UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
Form 10-K
x | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
OR
¨ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission File No. 001-07511
STATE STREET CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Massachusetts | 04-2456637 | |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | |
One Lincoln Street Boston, Massachusetts | 02111 | |
(Address of principal executive office) | (Zip Code) | |
617-786-3000 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) | ||
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: | ||
(Title of Each Class) | (Name of each exchange on which registered) | |
Common Stock, $1 par value per share | New York Stock Exchange | |
Depositary Shares, each representing a 1/4,000th ownership interest in a share of Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series C, without par value per share | New York Stock Exchange | |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer x | Accelerated filer ¨ | Non-accelerated filer ¨ | Smaller reporting company ¨ | |||
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | ||||||
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ¨ No x
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the per share price ($44.64) at which the common equity was last sold as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter (June 30, 2012) was approximately $21.28 billion.
The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of January 31, 2013 was 456,881,022.
Portions of the following documents are incorporated by reference into Parts of this Report on Form 10-K, to the extent noted in such Parts, as indicated below:
(1) The registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A on or before April 30, 2013 (Part III).
STATE STREET CORPORATION
Table of Contents
PART I | ||
Item 1 | ||
Item 1A | ||
Item 1B | ||
Item 2 | ||
Item 3 | ||
Item 4 | ||
PART II | ||
Item 5 | ||
Item 6 | ||
Item 7 | ||
Item 7A | ||
Item 8 | ||
Item 9 | ||
Item 9A | ||
Item 9B | ||
PART III | ||
Item 10 | ||
Item 11 | ||
Item 12 | ||
Item 13 | ||
Item 14 | ||
PART IV | ||
Item 15 | ||
PART I
ITEM 1.BUSINESS
GENERAL
State Street Corporation, or the parent company, is a financial holding company organized in 1969 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For purposes of this Form 10-K, unless the context requires otherwise, references to “State Street,” “we,” “us,” “our” or similar terms mean State Street Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The parent company provides financial and managerial support to our legal and operating subsidiaries. Through our subsidiaries, including our principal banking subsidiary, State Street Bank and Trust Company, or State Street Bank, we provide a broad range of financial products and services to institutional investors worldwide.
As of December 31, 2012, we had consolidated total assets of $222.58 billion, consolidated total deposits of $164.18 billion, consolidated total shareholders' equity of $20.87 billion and 29,660 employees. Our executive offices are located at One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (telephone (617) 786-3000). We operate in more than 100 geographic markets worldwide, including the U.S., Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
We make available through our website at www.statestreet.com, free of charge, all reports we electronically file with, or furnish to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, including our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, as well as any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after those documents have been filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. These documents are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We have included the website addresses of State Street and the SEC in this report as inactive textual references only. Information on those websites is not part of this Form 10-K.
We have Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as written charters for the Executive Committee, the Examining & Audit Committee, the Executive Compensation Committee, the Risk and Capital Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors, or Board, and a Code of Ethics for senior financial officers, a Standard of Conduct for Directors and a Standard of Conduct for our employees. Each of these documents is posted on our website.
BUSINESS DESCRIPTION
Overview
We are a leader in providing financial services and products to meet the needs of institutional investors worldwide, with $24.37 trillion of assets under custody and administration and $2.09 trillion of assets under management as of December 31, 2012. Our clients include mutual funds, collective investment funds and other investment pools, corporate and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations, endowments and investment managers.
We conduct our business primarily through State Street Bank, which traces its beginnings to the founding of the Union Bank in 1792. State Street Bank's current charter was authorized by a special Act of the Massachusetts Legislature in 1891, and its present name was adopted in 1960. State Street Bank operates as a specialized bank, referred to as a trust and custody bank, that services and manages assets on behalf of its institutional clients.
Significant Developments
In March 2012, subsequent to the Federal Reserve's review of our 2012 capital plan, we publicly announced Board approval of a common stock purchase program, under which we are authorized to purchase up to $1.80 billion of our common stock through March 31, 2013. From April 1 through December 31, 2012, we purchased approximately 33.4 million shares of our common stock, all under this program, at an aggregate cost of $1.44 billion. As of December 31, 2012, approximately $360 million remained available for purchase under the program. In addition, in 2012, we declared quarterly dividends totaling $0.96 per share, or approximately $456 million, on our common stock. Each quarterly dividend declared in 2012 was $0.24 per share, representing a 33% increase per share over each quarterly dividend declared in 2011. Additional information with respect to our common stock purchase and dividend actions is provided under “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K.
In October 2012, we completed our acquisition of Goldman Sachs Administration Services, or GSAS, a global hedge-fund administrator with approximately $200 billion of hedge-fund assets under administration. We provide a comprehensive suite of middle office, fund administration, risk analytics and credit services to hedge funds, private equity funds, real estate funds and institutional investors, and these broad service offerings are now available to GSAS clients. Additional information about this acquisition is provided in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
In December 2012, we recorded pre-tax restructuring charges of $133 million associated with targeted staff reductions announced in January 2013 and expected to be substantially completed during 2013. The targeted staff reductions, which were
2
separate from staff reductions associated with our Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program, were undertaken to better align our expenses to our business strategy and related outlook for 2013, and will involve the elimination of approximately 630 positions worldwide. More detailed information about these charges, as well as charges associated with other expense control measures and with the Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program, is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations - Expenses” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K.
In connection with the implementation of our Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program, we achieved approximately $86 million of pre-tax expense savings in 2011, compared to our total 2010 expenses from operations. In 2012, we achieved additional pre-tax expense savings of approximately $112 million compared to the same expense base. As of December 31, 2012, we have achieved cumulative pre-tax expense savings of approximately $198 million since the program's inception in 2010. These pre-tax expense savings relate only to the Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program and are based on improvement from our total 2010 expenses from operations. Our actual total expenses have increased from 2010, and may in the future increase or decrease, due to other factors. Additional information with respect to the program is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations - Expenses” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K.
Additional Information
Additional information about our business activities is provided in the sections that follow. For information about our management of capital, liquidity, market risk, including interest-rate risk, and other risks inherent in our businesses, refer to Risk Factors included under Item 1A, Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
LINES OF BUSINESS
We have two lines of business: Investment Servicing and Investment Management.
Investment Servicing
Our Investment Servicing business performs core custody and related value-added functions, such as providing institutional investors with clearing, payment and settlement services. Our financial services and products allow our large institutional investor clients to execute financial transactions on a daily basis in markets across the globe. As most institutional investors cannot economically or efficiently build their own technology and operational processes necessary to facilitate their global securities settlement needs, our role as a global custody bank is generally to aid our clients to efficiently perform services associated with the clearing, settlement and execution of securities transactions and related payments.
Our Investment Servicing products and services include: custody; deposit-taking; product- and participant-level accounting; daily pricing and administration; master trust and master custody; record-keeping; cash management; foreign exchange, brokerage and other trading services; securities finance; deposit and short-term investment facilities; loans and lease financing; investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing; and performance, risk and compliance analytics.
We are the largest provider of mutual fund custody and accounting services in the U.S., based on asset rankings published in the 2012 Mutual Fund Service Guide. We distinguish ourselves from other mutual fund service providers by offering clients a broad array of integrated products and services, including accounting, daily pricing and fund administration. As of December 31, 2012, we calculated approximately 39.5% of the U.S. mutual fund prices provided to NASDAQ that appeared daily in The Wall Street Journal and other publications with an accuracy rate of 99.94%. We serviced U.S. tax-exempt assets for corporate and public pension funds, and we provided trust and valuation services for more than 5,800 daily-priced portfolios as of December 31, 2012.
We are a service provider outside of the U.S. as well. In Germany, Italy, France and Luxembourg, we provide depotbank services (a fund oversight role created by regulation) for retail and institutional fund assets, as well as custody and other services to pension plans and other institutional clients. In the U.K., we provide custody services for pension fund assets and administration services for mutual fund assets. As of December 31, 2012, we serviced approximately $914 billion of offshore assets, primarily domiciled in Ireland, Luxembourg and Canada. As of December 31, 2012, we had $1.11 trillion in assets under administration in the Asia/Pacific region, and in Japan, we held approximately 96% of the trust assets held by non-domestic trust banks.
We are an alternative asset servicing provider worldwide, servicing hedge, private equity and real estate funds. As of December 31, 2012, we serviced approximately $1.12 trillion of alternative assets under administration, including the acquired GSAS business.
3
Investment Management
We provide our Investment Management services through State Street Global Advisors, or SSgA. SSgA provides a broad array of investment management, investment research and other related services, such as securities finance. SSgA offers strategies for managing financial assets, including passive and active, such as enhanced indexing, using quantitative and fundamental methods for both U.S. and global equities and fixed-income securities. SSgA also offers exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, such as the SPDR® ETF brand. SSgA provides this array of investment management strategies, specialized investment management advisory services and other financial services for corporations, public funds, and other sophisticated investors.
Additional information about our lines of business is provided under “Line of Business Information” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and in note 24 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, of this Form 10-K.
COMPETITION
We operate in a highly competitive environment and face global competition in all areas of our business. Our competitors include a broad range of financial institutions and servicing companies, including other custodial banks, deposit-taking institutions, investment management firms, insurance companies, mutual funds, broker/dealers, investment banks, benefits consultants, leasing companies, and business service and software companies. As our businesses grow and markets evolve, we may encounter increasing and new forms of competition around the world.
We believe that many key factors drive competition in the markets for our business. For Investment Servicing, quality of service, economies of scale, technological expertise, quality and scope of sales and marketing, required levels of capital and price drive competition, and are critical to our servicing business. For Investment Management, key competitive factors include expertise, experience, availability of related service offerings, quality of service and performance, and price.
