. In order to attract and retain qualified personnel, we must provide market-level compensation. As a large financial and banking institution, we may be subject to limitations on compensation practices (which may or may not affect our competitors) by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC or other regulators around the world. For instance, recent EU rules limit and subject to clawback certain forms of variable compensation for senior employees. Current and potential future limitations on executive compensation imposed by legislation or regulation could adversely affect our ability to attract and maintain qualified employees. Furthermore, a substantial portion of our annual incentive compensation paid to our senior employees has in recent years taken the form of long-term equity awards. Therefore, the ultimate value of this compensation depends on the price of our common stock when the awards vest. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain qualified individuals, our business prospects and competitive position could be adversely affected. Our inability to adapt our products and services to evolving industry standards and consumer preferences could harm our business. Our business model is based on a diversified mix of business that provides a broad range of financial products and services, delivered through multiple distribution channels. Our success depends on our ability to adapt our products and services to evolving industry standards. There is increasing pressure by competitors to provide products and services at lower prices and this may impact our ability to grow revenue and/or effectively compete, in part, due to legislative and regulatory developments that affect the competitive landscape. Additionally, the competitive landscape may be impacted by the growth of non-depository institutions that offer products that were traditionally banking products as well as new innovative products. This can reduce our net interest margin and revenues from our fee-based products and services. In addition, the widespread adoption of new technologies, including internet services and payment systems, could require substantial expenditures to modify or adapt our existing products and services as we grow and develop our internet banking and mobile banking channel strategies in addition to remote connectivity solutions. We might not be successful in developing or introducing new products and services, integrating new products or services into our existing offerings, responding or adapting to changes in consumer behavior, preferences, spending, investing and/or saving habits, achieving market acceptance of our products and services, reducing costs in response to pressures to deliver products and services at lower prices or sufficiently developing and maintaining loyal customers. Risks Related to Risk Management Our risk management framework may not be effective in mitigating risk and reducing the potential for losses. Our risk management framework is designed to minimize risk and loss to us. We seek to identify, measure, monitor, report and control our exposure to the types of risk to which we are subject, including strategic, credit, market, liquidity, compliance, operational and reputational risks, among others. While we employ a broad and diversified set of risk monitoring and mitigation techniques, including hedging strategies and techniques that seek to balance our ability to profit from trading positions with our exposure to potential losses, those techniques are inherently limited because they cannot anticipate the existence or future development of currently unanticipated or unknown risks. For instance, we use various models to assess and control risk, but those are subject to inherent limitations. Additionally, we are reliant on our ability to manage data and our ability to aggregate data in an accurate and timely manner to ensure effective risk reporting and management. Our ability to manage data and aggregate data may be limited by the effectiveness of our policies, programs, processes and practices that govern how data is acquired, validated, stored, protected and processed. While we continuously update our policies, programs, processes and practices, many of our data management and aggregation processes are manual and subject to human error or system failure. Failure to manage data effectively and to aggregate data in an accurate and timely manner may limit our ability to manage current and emerging risk, as well as to manage changing business needs. Our risk management framework is also dependent on ensuring that a sound risk culture exists throughout the Corporation, as well as ensuring that we manage risks associated with third parties and vendors. Recent economic conditions, heightened legislative and regulatory scrutiny of the financial services industry and the overall complexity of our operations, among other developments, have resulted in a heightened level of risk for us. Accordingly, we could suffer losses as a result of our failure to properly anticipate and manage risks. For more information about our risk management policies and procedures, see Managing Risk in the MD&A on page 49. A failure in or breach of our operational or security systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, could disrupt our businesses, and adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, as well as cause reputational harm. The potential for operational risk exposure exists throughout our organization and as a result of our interactions with third parties, and is not limited to our operational functions. Our operational and security systems, infrastructure, including our computer systems, data management, and internal processes, as well as those of third parties, are integral to our performance. In addition, we rely on our employees and third parties in our day-to-day and ongoing operations, who may, as a result of human error, misconduct or malfeasance or failure or breach of third-party systems or infrastructure, expose us to risk. We have taken measures to implement backup systems and other safeguards to support our operations, but our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by any significant disruptions to us or to third parties with whom we interact. In addition, our ability to implement backup systems and other safeguards with respect to third-party systems is more limited than with respect to our own systems. Our financial, accounting, data processing, backup or other operating or security systems and infrastructure may fail to operate properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control which could adversely affect our ability to process these transactions or provide these services. There could be sudden increases in customer transaction volume; electrical, telecommunications or other major physical infrastructure outages; natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and floods; disease pandemics; and events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts. We continuously update these systems