Our competitive success may depend on our ability to develop and market new and innovative services, to adopt or develop new technologies, to bring new services to market in a timely fashion at competitive prices, to continue and expand our relationships with existing clients, and to attract new clients.
SUPERVISION AND REGULATION
State Street is registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or the Federal Reserve, as a bank holding company pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The Bank Holding Company Act, with certain exceptions, limits the activities in which we and our non-banking subsidiaries may engage to those that the Federal Reserve considers to be closely related to banking, or to managing or controlling banks. These limits also apply to non-banking entities that we are deemed to “control” for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act, which may include companies of which we own or control more than 5% of a class of voting shares. The Federal Reserve may order a bank holding company to terminate any activity, or its ownership or control of a non-banking subsidiary, if the Federal Reserve finds that the activity, ownership or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of a banking subsidiary or is inconsistent with sound banking principles or statutory purposes. The Bank Holding Company Act also requires a bank holding company to obtain prior approval of the Federal Reserve before it acquires substantially all the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank.
The parent company is qualified, and has elected to become, a financial holding company, which increases to some extent the scope of activities in which it may engage. A financial holding company and the companies under its control are permitted to engage in activities considered “financial in nature” as defined by the Bank Holding Company Act and Federal Reserve implementing rules and interpretations, and therefore State Street may engage in a broader range of activities than permitted for bank holding companies and their subsidiaries that have not elected to become financial holding companies. Financial holding companies may engage directly or indirectly in activities that are financial in nature, either de novo or by acquisition, provided the financial holding company gives the Federal Reserve after-the-fact notice of the new activities. Activities defined to be financial in nature include, but are not limited to, the following: providing financial or investment advice; underwriting; dealing in or making markets in securities; merchant banking, subject to significant limitations; and any activities previously found by the Federal Reserve to be closely related to banking. In order to maintain our status as a financial holding company, we and each of our depository subsidiaries must be well capitalized and well managed, as judged by regulators, and must comply with Community Reinvestment Act obligations. Failure to maintain these standards may ultimately permit the Federal Reserve to take enforcement actions against us.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd-Frank Act, which became law in July 2010, is having and will continue to have a significant effect on the regulatory structure of the financial markets. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, established a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to monitor systemic risk posed by financial institutions, restricted proprietary trading and private fund investment activities by banking institutions, created a new
4
framework for the regulation of derivative instruments, altered the regulatory capital treatment of trust preferred and other hybrid capital securities, and revised the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's, or FDIC’s, assessment base for determining premiums for insured deposits. In addition, rapid regulatory change is occurring internationally with respect to financial institutions, including, but not limited to, the implementation of the Basel III capital and liquidity standards (refer to “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K) and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, the adoption of European Union derivatives initiatives, and revisions to the European collective investment fund, or UCITS, directive.
Additional information about the Dodd-Frank Act and other new or modified laws and regulations applicable to our business is provided in Risk Factors included under Item 1A of this Form 10-K, in particular the risk factor titled “We face extensive and changing government regulation, including changes to capital requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, current and future capital rules, including the Basel III capital and liquidity standards, which may increase our costs and expose us to risks related to compliance.”
Many aspects of our business are subject to regulation by other U.S. federal and state governmental and regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations (including securities exchanges), and by non-U.S. governmental and regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations. Some aspects of our public disclosure, corporate governance principles and internal control systems are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations and rules of the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange.
Regulatory Capital Adequacy
Like other bank holding companies, we and our depository institution subsidiaries are subject to the current mandatory minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratio guidelines, referred to as Basel I. As noted above, our status as a financial holding company also requires that we and our depository institution subsidiaries maintain specified regulatory capital ratio levels. As of December 31, 2012, our regulatory capital levels on a consolidated basis, and the regulatory capital levels of State Street Bank, our principal depository institution subsidiary, exceeded the currently applicable minimum capital requirements under Basel I and the requirements we must meet for the parent company to qualify as a financial holding company.
We are currently in the qualification period that is required to be completed prior to our full implementation of the Basel II final rules (refer to “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K for more information about Basel II). During the qualification period, we must demonstrate that we comply with the Basel II final rules to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve. During or subsequent to this qualification period, the Federal Reserve may determine that we are not in compliance with certain aspects of the final rules and may require us to take certain actions to achieve compliance that could adversely affect our business operations, our capital structure, our regulatory capital ratios or our financial performance.
Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulatory rules to be adopted for the implementation of Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act are expected to result in an increase in the minimum regulatory capital that we will be required to maintain and changes in the manner in which our regulatory capital ratios are calculated. In addition, we are currently designated as a large bank holding company subject to enhanced supervision and prudential standards, commonly referred to as a “systemically important financial institution,” or SIFI, and we are one among a group of 28 institutions worldwide that have been identified by the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision as “global systemically important banks,” or G-SIBs. Both of these designations will require us to hold incrementally higher regulatory capital compared to financial institutions without such designations. As a SIFI, we were also required under the Dodd-Frank Act to prepare a recovery and resolution plan, known as a “living will,” the initial version of which we filed with the Federal Reserve and the FDIC on October 1, 2012.
U.S. banking regulators have not yet issued final rules and guidance with respect to the regulatory capital rules under Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act. In June 2012, three concurrent Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRs, were issued to implement the Basel III framework in the U.S. These proposed rules revise both the currently applicable regulatory capital requirements (Basel I), as well as specific provisions of the Basel II-based regulatory capital requirements and, together with relevant portions of the Dodd-Frank Act, restructure the U.S. capital rules into a harmonized and comprehensive capital framework.
Failure to meet current and future regulatory capital requirements could subject us to a variety of enforcement actions, including the termination of deposit insurance of State Street Bank by the FDIC, and to certain restrictions on our business that are described above in this “Supervision and Regulation” section.
For additional information about our regulatory capital position and regulatory capital adequacy, as well as current and future regulatory capital requirements, refer to Risk Factors included under Item 1A, “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and note 15 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, of this Form 10-K.
5
Subsidiaries
The Federal Reserve is the primary federal banking agency responsible for regulating us and our subsidiaries, including State Street Bank, with respect to both our U.S. and non-U.S. operations.
Our banking subsidiaries are subject to supervision and examination by various regulatory authorities. State Street Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System, its deposits are insured by the FDIC and it is subject to applicable federal and state banking laws and to supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve, as well as by the Massachusetts Commissioner of Banks, the FDIC, and the regulatory authorities of those states and countries in which State Street Bank operates a branch. Other subsidiary trust companies are subject to supervision and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve System or by the appropriate state banking regulatory authorities of the states in which they are organized and operate. Our non-U.S. banking subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the regulatory authorities of the countries in which they are located. As of December 31, 2012, the capital of each of these banking subsidiaries exceeded the minimum legal capital requirements set by those regulatory authorities.
The parent company and its non-banking subsidiaries are affiliates of State Street Bank under federal banking laws, which impose restrictions on various types of transactions, including loans, extensions of credit, investments or asset purchases by or from State Street Bank, on the one hand, to the parent company and its non-banking subsidiaries, on the other. Transactions of this kind between State Street Bank and its affiliates are limited with respect to each affiliate to 10% of State Street Bank’s capital and surplus, as defined by the aforementioned banking laws, and to 20% in the aggregate for all affiliates, and in some cases are also subject to strict collateral requirements.
Federal law also provides that certain transactions with affiliates must be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the institution, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions involving other non-affiliated companies. Alternatively, in the absence of comparable transactions, the transactions must be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that in good faith would be offered to, or would apply to, non-affiliated companies. State Street Bank is also prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit or lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Federal law provides as well for a depositor preference on amounts realized from the liquidation or other resolution of any depository institution insured by the FDIC.
SSgA Funds Management, Inc., or SSgA FM, and State Street Global Advisors Limited, or SSgA Ltd., act as investment advisers to investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. SSgA FM, incorporated in Massachusetts in 2001 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. SSgA Ltd., incorporated in 1990 as a U.K. limited company and domiciled in the U.K., is also registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. SSgA Ltd. is also authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority, or FSA, and is licensed as an investment firm under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. SSgA FM and SSgA Ltd. each offer a variety of asset management solutions, including active, enhanced and passive equity, active and passive fixed-income, cash management, multi-asset class solution and real estate. In addition, a major portion of our investment management activities are conducted by State Street Bank, which is subject to supervision primarily by the Federal Reserve with respect to these activities.
Our U.S. broker/dealer subsidiary is registered as a broker/dealer with the SEC, is subject to regulation by the SEC (including the SEC’s net capital rule) and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a self-regulatory organization. The U.K. broker/dealer operates through our subsidiary, State Street Global Markets International Limited, which subsidiary is registered in the U.K. as a regulated securities broker, and is authorized and regulated by the FSA. It is also a member of the London Stock Exchange. In accordance with the rules of the FSA, the U.K. broker/dealer publishes information on its risk management objectives and on policies associated with its regulatory capital requirements and resources. Many aspects of our investment management activities are subject to federal and state laws and regulations primarily intended to benefit the investment holder, rather than our shareholders.
Our activities as a futures commission merchant are subject to regulation by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in the U.S. and various regulatory authorities internationally, as well as the membership requirements of the applicable clearinghouses. These laws and regulations generally grant supervisory agencies and bodies broad administrative powers, including the power to limit or restrict us from conducting our investment management activities in the event that we fail to comply with such laws and regulations, and examination authority. Our business related to investment management and trusteeship of collective trust funds and separate accounts offered to employee benefit plans is subject to ERISA and is regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Our businesses, including our investment management and securities and futures businesses, are also regulated extensively by non-U.S. governments, securities exchanges, self-regulatory organizations, central banks and regulatory bodies, especially in those jurisdictions in which we maintain an office. For instance, the FSA, the London Stock Exchange, and the Euronext.Liffe regulate our activities in the U.K.; the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority and the Deutsche Borse AG regulate our activities in Germany; and the Financial Services Agency, the Bank of Japan, the Japanese Securities Dealers
6
Association and several Japanese securities and futures exchanges, including the Tokyo Stock Exchange, regulate our activities in Japan. We have established policies, procedures, and systems designed to comply with the requirements of these organizations. However, as a global financial services institution, we face complexity and costs related to regulation.
The majority of our non-U.S. asset servicing operations are conducted pursuant to the Federal Reserve's Regulation K through State Street Bank’s Edge Act subsidiary or through international branches of State Street Bank. An Edge Act corporation is a corporation organized under federal law that conducts foreign business activities. In general, banks may not make investments in their Edge Act corporations (and similar state law corporations) that exceed 20% of their capital and surplus, and the investment of any amount in excess of 10% of capital and surplus requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve.
In addition to our non-U.S. operations conducted pursuant to Regulation K, we also make new investments abroad directly (through the parent company or through non-banking subsidiaries of the parent company) pursuant to the Federal Reserve's Regulation Y, or through international bank branch expansion, which are not subject to the investment limitations applicable to Edge Act subsidiaries.
We are subject to the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which contains anti-money laundering and financial transparency provisions and requires implementation of regulations applicable to financial services companies, including standards for verifying client identification and monitoring client transactions and detecting and reporting suspicious activities. Anti-money laundering laws outside the U.S. contain similar requirements.
We are also subject to the Massachusetts bank holding company statute. Requirements of the statute include, among other things, prior approval by the Massachusetts Board of Bank Incorporation for our acquisition of more than 5% of the voting shares of any additional bank and for other forms of bank acquisitions.
Support of Subsidiary Banks
Under Federal Reserve guidelines, which were codified in the Dodd-Frank Act, a bank holding company is required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to its banking subsidiaries. This requirement means that the parent company is expected to commit resources to State Street Bank and any other banking subsidiary in circumstances in which it otherwise might not do so absent such requirement. In the event of bankruptcy, any commitment by the parent company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a banking subsidiary will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and will be entitled to a priority payment.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Economic policies of the U.S. government and its agencies influence our operating environment. Monetary policy conducted by the Federal Reserve directly affects the level of interest rates, which may affect overall credit conditions of the economy. Monetary policy is applied by the Federal Reserve through open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in reserve requirements for depository institutions, and changes in the discount rate and availability of borrowing from the Federal Reserve. Government regulation of banks and bank holding companies is intended primarily for the protection of depositors of the banks, rather than for the shareholders of the institutions. We are similarly affected by the economic policies of non-U.S. government agencies, such as the European Central Bank.
STATISTICAL DISCLOSURE BY BANK HOLDING COMPANIES
The following information, included under Items 6, 7 and 8, is incorporated by reference herein:
“Selected Financial Data” table (Item 6) - presents return on average common equity, return on average assets, common dividend payout and equity-to-assets ratios.
“Distribution of Average Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity; Interest Rates and Interest Differential” table (Item 8) - presents consolidated average balance sheet amounts, related fully taxable-equivalent interest earned or paid, related average yields and rates paid and changes in fully taxable-equivalent interest revenue and expense for each major category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.
“Investment Securities” section included in Management's Discussion and Analysis and note 4, “Investment Securities,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - disclose information regarding book values, market values, maturities and weighted-average yields of securities (by category).
Note 1, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies - Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - discloses our policy for placing loans and leases on non-accrual status.
7
“Loans and Leases” section included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis and note 5, “Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - disclose distribution of loans, loan maturities and sensitivities of loans to changes in interest rates.
“Loans and Leases” and “Cross-Border Outstandings” sections of Management’s Discussion and Analysis - disclose information regarding cross-border outstandings and other loan concentrations of State Street.
“Credit Risk” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis and note 5, “Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - present the allocation of the allowance for loan losses, and a description of factors which influenced management’s judgment in determining amounts of additions or reductions to the allowance, if any, charged or credited to results of operations.
“Distribution of Average Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity; Interest Rates and Interest Differential” table (Item 8) - discloses deposit information.
Note 9, “Short-Term Borrowings,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) - discloses information regarding short-term borrowings of State Street.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
This Form 10-K, as well as other reports submitted by us under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, registration statements filed by us under the Securities Act of 1933, our annual report to shareholders and other public statements we may make, contain statements (including statements in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K) that are considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of U.S. securities laws, including statements about industry, regulatory, economic and market trends, management's expectations about our financial performance, capital, market growth, acquisitions, joint ventures and divestitures, new technologies, services and opportunities and earnings, management's confidence in our strategies and other matters that do not relate strictly to historical facts. Terminology such as “plan,” “expect,” “intend,” “forecast,” “look,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “seek,” “may,” “will,” “trend,” “target” and “goal,” or similar statements or variations of such terms, are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such terms.
Forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, which change over time, are based on management's expectations and assumptions at the time the statements are made, and are not guarantees of future results. Management's expectations and assumptions, and the continued validity of the forward-looking statements, are subject to change due to a broad range of factors affecting the national and global economies, the equity, debt, currency and other financial markets, as well as factors specific to State Street and its subsidiaries, including State Street Bank. Factors that could cause changes in the expectations or assumptions on which forward-looking statements are based cannot be foreseen with certainty and include, but are not limited to:
• | the financial strength and continuing viability of the counterparties with which we or our clients do business and to which we have investment, credit or financial exposure, including, for example, the direct and indirect effects on counterparties of the current sovereign-debt risks in Europe and other regions; |
• | financial market disruptions or economic recession, whether in the U.S., Europe, Asia or other regions; |
• | increases in the volatility of, or declines in the level of, our net interest revenue, changes in the composition of the assets recorded in our consolidated statement of condition (and our ability to measure the fair value of investment securities) and the possibility that we may change the manner in which we fund those assets; |
• | the liquidity of the U.S. and international securities markets, particularly the markets for fixed-income securities and inter-bank credits, and the liquidity requirements of our clients; |
• | the level and volatility of interest rates and the performance and volatility of securities, credit, currency and other markets in the U.S. and internationally; |
• | the credit quality, credit-agency ratings and fair values of the securities in our investment securities portfolio, a deterioration or downgrade of which could lead to other-than-temporary impairment of the respective securities and the recognition of an impairment loss in our consolidated statement of income; |
• | our ability to attract deposits and other low-cost, short-term funding, and our ability to deploy deposits in a profitable manner consistent with our liquidity requirements and risk profile; |
• | the manner and timing with which the Federal Reserve and other U.S. and foreign regulators implement the Dodd-Frank Act, the Basel II and Basel III capital and liquidity standards, and European legislation with respect to the levels of regulatory capital we must maintain, our credit exposure to third parties, margin requirements applicable to derivatives, banking and financial activities and other regulatory initiatives in the U.S. and internationally, including regulatory developments that result in changes to our structure or operating model, |
8
increased costs or other changes to how we provide services;
• | adverse changes in the regulatory capital ratios that we are required to meet, whether arising under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Basel II or Basel III capital and liquidity standards or due to changes in regulatory positions, practices or regulations in jurisdictions in which we engage in banking activities, including changes in internal or external data, formulae, models, assumptions or other advanced systems used in calculating our capital ratios that cause changes in those ratios as they are measured from period to period; |
• | increasing requirements to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve or our other regulators for the use, allocation or distribution of our capital or other specific capital actions or programs, including acquisitions, dividends and equity purchases, without which our growth plans, distributions to shareholders, equity purchase programs or other capital initiatives may be restricted; |
• | changes in law or regulation that may adversely affect our business activities or those of our clients or our counterparties, and the products or services that we sell, including additional or increased taxes or assessments thereon, capital adequacy requirements, margin requirements and changes that expose us to risks related to the adequacy of our controls or compliance programs; |
• | our ability to promote a strong culture of risk management, operating controls, compliance oversight and governance that meet our expectations or those of our clients and our regulators; |
• | the credit agency ratings of our debt and depository obligations and investor and client perceptions of our financial strength; |
• | delays or difficulties in the execution of our previously announced Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program, which could lead to changes in our estimates of the charges, expenses or savings associated with the planned program and may cause volatility of our earnings; |
• | the results of, and costs associated with, government investigations, litigation, and similar claims, disputes, or proceedings; |
• | the possibility that our clients will incur substantial losses in investment pools for which we act as agent, and the possibility of significant reductions in the valuation of assets underlying those pools; |
• | adverse publicity or other reputational harm; |
• | dependencies on information technology, complexities and costs of protecting the security of our systems and difficulties with protecting our intellectual property rights; |
• | our ability to grow revenue, control expenses, attract and retain highly skilled people and raise the capital necessary to achieve our business goals and comply with regulatory requirements; |
• | potential changes to the competitive environment, including changes due to regulatory and technological changes, the effects of industry consolidation, and perceptions of State Street as a suitable service provider or counterparty; |
• | potential changes in how and in what amounts clients compensate us for our services, and the mix of services provided by us that clients choose; |
• | the ability to complete acquisitions, joint ventures and divestitures, including the ability to obtain regulatory approvals, the ability to arrange financing as required and the ability to satisfy closing conditions; |
• | the risks that acquired businesses and joint ventures will not achieve their anticipated financial and operational benefits or will not be integrated successfully, or that the integration will take longer than anticipated, that expected synergies will not be achieved or unexpected disynergies will be experienced, that client and deposit retention goals will not be met, that other regulatory or operational challenges will be experienced and that disruptions from the transaction will harm our relationships with our clients, our employees or regulators; |
• | our ability to recognize emerging needs of our clients and to develop products that are responsive to such trends and profitable to us; the performance of and demand for the products and services we offer; and the potential for new products and services to impose additional costs on us and expose us to increased operational risk; |
• | our ability to anticipate and manage the level and timing of redemptions and withdrawals from our collateral pools and other collective investment products; |
• | our ability to control operating risks, data security breach risks, information technology systems risks and outsourcing risks, and our ability to protect our intellectual property rights, the possibility of errors in the quantitative models we use to manage our business and the possibility that our controls will prove insufficient, fail or be circumvented; |
• | changes in accounting standards and practices; and |
9
• | changes in tax legislation and in the interpretation of existing tax laws by U.S. and non-U.S. tax authorities that affect the amount of taxes due. |
Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed in our forward-looking statements and from our historical financial results due to the factors discussed in this section and elsewhere in this Form 10-K or disclosed in our other SEC filings. Forward-looking statements should not be relied on as representing our expectations or beliefs as of any date subsequent to the time this Form 10-K is filed with the SEC. We undertake no obligation to revise our forward-looking statements after the time they are made. The factors discussed above and in this section generally are not intended to be a complete summary of all risks and uncertainties that may affect our businesses. We cannot anticipate all developments that may adversely affect our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
Forward-looking statements should not be viewed as predictions, and should not be the primary basis on which investors evaluate State Street. Any investor in State Street should consider all risks and uncertainties disclosed in our SEC filings, including our filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in particular our reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K, or registration statements filed under the Securities Act of 1933, all of which are accessible on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov or on our website at www.statestreet.com.