to support our operations and growth. This updating entails significant costs and creates risks associated with implementing new systems and integrating them with existing ones. Operational risk exposures could adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, as well as cause reputational harm. A cyber attack, information or security breach, or a technology failure of ours or of a third party could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business, manage our exposure to risk or expand our businesses, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, increase our costs to maintain and update our operational and security systems and infrastructure, and adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, as well as cause reputational harm. Our businesses are highly dependent on the security and efficacy of our infrastructure, computer and data management systems, as well as those of third parties with whom we interact. Cyber security risks for financial institutions have significantly increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists and other external parties, including foreign state actors. Our businesses rely on the secure processing, transmission, storage and retrieval of confidential, proprietary and other information in our computer and data management systems and networks, and in the computer and data management systems and networks of third parties. We rely on digital technologies, computer, database and email systems, software, and networks to conduct our operations. In addition, to access our network, products and services, our customers and other third parties may use personal mobile devices or computing devices that are outside of our network environment. We, our customers, regulators and other third parties have been subject to, and are likely to continue to be the target of, cyber attacks. These cyber attacks include computer viruses, malicious or destructive code, phishing attacks, denial of service or information or other security breaches, that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of confidential, proprietary and other information of the Corporation, our employees, our customers or of third parties, or otherwise materially disrupt our or our customers’ or other third parties’ network access or business operations. For example, in recent years, we have been subject to malicious activity, including distributed denial of service attacks. Additionally, several large retailers have disclosed substantial cyber security breaches affecting debit and credit card accounts of their customers, some of whom were our cardholders. Although these incidents have not, to date, had a material impact on us, we believe that such incidents will continue, and we are unable to predict the severity of such future attacks on us. Our counterparties, regulators, customers and clients, and other third parties with whom we or our customers and clients interact are exposed to similar incidents, and incidents affecting those third parties could impact us. Although to date we have not experienced any material losses or other material consequences relating to technology failure, cyber attacks or other information or other security breaches, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses or other consequences in the future. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of, among other things, the evolving nature of these threats, our prominent size and scale, and our role in the financial services industry and the broader economy, our plans to continue to implement our internet banking and mobile banking channel strategies and develop additional remote connectivity solutions to serve our customers when and how they want to be served, our continuous transmission of sensitive information to, and storage of such information by, third parties, including our vendors and regulators, our expanded geographic footprint and international presence, the outsourcing of some of our business operations, the continued uncertain global economic environment, threats of cyber terrorism, external extremist parties, including foreign state actors, in some circumstances as a means to promote political ends, and system and customer account updates and conversions. As a result, cyber security and the continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes and practices designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a priority for us. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities or incidents. We also face indirect technology, cyber security and operational risks relating to the third parties with whom we do business or upon whom we rely to facilitate or enable our business activities. In addition to customers and clients, the third parties with whom we interact and upon whom we rely include financial counterparties; financial intermediaries such as clearing agents, exchanges and clearing houses; vendors; regulators; providers of critical infrastructure such as internet access and electrical power, and retailers for whom we process transactions. Each of these third parties faces the risk of cyber attack, information breach or loss, or technology failure. Any such cyber attack, information breach or loss, or technology failure of a third party could, among other things, adversely affect our ability to effect transactions, service our clients, manage our exposure to risk or expand our businesses. As a result of financial entities and technology systems becoming more interdependent and complex, a cyber incident, information breach or loss, or technology failure that significantly degrades, deletes or compromises the systems or data of one or more financial entities could have a material impact on counterparties or other market participants, including the Corporation. For example, in recent years, there has been significant consolidation among clearing agents, exchanges and clearing houses and increased interconnectivity of multiple financial institutions with central agents, exchanges and clearing houses. This consolidation and interconnectivity increases the risk of operational failure, on both individual and industry-wide bases, as disparate complex systems need to be integrated, often on an accelerated basis. Any such cyber attack, information breach or loss, failure, termination or constraint could, among other things, adversely affect our ability to effect transactions, service our clients, manage our exposure to risk or expand our businesses. Any of the matters discussed above could result in our loss of customers and business opportunities, significant business disruption to our operations and business, misappropriation or destruction of our confidential information and/or that of our customers, or damage to our customers’ and/or third parties’ computers or systems, and could result in a violation of applicable privacy laws and other laws, litigation exposure, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, loss of confidence in our security measures, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensatory costs, and additional compliance costs. In addition, any of the matters described above could adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition. Risk of Being an International Business We are subject to numerous political, economic, market, reputational, operational, legal, regulatory and other risks in the non-U.S. jurisdictions in which we operate. We do business throughout the world, including in developing regions of the world commonly known as emerging markets. Our businesses and revenues derived from non-U.S. jurisdictions are subject to risk of loss from currency fluctuations, financial, social or judicial instability, changes in governmental policies or policies of central banks, expropriation, nationalization and/or confiscation of assets, price controls, capital controls, exchange controls, other restrictive actions, unfavorable political and diplomatic developments, oil price fluctuation and changes in legislation. These risks are especially elevated in emerging markets. A number of non-U.S. jurisdictions in which we do business have been negatively impacted by slowing growth rates or recessionary conditions, market volatility and/or political unrest. The eurozone economy grew modestly in 2015 but faces continuing challenges, including uncertainty regarding economic performance in emerging markets, some weakened appreciably by the severe decline in oil prices. The influx of refugees, related to the war in Syria, and continued political uncertainty relating to various nations’ fiscal plans have the potential to negatively impact consumer and business confidence and credit factors, affecting our business and operation results. Notably, sovereign debt purchases by the European Central Bank have supported Southern European financial markets but risks remain. The economy in China continues to gradually slow while facing longer term readjustment challenge. Russia and Brazil remain nations in the midst of severe downturns. Additionally, the U.K. government has announced the possibility of a referendum regarding the U.K.’s continued membership in the EU. The referendum is expected to occur before the end of 2017. An exit of the U.K. from the EU could significantly affect the fiscal, monetary and regulatory landscape in the U.K. We conduct business in Europe primarily through our U.K. subsidiaries. An exit from the EU could impact our operations in the EU and may result in moving some of our operations in the U.K. to our EU based entities, which could impose costs on us and could have an impact on our business, finance condition and results of operations. Potential risks of default on sovereign debt in some non-U.S. jurisdictions remain and could expose us to substantial losses. Risks in one nation can limit our opportunities for portfolio growth and negatively affect our operations in another nation or nations, including our U.S. operations. Market and economic disruptions have affected, and may continue to affect, consumer confidence levels and spending, corporate investment and job creation, bankruptcy rates, levels of incurrence and default on consumer debt and corporate debt, economic growth rates and asset values, among other factors. Any such unfavorable conditions or developments could have an adverse impact on our company. Our non-U.S. businesses are also subject to extensive regulation by various regulators, including governments, securities exchanges, central banks and other regulatory bodies, in the jurisdictions in which those businesses operate. In many countries, the laws and regulations applicable to the financial services and securities industries are uncertain and evolving, and it may be difficult for us to determine the exact requirements of local laws in every market or manage our relationships with multiple regulators in various jurisdictions. Our potential inability to remain in compliance with local laws in a particular market and manage our relationships with regulators could have an adverse effect not only on our businesses in that market but also on our reputation in general. We also invest or trade in the securities of corporations and governments located in non-U.S. jurisdictions, including emerging markets. Revenues from the trading of non-U.S. securities may be subject to negative fluctuations as a result of the above factors. Furthermore, the impact of these fluctuations could be magnified, because non-U.S. trading markets, particularly in emerging market countries, are generally smaller, less liquid and more volatile than U.S. trading markets. In addition to non-U.S. legislation, our international operations are also subject to U.S. legal requirements. For example, our international operations are subject to U.S. laws on foreign corrupt practices, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and anti-money laundering regulations. We are subject to geopolitical risks, including acts or threats of terrorism, and actions taken by the U.S. or other governments in response thereto and/or military conflicts, which could adversely affect business and economic conditions abroad as well as in the U.S. For more information on our non-U.S. credit and trading portfolios, see Non-U.S. Portfolio in the MD&A on page 86. Risk from Accounting Changes Changes in accounting standards or inaccurate estimates or assumptions in applying accounting policies could adversely affect us. Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Some of these policies require use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the reported value of our assets or liabilities and results of operations and are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain. If those assumptions, estimates or judgments were incorrectly made, we could be required to correct and restate prior-period financial statements. Accounting standard-setters and those who interpret the accounting standards (such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the SEC, banking regulators and our independent registered public accounting firm) may also amend or even reverse their previous interpretations or positions on how various standards should be applied. These changes may be difficult to predict and could impact how we prepare and report our financial statements. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in the Corporation possibly needing to revise and republish prior-period financial statements. The FASB issued in 2012 a proposed standard on accounting for credit losses. The standard would replace multiple existing impairment models, including replacing an “incurred loss” model for loans with an “expected loss” model. The FASB has indicated a tentative effective date of January 1, 2019, and final guidance is expected to be issued in the second quarter of 2016. The final standard may materially reduce retained earnings in the period of adoption. For more information on some of our critical accounting policies and recent accounting changes, see Complex Accounting Estimates in the MD&A on page 100 and Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Item 1B.