The following is a discussion of various risk factors applicable to State Street.
We assume significant credit risk to counterparties, many of which are major financial institutions. These financial institutions and other counterparties may also have substantial financial dependencies with other financial institutions and sovereign entities. This credit exposure and concentration could expose us to financial loss.
The financial markets are characterized by extensive interdependencies among banks, central banks, broker/dealers, collective investment funds, insurance companies and other financial institutions. Many financial institutions also hold, or are exposed to, sovereign debt securities in amounts that are material to their financial condition, have exposures to other financial institutions that have significant sovereign debt exposures or seek to mitigate exposures to financial counterparties by accepting collateral consisting of sovereign debt. As a result of our own business practices and these interdependencies, we and many of our clients have concentrated counterparty exposure to other financial institutions, particularly large and complex institutions, and sovereign issuers. Although we have procedures for monitoring both individual and aggregate counterparty risk, like other large financial institutions, significant individual and aggregate counterparty exposure is inherent in our business, as our focus is on servicing large institutional investors.
From time to time, we assume concentrated credit risk at the individual obligor, counterparty or group level. Such concentrations may be material and can from time to time exceed 10% of our consolidated total shareholders' equity. Our material counterparty exposures change daily, and the counterparties or groups of related counterparties to which our risk exposure exceeds 10% of our consolidated total shareholders' equity are also variable during any reported period; however, our largest exposures tend to be to other financial institutions. Under evolving regulatory restrictions on credit exposure, which are anticipated to include a broadening of the measure of credit exposure, we may be required to limit our exposures to specific issuers or groups, including financial institutions and sovereign issuers, to levels that we may currently exceed. The credit exposure restrictions under such evolving regulations may adversely affect our businesses and may require that we modify our operating models or our balance sheet management policies and practices.
Concentration of counterparty exposure presents significant risks to us and to our clients because the failure or perceived weakness of our counterparties (or in some cases of our clients' counterparties) has the potential to expose us to risk of financial loss. Changes in market perception of the financial strength of particular financial institutions or sovereign issuers can occur rapidly, are often based on a variety of factors and are difficult to predict.
The continued instability of the financial markets since mid-2007, and the pressure on European financial markets and the Euro since 2011, have resulted in many financial institutions becoming significantly less creditworthy, as reflected in the credit downgrades of numerous large U.S. and non-U.S. financial institutions during 2011 and 2012. Credit downgrades during 2011 and 2012 to several sovereign issuers (including the U.S., France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal) and other issuers have stressed the perceived creditworthiness of financial institutions, many of which invest in, accept collateral in the form of, or value other transactions based on the debt or other securities issued by, sovereign or other issuers. Further economic, political or market turmoil, including with respect to federal budget and federal debt-ceiling concerns in the U.S. and elections in certain European markets in 2013, may lead to stress on sovereign issuers, and increase the potential for sovereign defaults or restructurings, additional credit-rating downgrades or the departure of sovereign issuers from common currencies or economic unions. As a result, we may be exposed to increased counterparty risks, either resulting from our role as principal or because of commitments we make in our capacity as agent for certain of our clients.
The degree of client demand for short-term credit tends to increase during periods of market turbulence, exposing us to further counterparty-related risks. For example, investors in collective investment vehicles for which we act as custodian may experience significant redemption activity due to adverse market or economic news that was not anticipated by the fund's
10
manager. Our relationship with our clients, the nature of the settlement process and limitations in our systems may result in the extension of short-term credit in such circumstances. For some types of clients, we provide credit to allow them to leverage their portfolios, which may expose us to potential loss if the client experiences investment losses or other credit difficulties.
In addition to our exposure to financial institutions, we are from time to time exposed to concentrated credit risk at the industry or country level, potentially exposing us to a single market or political event or a correlated set of events. We are also generally not able to net exposures across counterparties that are affiliated entities and may not be able in all circumstances to net exposures to the same legal entity across multiple products. As a consequence, we may incur a loss in relation to one entity or product even though our exposure to an entity's affiliates or across product types is over-collateralized. Moreover, not all of our counterparty exposure is secured, and when our exposure is secured, the realizable value of the collateral may have declined by the time we exercise our rights against that collateral. This risk may be particularly acute if we are required to sell the collateral into an illiquid or temporarily-impaired market.
In addition, our clients often purchase securities or other financial instruments from financial counterparties, including broker/dealers, under repurchase arrangements, frequently as a method of reinvesting the cash collateral they receive from lending their securities. Under these arrangements, the counterparty is obligated to repurchase these securities or financial instruments from the client at the same price (plus an agreed rate of return) at some point in the future. The value of the collateral is intended to exceed the counterparty's payment obligation, and collateral is adjusted daily to account for shortfall under, or excess over, the agreed-upon collateralization level. In many cases, we agree to indemnify our clients from any loss that would arise on a default by the counterparty under these repurchase arrangements if the proceeds from the disposition of the securities or other financial assets held as collateral are less than the amount of the repayment obligation by the client's counterparty. In such instances of counterparty default, we, rather than our client, are exposed to the risks associated with collateral value.
We also engage in certain off-balance sheet activities that involve risks. For example, we provide benefit-responsive contracts, known as wraps, to defined contribution plans that offer a stable value option to their participants. During the financial crisis, the book value of obligations under many of these contracts exceeded the market value of the underlying portfolio holdings. Concerns regarding the portfolio of investments protected by such contracts, or regarding the investment manager overseeing such an investment option, may result in redemption demands from stable value products covered by benefit-responsive contracts at a time when the portfolio's market value is less than its book value, potentially exposing us to risk of loss. Similarly, we provide credit facilities in connection with the remarketing of municipal obligations, potentially exposing us to credit exposure to the municipalities issuing such bonds and to their increased liquidity demands. In the current economic environment, where municipal credits are subject to increased investor concern, the risks associated with such businesses increase. Further, our off-balance sheet activities also include indemnified securities financing obligations, for which we indemnify our clients against losses they incur in connection with the failure of borrowers under our program to return securities on loan.
Although our overall business is subject to these interdependencies, several of our business units are particularly sensitive to them, including our Global Treasury group, our currency and other trading business, our securities lending business and our investment management business. Given the limited number of strong counterparties in the current market, we are not able to mitigate all of our and our clients' counterparty credit risk. The consolidation of financial service firms that occurred as a result of the financial crisis, and the failures of other financial institutions, have increased the concentration of our counterparty risk.
Our business involves significant European operations, and disruptions in European economies could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.
Since 2011, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain and other European economies have experienced, and in the future may experience, difficulties in financing their deficits and servicing their outstanding debt. Eurozone instability and sovereign debt concerns, and the downgraded credit ratings of associated sovereign debt and European financial institutions, have contributed to the volatility in the financial markets. This reduced confidence has led to rescue measures for Greece, Ireland and Portugal and a proposed rescue of Spain and its banking system by Eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund. The European Central Bank, or ECB, has also purchased European sovereign debt to support these markets and the Euro. Numerous European governments, notably Italy and Spain, have also adopted austerity and other measures in an attempt to contain the spread of sovereign-debt concerns.
The actions required to be taken by certain European countries as a condition to rescue packages and austerity programs, and by other countries to mitigate similar developments in their economies, have increased internal political tensions, and, in the case of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, have resulted in internal policy changes. These programs, developments and tensions are likely to be significant factors in elections in certain countries in 2013. The complexity and severity of European sovereign-debt concerns has also resulted in political discord among the Eurozone countries. While the Council of the European Union agreed to measures in December 2012 to establish a single supervisory mechanism, or SSM, whereby the ECB will have direct supervision over Eurozone banks, these measures will not take effect until 2014 (or 12 months after the entry into force of the relevant legislation, whichever is later), and many details of the ECB's regulatory role under the SSM have not
11
been determined.
Disagreement among Eurozone countries remains as to the management of current European sovereign-debt concerns, including potential disagreements on the contemplated implementation of the SSM, and no resolution has been reached on how to stabilize the Eurozone for the near and long term, prolonging existing uncertainty about the further spread of sovereign-debt concerns, the continuation of prevailing Eurozone treaties, economic interconnectedness and the status of the Euro. The decline in the market value of sovereign debt, and the requirement as part of certain rescue packages for creditors to agree to material restructuring of outstanding sovereign debt, have weakened the capital position of many European financial institutions. These institutions have been, and may in the future be, required to raise additional capital to improve their capital positions.
These political disagreements, along with the interdependencies among European economies and financial institutions and the substantial refinancing requirements of European sovereign issuers, have exacerbated concern regarding the stability of European financial markets generally and certain institutions in particular. The risk of further deterioration remains significant. Given the scope of our European operations, clients and counterparties, disruptions in the European financial markets, the failure to resolve fully and contain sovereign-debt concerns, continued recession in significant European economies, the attempt of a country to abandon the Euro, the failure of a significant European financial institution, even if not an immediate counterparty to us, or persistent weakness in the Euro, could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.
Our investment securities portfolio and our consolidated financial condition could be adversely affected by changes in interest, market and credit risks.
Our investment securities portfolio represented approximately 54% of our consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2012, and the gross interest revenue associated with our investment portfolio represented approximately 25% of our consolidated total gross revenue for the year ended December 31, 2012. As such, our consolidated results of operations and financial condition are materially exposed to the risks associated with our investment portfolio, including, without limitation, changes in interest rates, credit spreads, credit performance, credit ratings, our access to liquidity, foreign exchange markets, mark-to-market valuations and our ability to profitably reinvest repayments of principal with respect to these securities. The low interest-rate environment that has persisted since the financial crisis began, and is anticipated to continue in 2013 and beyond, limits our ability to achieve a net interest margin in line with our historical averages. Relative to many other major financial institutions, investment securities represent a greater percentage of our consolidated statement of condition and commercial loans represent a smaller percentage. In some respects, the accounting and regulatory treatment of our investment securities portfolio may be less favorable to us than a more traditional lending portfolio or a portfolio of U.S. treasury securities.
Our investment portfolio continues to have significant concentrations in certain classes of securities, including agency and non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities and other asset-backed securities and securities with concentrated exposure to consumers. These classes and types of securities experienced significant liquidity, valuation and credit quality deterioration during the financial disruption that began in mid-2007. We also hold non-U.S. mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities with exposures to European countries whose sovereign-debt markets have experienced increased stress since 2011, are expected to continue to experience stress during 2013 and may continue to experience stress in the future. For further information, refer to the risk factor above titled “Our business involves significant European operations, and disruptions in European economies could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.”
Further, we hold a portfolio of U.S. state and municipal bonds. In view of the budget deficits that a number of states and municipalities currently face, the risks associated with this portfolio have increased.
If market conditions similar to those experienced in 2007 and 2008 were to recur, our investment portfolio could experience a decline in liquidity and market value, regardless of our credit view of our portfolio holdings. For example, we recorded significant losses not related to credit in connection with the consolidation of our off-balance sheet asset-backed commercial paper conduits in 2009 and the repositioning of our investment portfolio in 2010 with respect to these asset classes. In addition, deterioration in the credit quality of our portfolio holdings could result in other-than-temporary impairment. Our investment portfolio is further subject to changes in both U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates (primarily in Europe), and could be negatively affected by a quicker-than-anticipated increase in interest rates. In addition, while with respect to the carrying value of the securities in our investment portfolio, approximately 88% were rated “AAA” or “AA” as of December 31, 2012, if a material portion of our investment portfolio were to experience credit-rating declines below investment grade, our capital ratios as calculated pursuant to the Basel II and Basel III capital and liquidity standards could be adversely affected, which risk is greater with portfolios of investment securities than with loans or holdings of U.S. Treasury securities.
Our business activities expose us to interest-rate risk.
In our business activities, we assume interest-rate risk by investing short-term deposits received from our clients in our investment portfolio of longer- and intermediate-term assets. Our net interest revenue is affected by the levels of interest rates
12
in global markets, changes in the relationship between short- and long-term interest rates, the direction and speed of interest-rate changes, and the asset and liability spreads relative to the currency and geographic mix of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. Our ability to anticipate these changes or to hedge the related on- and off-balance sheet exposures can significantly influence the success of our asset-and-liability management activities and the resulting level of our net interest revenue. The impact of changes in interest rates will depend on the relative duration, and fixed- or floating-rate nature, of our assets and liabilities. Sustained lower interest rates, a flat or inverted yield curve and narrow interest-rate spreads generally have a constraining effect on our net interest revenue. For additional information about the effects on interest rates on our business, refer to “Financial Condition - Market Risk - Asset-and-Liability Management Activities” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K.
If we are unable to continuously attract deposits and other short-term funding, our consolidated financial condition, including our regulatory capital ratios, our consolidated results of operations and our business prospects could be adversely affected.
Liquidity management is critical to the management of our consolidated statement of condition and to our ability to service our client base. We generally use our liquidity to:
• | extend credit to our clients in connection with our custody business; |
• | meet demands for return of funds on deposit by clients; and |
• | manage the pool of long- and intermediate-term assets that are included in investment securities in our consolidated statement of condition. |
Because the demand for credit by our clients is difficult to forecast and control, and may be at its peak at times of disruption in the securities markets, and because the average maturity of our investment portfolio is significantly longer than the contractual maturity of our client deposit base, we need to continuously attract, and are dependent on, access to various sources of short-term funding. During periods of market uncertainty, the level of client deposits has in recent years tended to increase; however, since such deposits are considered to be transitory, we have historically deposited so-called excess deposits with central banks and in other highly liquid and low-yielding instruments. These levels of excess client deposits, as a consequence, have increased our net interest revenue but have adversely affected our net interest margin. The expiration of the FDIC's Transaction Account Guarantee, or TAG, as of December 31, 2012 may to some extent mitigate the existence of these excess deposits or alter the attractiveness of our deposit service in times of financial crisis.
In managing our liquidity, our primary source of short-term funding is client deposits, which are predominantly transaction-based deposits by institutional investors. Our ability to continue to attract these deposits, and other short-term funding sources such as certificates of deposit and commercial paper, is subject to variability based on a number of factors, including volume and volatility in the global securities markets, the relative interest rates that we are prepared to pay for these deposits and the perception of safety of those deposits or short-term obligations relative to alternative short-term investments available to our clients, including the capital markets.
In addition, we may be exposed to liquidity or other risks in managing asset pools for third parties that are funded on a short-term basis, or for which the clients participating in these products have a right to the return of cash or assets on limited notice. These business activities include, among others, securities finance collateral pools, money market and other short-term investment funds and liquidity facilities utilized in connection with municipal bond programs. If clients demand a return of their cash or assets, particularly on limited notice, and these investment pools do not have the liquidity to support those demands, we could be forced to sell investment securities at unfavorable prices, damaging our reputation as an asset manager and potentially exposing us to claims related to our management of the pools.
The availability and cost of credit in short-term markets are highly dependent on the markets' perception of our liquidity and creditworthiness. Our efforts to monitor and manage our liquidity risk may not be successful or sufficient to deal with dramatic or unanticipated changes in the global securities markets or other event-driven reductions in liquidity. As a result of such events, our cost of funds may increase, thereby reducing our net interest revenue, or we may need to dispose of a portion of our investment portfolio, which, depending on market conditions, could result in a loss from the sale being recorded in our consolidated statement of income.
The conditions since 2007 in the global economy and financial markets have adversely affected us, and they have increased the uncertainty and unpredictability we face in managing our businesses.
Our businesses have been significantly affected by global economic conditions since 2007 and their impact on financial markets. Global credit and other financial markets have at times suffered from substantial volatility, illiquidity and disruption. The resulting economic pressure and lack of confidence in the financial stability of certain countries, and in the financial markets generally, have adversely affected our business, as well as the businesses of our clients and our significant counterparties. This environment, and the potential for continuing or additional disruptions, have also affected overall confidence in financial institutions, have further exacerbated liquidity and pricing issues within the fixed-income markets, have increased the uncertainty and unpredictability we face in managing our businesses, and have had an adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
13
While global economies and financial markets showed some signs of stabilizing during 2011 and 2012, U.S. sovereign debt, non-U.S. sovereign debt and numerous global financial services firms experienced credit downgrades and recessionary issues. Political and sovereign-debt concerns in the Eurozone persist and key emerging economies, including those in India, China and Brazil, experienced periods of reductions in the rates of their economic growth. The occurrence of additional disruptions in global markets, continued uncertainty with respect to federal budget and federal debt-ceiling concerns in the U.S., continued economic or political uncertainty in Europe, or the worsening of economic conditions could further adversely affect our businesses and the financial services industry in general, and also increase the difficulty and unpredictability of aligning our business strategies, our infrastructure and our operating costs in light of current and future market and economic conditions.
Market disruptions can adversely affect our consolidated results of operations if the value of assets under custody, administration or management decline, while the costs of providing the related services remain constant due to the high fixed costs associated with this business. These factors can reduce the profitability of our asset-based fee revenue and could also adversely affect our transaction-based revenue, such as revenues from securities finance and foreign exchange activities, and the volume of transactions that we execute for or with our clients. Further, the degree of volatility in foreign exchange rates can affect our foreign exchange trading revenue. In general, increased currency volatility tends to increase our market risk but also increases our foreign exchange revenue. Conversely, periods of lower currency volatility tend to decrease our market risk but also decrease our foreign exchange revenue.
In addition, as our business grows globally and as a greater percentage of our revenue is earned in currencies other than U.S. dollars, our exposure to foreign currency volatility could affect our levels of consolidated revenue, our consolidated expenses and our consolidated results of operations, as well as the value of our investment in our non-U.S. operations and our investment portfolio holdings. As our product offerings expand, in part as we seek to take advantage of perceived opportunities arising under various regulatory reforms and resulting market changes, the degree of our exposure to various market and credit risks will evolve, potentially resulting in greater revenue volatility. We also will need to make additional investments to develop the operational infrastructure and to enhance our risk management capabilities to support these businesses, which may increase the operating expenses of such businesses or, if our risk management resources fail to keep pace with product expansion, result in increased risk of loss from such businesses.
We face extensive and changing government regulation, including changes to capital requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, current and future capital rules, including the Basel III capital and liquidity standards, which may increase our costs and expose us to risks related to compliance.
Most of our businesses are subject to extensive regulation by multiple regulatory bodies, and many of the clients to which we provide services are themselves subject to a broad range of regulatory requirements. These regulations may affect the scope of, and the manner and terms of delivery of, our services. As a financial institution with substantial international operations, we are subject to extensive regulation and supervisory oversight, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. This regulation and supervisory oversight affects, among other things, the scope of our activities and client services, our capital and organizational structure, our ability to fund the operations of our subsidiaries, our lending practices, our dividend policy, our common stock purchase actions, the manner in which we market our services and our interactions with foreign regulatory agencies and officials.
The evolving regulatory landscape in each jurisdiction in which we operate, particularly when applied on a cross-border basis, is not necessarily consistent with the requirements or regulatory objectives of other jurisdictions in which we have clients or operations, and may interfere with our ability to conduct our operations and with our pursuit of a common global operating model, or in a manner that is competitive with other financial institutions operating in those jurisdictions. For example, as a designated “systemically important financial institution,” or SIFI, under the Dodd-Frank Act, we are required to have in place recovery and resolution plans. The purpose of these plans is to demonstrate that we have identified the actions we could take to prevent our failure in the event of major financial distress, and if our failure could not be avoided, that the organization could be resolved in an orderly fashion. The initial preparation, ongoing maintenance and annual update of such plans are costly, and require permanent dedicated internal teams working across the organization. The plans could require us to reorganize our operations to facilitate the implementation of such plans, and possibly to operate our businesses in a less efficient manner than we have historically, each of which outcome could result in material costs to us and therefore affect the profitability of our business in the future. In the event we implement our recovery and resolution plans, in whole or in part, the plans may not achieve their stated objectives.
The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the regulatory structure of the global financial markets and has imposed, and is expected to impose, significant additional costs on us. While many of the regulations required to be implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act are not yet in final form, and other such regulations have not yet been proposed, the regulatory proposals to date could, if implemented as proposed, potentially have a significant impact on our businesses and State Street. For example, if the existing regulatory proposal to implement the so called “Volcker Rule” as it applies to the management or sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity funds became effective as currently proposed, it
14
would require unaffiliated financial institutions to provide custody services to some of the funds managed by SSgA, particularly those outside the U.S.
Similarly, the proposed enhanced prudential standards applicable to SIFIs under the Dodd-Frank Act could significantly alter the measurement of credit exposures in our securities lending business and could result in us limiting our business volumes to comply with credit concentration limits. Many of the regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act are anticipated to be finalized in 2013 and to have compliance dates in 2013 or 2014 and, as a result and together with regulatory change in Europe, the costs and impact on our operations of the post-financial crisis regulatory reform are accelerating. Our qualification as a SIFI, and our designation as a “global systemically important bank,” or G-SIB, by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, to which certain regulatory capital surcharges may apply, will subject us to incrementally higher capital and prudential requirements than those applicable to some of the financial institutions with which we compete as a custodian or asset manager.
The Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations also could adversely affect certain of our business operations and our competitive position, and could also negatively affect the operational and competitive positions of our clients. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act established a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to monitor systemic risk posed by financial institutions, enacted new restrictions on proprietary trading and private-fund investment activities by banks and their affiliates, created a new framework for the regulation of derivatives and the entities that engage in derivatives trading, altered the regulatory capital treatment of trust preferred securities and other hybrid capital securities, and revised the assessment base that is used by the FDIC to calculate deposit insurance premiums.
Provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as regulation in Europe, also restrict the flexibility of financial institutions to compensate their employees. In addition, provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act and proposed implementing rules may require changes to the existing capital rules or affect their interpretations by institutions or regulators, which could have an adverse effect on our ability to comply with capital regulations, our business operations, our regulatory capital structure, our regulatory capital ratios or our financial performance. The final effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on our business will depend largely on the scope and timing of the implementation of the Act by regulatory bodies, which in many cases has been delayed, and the exercise of discretion by these regulatory bodies.
In addition, rapid regulatory change is occurring internationally with respect to financial institutions, including, but not limited to, the implementation of the Basel III capital and liquidity standards and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and the adoption of the EU derivatives initiatives and anticipated revisions to the European collective investment fund, or UCITS, directive and the Market in Financial Instruments Directive. Proposed or potential regulations in the U.S. and Europe with respect to money market funds or other “shadow banking” activities could also adversely affect not only our own operations but also the operations of the clients to which we provide services. In Europe, the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive increases the responsibilities and potential liabilities of custodians to certain of their clients for asset losses, and proposed revisions to the regulations affecting UCITS are anticipated to incorporate similar standards.
The Dodd-Frank Act and these other international regulatory changes could limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, increase our regulatory capital requirements, alter the risk profile of certain of our core activities and impose additional costs on us, and otherwise adversely affect our business operations and have other negative consequences, including a reduction of our credit ratings. Different countries may respond to the market and economic environment in different and potentially conflicting manners, which could increase the cost of compliance for us.
The evolving regulatory environment, including changes to existing regulations and the introduction of new regulations, may also contribute to decisions we may make to suspend, reduce or withdraw from existing businesses, activities or initiatives. In addition to potential lost revenue associated with any such suspensions, reductions or withdrawals, any such suspensions, reductions or withdrawals may result in significant restructuring or related costs or exposures.
If we do not comply with governmental regulations, we may be subject to fines, penalties, lawsuits or material restrictions on our businesses in the jurisdiction where the violation occurred, which may adversely affect our business operations and, in turn, our consolidated results of operations. Similarly, many of our clients are subject to significant regulatory requirements and retain our services in order for us to assist them in complying with those legal requirements. Changes in these regulations can significantly affect the services that we are asked to provide, as well as our costs.
In addition, adverse publicity and damage to our reputation arising from the failure or perceived failure to comply with legal, regulatory or contractual requirements could affect our ability to attract and retain clients. If we cause clients to fail to comply with these regulatory requirements, we may be liable to them for losses and expenses that they incur. In recent years, regulatory oversight and enforcement have increased substantially, imposing additional costs and increasing the potential risks associated with our operations. If this regulatory trend continues, it could adversely affect our operations and, in turn, our consolidated results of operations.
15
Our business and capital-related activities, including our ability to return capital to shareholders and purchase our capital stock, may be adversely affected by our implementation of the revised regulatory capital and liquidity standards that we must meet under the Basel II and Basel III capital and liquidity standards and the Dodd-Frank Act, or in the event our capital plan or post-stress capital ratios are determined to be insufficient as a result of regulatory stress testing.
We are currently in the qualification period that must be completed prior to our full implementation of the Basel II regulatory capital and liquidity standards. During the qualification period, we must demonstrate that we comply with the Basel II capital and liquidity standards to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve. During or subsequent to this qualification period, the Federal Reserve may determine that we are not in compliance with certain aspects of the regulation and may require us to take certain actions to come into compliance that could adversely affect our business operations, our regulatory capital structure, our capital ratios or our financial performance, or otherwise restrict our growth plans or strategies. In addition, regulators could change the Basel II capital and liquidity standards or their interpretations as they apply to State Street, including changes to these standards and/or interpretations made in regulations implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, which could adversely affect us and our ability to comply with the Basel II capital and liquidity standards.
The Basel III capital and liquidity standards, the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules that must be adopted to implement those standards and the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as our designation as a SIFI and identification as a G-SIB, are expected to collectively result in increases in the minimum levels of regulatory capital and liquidity that we will be required to maintain, as well as changes in the manner in which our regulatory capital ratios are calculated. Banking regulators have not yet issued final rules and guidance with respect to how the revised capital and liquidity standards under Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act must be implemented by individual banks. Consequently, we cannot determine at this time the extent to which our existing regulatory capital position, business operations and strategies will be consistent with these regulatory capital requirements once they are implemented.
We also are required by the Federal Reserve to conduct periodic stress testing of our business operations and to develop an annual capital plan as part of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review, which is used by the Federal Reserve to evaluate our capital management process, the adequacy of our regulatory capital and the potential requirement to maintain capital levels above regulatory minimums. The planned capital actions in our capital plan may be objected to by the Federal Reserve, potentially requiring us to revise our stress testing or capital management approaches, resubmit our capital plan or postpone, cancel or alter our planned capital actions. In addition, changes in our business strategy, merger or acquisition activity or unanticipated uses of capital could result in a change in our capital plan and its associated capital actions, and may require resubmission of the capital plan to the Federal Reserve for approval.
Our implementation of these new capital requirements, including our capital plan, may not be approved by the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve may impose capital requirements in excess of our expectations or require us to maintain levels of liquidity that are higher than we may expect, and which may adversely affect our consolidated revenues. In the event that our implementation of new capital and liquidity requirements under Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act or our current capital structure are determined not to conform with current and future capital requirements, our ability to deploy capital in the operation of our business or our ability to distribute capital to shareholders or to purchase our capital stock may be constrained, and our business may be adversely affected. Likewise, in the event that regulators in other jurisdictions in which we have banking subsidiaries determine that our capital or liquidity levels do not conform with current and future regulatory requirements, our ability to deploy capital, our levels of liquidity or our business operations in those jurisdictions may be adversely affected.
For additional information about Basel II and Basel III, refer to “Financial Condition - Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K.
Our calculations of credit, market and operational risk exposures, total risk-weighted assets and capital ratios for regulatory purposes depend on data inputs, formulae, models, correlations and assumptions that are subject to changes over time, which changes, in addition to our consolidated financial results, could materially change our risk exposures, our total risk-weighted assets and our capital ratios from period to period.
To calculate our credit, market and operational risk exposures, our total risk-weighted assets and our capital ratios for regulatory purposes, the Basel II and Basel III capital and liquidity standards involve the use of current and historical data, including our own loss data and claims experience and similar information from other industry participants, market volatility measures, interest rates and spreads, asset valuations, credit exposures and the creditworthiness of our counterparties. These calculations also involve the use of quantitative formulae, statistical models, historical correlations and significant assumptions. We refer to the data, formulae, models, correlations and assumptions, as well as our related internal processes, as our “advanced systems.” While our advanced systems are generally quantitative in nature, significant components involve the exercise of judgment by us and by our regulators based, among other factors, on our and the financial services industry's evolving experience. Any of these judgments or other elements of our advanced systems may not, individually or collectively, accurately represent or calculate the scenarios, circumstances, outputs or other results for which they are designed or intended.
16
In addition, our advanced systems are subject to update and periodic revalidation in response to changes in our business activities and our historical experiences, market forces and events, changes in regulations and regulatory interpretations and other factors, and are also subject to continuing regulatory review and approval. Due to the influence of changes in our advanced systems, whether resulting from changes in data inputs, regulation or regulatory supervision or interpretation, State Street-specific or more general market activities or experiences, or other updates or factors, we expect that our advanced systems and our credit, market and operational risk exposures, our total risk-weighted assets and our capital ratios calculated under the Basel II or Basel III capital and liquidity standards will change, and may be volatile, over time, and that those latter changes or volatility could be material as calculated and measured from period to period.
We may need to raise additional capital in the future, which may not be available to us or may only be available on unfavorable terms.
We may need to raise additional capital in order to maintain our credit ratings, in response to regulatory changes, including capital rules, or for other purposes, including financing acquisitions and joint ventures. However, our ability to access the capital markets, if needed, will depend on a number of factors, including the state of the financial markets. In the event of rising interest rates, disruptions in financial markets, negative perceptions of our business or our financial strength, or other factors that would increase our cost of borrowing, we cannot be sure of our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, on terms acceptable to us. Any diminished ability to raise additional capital, if needed, could adversely affect our business and our ability to implement our business plan and strategic goals, including the financing of acquisitions and joint ventures.
Any downgrades in our credit ratings, or an actual or perceived reduction in our financial strength, could adversely affect our borrowing costs, capital costs and liquidity and cause reputational harm.
Independent rating agencies publish credit ratings for our debt obligations based on their evaluation of a number of factors, some of which relate to our performance and other corporate developments, including financings, acquisitions and joint ventures, and some of which relate to general industry conditions. We anticipate that the rating agencies will review our ratings regularly based on our consolidated results of operations and developments in our businesses. Our credit ratings were downgraded by each of the principal rating agencies during the first quarter of 2009, and in the fourth quarter of 2011, Standard & Poor's revised its outlook for our credit ratings to negative from stable. A further downgrade or a significant reduction in our capital ratios might adversely affect our ability to access the capital markets or might increase our cost of capital. We cannot provide assurance that we will continue to maintain our current credit ratings.
The current market environment and our exposure to financial institutions and other counterparties, including sovereign entities, increase the risk that we may not maintain our current ratings. Downgrades in our credit ratings may adversely affect our borrowing costs, our capital costs and our ability to raise capital and, in turn, our liquidity. A failure to maintain an acceptable credit rating may also preclude us from being competitive in certain products, may be negatively perceived by our clients or counterparties, or may have other adverse reputational effects.
Additionally, our counterparties, as well as our clients, rely on our financial strength and stability and evaluate the risks of doing business with us. If we experience diminished financial strength or stability, actual or perceived, including the effects of market or regulatory developments, our announced or rumored business developments or our consolidated results of operations, a decline in our stock price or a reduced credit rating, our counterparties may be less willing to enter into transactions, secured or unsecured, with us; our clients may reduce or place limits on the level of services we provide them or seek other service providers; and our prospective clients may select other service providers.
The risk that we may be perceived as less creditworthy relative to other market participants is higher in the current market environment, in which the consolidation, and in some instances, failure, of financial institutions, including major global financial institutions, has resulted in a smaller number of much larger counterparties and competitors. If our counterparties perceive us to be a less viable counterparty, our ability to enter into financial transactions on terms acceptable to us or our clients, on our or our clients' behalf, will be materially compromised. If our clients reduce their deposits with us or select other service providers for all or a portion of the services we provide to them, our revenues will decrease accordingly.
We may not be successful in implementing our announced multi-year program to transform our operating model.
In order to maintain and grow our business, we must continuously make strategic decisions about our current and future business plans, including plans to target cost initiatives and enhance operational efficiencies, our plans for entering or exiting business lines or geographic markets, our plans for acquiring or disposing of businesses and our plans to build new systems and other infrastructure, to engage third-party service providers and to address staffing needs. In late 2010, we announced a multi-year program to enhance service excellence and innovation, increase efficiencies and position us for accelerated growth. We continued our implementation of this program during 2012, and it is targeted for completion at the end of 2014.
Operating model transformations, including this program, entail significant risks. The program, and any future strategic or business plan we implement, may prove to be inadequate for the achievement of the stated objectives, may result in increased or unanticipated costs or risks, may result in earnings volatility, may take longer than anticipated to implement, may involve elements reliant on the performance of third parties and may not be successfully implemented.
17
In particular, elements of the program include investment in new technologies, such as private processing clouds, to increase global computing capabilities, and also the development of new, and the evolution of existing, methods and tools to accelerate the pace of innovation, the introduction of new services and solutions, the use of service providers associated with components of our technology infrastructure and application maintenance and support, and the enhancement of the security of our systems. The transition to new operating models and technology infrastructure may cause disruptions in our relationships with clients, employees and vendors and may present other unanticipated technical, operational or other hurdles.
The success of the program and our other strategic plans could also be affected by market disruptions and unanticipated changes in the overall market for financial services and the global economy. We also may not be able to abandon or alter these plans without significant loss, as the implementation of our decisions may involve significant capital outlays, often far in advance of when we expect to generate any related revenues or cost expectations. Accordingly, our business, our consolidated results of operations and our consolidated financial condition may be adversely affected by any failure or delay in our strategic decisions, including the program or elements thereof. For additional information about the program, see “Consolidated Results of Operations - Expenses” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 of this Form 10-K.
Our businesses may be adversely affected by litigation.
From time to time, our clients, or the government on their or its own behalf, make claims and take legal action relating to, among other things, our performance of fiduciary or contractual responsibilities. In any such claims or actions, demands for substantial monetary damages may be asserted against us and may result in financial liability or an adverse effect on our reputation or on client demand for our products and services. We may be unable to accurately estimate our exposure to litigation risk when we record balance sheet reserves for probable and estimable loss contingencies. As a result, any reserves we establish to cover any settlements, judgments or regulatory fines may not be sufficient to cover our actual financial exposure, which may have a material impact on our future consolidated results of operations or financial condition.
In the ordinary course of our business, we are also subject to various regulatory, governmental and law enforcement inquiries, investigations and subpoenas. These may be directed generally to participants in the businesses in which we are involved or may be specifically directed at us. In regulatory enforcement matters, claims for disgorgement, the imposition of penalties and the imposition of other remedial sanctions are possible.
In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal and regulatory matters, we cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of any pending or potential matter or, if determined adversely against us, the costs associated with any such matter, particularly where the claimant seeks very large or indeterminate damages or where the matter presents novel legal theories, involves a large number of parties or is at a preliminary stage. The resolution of certain pending or potential legal or regulatory matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, our consolidated financial condition and our reputation.
We face litigation and governmental and client inquiries in connection with our execution of indirect foreign exchange trades with custody clients; these issues have adversely affected our revenue from such trading and may cause our revenue from such trading to decline in the future.
Our custody clients are not required to execute foreign exchange transactions with us. To the extent they execute foreign exchange trades with us, they generally execute a greater volume using our direct methods of execution at negotiated rates or spreads than they execute using our “indirect” methods at rates we establish. Where our clients or their investment managers choose to use our indirect foreign exchange execution methods, generally they elect that service for trades of smaller size or for currencies where regulatory or operational requirements cause trading in such currencies to present greater operational risk and costs for them. Given the nature of these trades and other features of our indirect foreign exchange service, we generally charge higher rates for indirect execution than we charge for other trades, including trades in the interbank currency market.
In October 2009, the Attorney General of the State of California commenced an action against State Street Bank under the California False Claims Act and California Business and Professional Code relating to indirect foreign exchange services State Street Bank provides to certain California state pension plans. The California Attorney General has asserted that the rates at which these plans executed indirect foreign exchange transactions were not consistent with the terms of the applicable custody contracts and related disclosures to the plans, and that, as a result, State Street Bank made false claims and engaged in unfair competition. The Attorney General has asserted actual damages of approximately $100 million for periods from 2001 to 2009 and seeks additional penalties, including treble damages. This action is in the discovery phase.
In October 2010, we entered into a $12 million settlement with the State of Washington. This settlement resolved a dispute related to the manner in which we priced some indirect foreign exchange transactions during our ten-year relationship with the State of Washington. Our contract with the State of Washington and related disclosures to the State of Washington were significantly different from those at issue in our ongoing litigation in California.
We provide custody and principal foreign exchange services to government pension plans in other jurisdictions. Since the commencement of the litigation in California, attorneys general and other governmental authorities from a number of jurisdictions, as well as U.S. Attorney's offices, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Securities and Exchange
18
Commission, have requested information or issued subpoenas in connection with inquiries into the pricing of our foreign exchange services. Given that many of these inquiries are ongoing, we can provide no assurance that litigation or regulatory proceedings will not be brought against us or as to the nature of the claims that might be alleged. Such litigation or proceedings may be brought on theories similar to those advanced in California or Washington or on alternative theories of liability.
We offer indirect foreign exchange services, such as those we offer to the California pension plans, to a broad range of custody clients in the U.S. and internationally. We have responded and are responding to information requests from a number of clients concerning our indirect foreign exchange rates. In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009. The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts law and a breach of the duty of loyalty. Two other putative class actions are currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging various violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with us that executed indirect foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 onward. The complaints allege that State Street caused class members to pay unfair and unreasonable rates for indirect foreign exchange transactions with State Street. The complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief.
We can provide no assurance as to the outcome of the pending proceedings in California or Massachusetts, or whether any other proceedings might be commenced against us by clients or government authorities. For example, the New York Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, each of which has brought indirect foreign exchange-related legal proceedings against one of our competitors, have made inquiries to us about our indirect foreign exchange execution methods. We expect that plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all or a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from providing indirect foreign exchange services.
Our estimated total revenue worldwide from such services was approximately $248 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, approximately $331 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, approximately $336 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, approximately $369 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 and approximately $462 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Although we did not calculate revenue for such services prior to 2006 in the same manner, and have refined our calculation method over time, we believe that the amount of our revenue for such services has been of a similar or lesser order of magnitude for many years. Our revenue calculations related to indirect foreign exchange services reflect a judgment concerning the relationship between the rates we charge for indirect foreign exchange execution and indicative interbank market rates near in time to execution. Our revenue from foreign exchange trading generally depends on the difference between the rates we set for indirect trades and indicative interbank market rates on the date trades settle.
We cannot predict the outcome of any pending matters or whether a court, in the event of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be the appropriate measure of damages. The resolution of pending matters or the resolution of any that may be initiated, filed or threatened could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, our consolidated financial condition and our reputation.
The heightened regulatory and media scrutiny on indirect foreign exchange services has resulted in pressure on our pricing of these services, and clients have reduced the volume of trades executed through these services, each of which has had and is anticipated to continue to have an adverse impact on our revenue from, and the profitability of, these services. Some custody clients or their investment managers have elected to change the manner in which they execute foreign exchange with us or have decided not to use our foreign exchange execution methods. The decline in our indirect foreign exchange revenue in 2012 compared to 2011 was partly attributable to this shift. We do not expect the market, regulatory and other pressures on our indirect foreign exchange services to decrease in 2013. We intend to continue to offer our custody clients a range of execution options for their foreign exchange needs; however, the range of services, costs and profitability vary by service options. We cannot provide assurance that clients or investment managers who choose to use less or none of our indirect foreign exchange services, or to use alternatives to our existing indirect foreign exchange services, will choose the alternatives offered by us. Accordingly, our revenue from these services may decline further.
Our reputation and business prospects may be damaged if our clients incur substantial losses in investment pools in which we act as agent or are restricted in redeeming their interests in these investment pools.
We manage assets on behalf of clients in several forms, including in collective investment pools, money market funds, securities finance collateral pools, cash collateral and other cash products and short-term investment funds. In addition to the impact on the market value of client portfolios, at various times since 2007, the illiquidity and volatility of both the global fixed-income and equity markets have negatively affected the investment performance of certain of our products and our ability to manage client inflows and outflows from our pooled investment vehicles.
Our management of collective investment pools on behalf of clients exposes us to reputational risk and, in some cases, operational losses. If our clients incur substantial losses in these pools, particularly in money market funds (where there is a general market expectation that net asset value will not drop below $1.00 per share) or other constant net asset value products, receive redemptions as in-kind distributions rather than in cash, or experience significant under-performance relative to the
19
market or our competitors' products, our reputation could be significantly harmed, which harm could significantly and adversely affect the prospects of our associated business units. Because we often implement investment and operational decisions and actions over multiple investment pools to achieve scale, we face the risk that losses, even small losses, may have a significant effect in the aggregate.
Within our asset management business, we manage investment pools, such as mutual funds and collective investment funds, that generally offer our clients the ability to withdraw their investments on short notice, generally daily or monthly. This feature requires that we manage those pools in a manner that takes into account both maximizing the long-term return on the investment pool and retaining sufficient liquidity to meet reasonably anticipated liquidity requirements of our clients. The importance of maintaining liquidity varies by product type, but it is a particularly important feature in money market funds and other products designed to maintain a constant net asset value of $1.00.
During the market disruption that accelerated following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, or Lehman, the liquidity in many asset classes, particularly short- and long-term fixed-income securities, declined dramatically, and providing liquidity to meet all client demands in these investment pools without adversely affecting the return to non-withdrawing clients became more difficult. For clients that have invested directly or indirectly in certain of the collateral pools and have sought to terminate their participation in lending programs, we have required, in accordance with the applicable client arrangements, that these withdrawals from the collateral pools take the form of partial in-kind distributions of securities. In the case of SSgA funds that engage in securities lending, we implemented limitations, which were terminated in 2010, on the portion of an investor's interest in such fund that may be withdrawn during any month.
If higher than normal demands for liquidity from our clients were to return to post-Lehman-bankruptcy levels or increase, managing the liquidity requirements of our collective investment pools could become more difficult. If such liquidity problems were to recur, our relationships with our clients may be adversely affected, and, we could, in certain circumstances, be required to consolidate the investment pools into our consolidated statement of condition; levels of redemption activity could increase; and our consolidated results of operations and business prospects could be adversely affected. In addition, if a money market fund that we manage were to have unexpected liquidity demands from investors in the fund that exceeded available liquidity, the fund could be required to sell assets to meet those redemption requirements, and selling the assets held by the fund at a reasonable price, if at all, may then be difficult.
In 2008, we imposed restrictions on cash redemptions from the agency lending collateral pools, as the per unit market value of those funds' assets had declined below the constant $1.00 the funds employ to effect purchase and redemption transactions. Both the decline of the funds' net asset value below $1.00 and the imposition of restrictions on redemptions had a significant client, reputational and regulatory impact on us, and the recurrence of such or similar circumstances in the future could adversely impact our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
In December 2010, in order to increase participants' control over the degree of their participation in the lending program, we divided certain agency lending collateral pools into liquidity pools, from which clients could obtain cash redemptions, and duration pools, which are restricted and operate as liquidating accounts. We believe that our practice of effecting purchases and redemptions of units of the collateral pools, and other constant net asset value products, at $1.00 per unit, notwithstanding that the underlying portfolios have a market value of less than $1.00 per unit, complied and continue to comply with the terms of our unregistered cash collateral pools and was in the best interests of participants in the agency lending program.
Participants in the agency lending program who received units of the duration pool, or who previously received in-kind redemptions from the agency lending collateral pools, could seek to assert claims against us in connection with either their loss of liquidity or unrealized mark-to-market losses. If such claims were successfully asserted, such a resolution could adversely affect our consolidated results of operations in future periods.
While it is currently not our intention, and we do not have contractual or other obligations to do so, we have in the past guaranteed, and may in the future guarantee, liquidity to investors desiring to make withdrawals from a fund or otherwise take actions to mitigate the impact of market conditions on our clients and if permitted by applicable laws. Making a significant amount of such guarantees could adversely affect our own consolidated liquidity and financial condition. Because of the size of the investment pools that we manage, we may not have the financial ability or regulatory authority to support the liquidity or other demands of our clients. The extreme volatility in the equity markets has led to the potential for the return on passive and quantitative products to deviate from their target returns.
Any decision by us to provide financial support to an investment pool to support our reputation in circumstances where we are not statutorily or contractually obligated to do so could result in the recognition of significant losses, could adversely affect the regulatory view of our capital levels or plans and could, in certain situations, require us to consolidate the investment pools into our consolidated statement of condition. Any failure of the pools to meet redemption requests, or under-performance of our pools relative to similar products offered by our competitors, could harm our business and our reputation.
The potential reputational impact from any decision to support or not to support a fund, and from restrictions on redemptions, is most acute in connection with money market funds and other cash products that employ a constant net asset
20
value of $1.00 for purposes of effecting subscriptions and redemptions. The continued use of constant net asset value funds, such as money market funds, or the imposition of further conditions on the offering of such funds, is currently under active consideration in both the U.S. and Europe. The adoption of certain of the proposals under discussion could expose us to increased risk of loss or could make such products less attractive, potentially affecting our revenue from cash pools that we manage or service.
Our businesses may be negatively affected by adverse publicity or other reputational harm.
Our relationship with many of our clients is predicated on our reputation as a fiduciary and a service provider that adheres to the highest standards of ethics, service quality and regulatory compliance. Adverse publicity, regulatory actions, litigation, operational failures, the failure to meet client expectations or fiduciary or other obligations could materially and adversely affect our reputation, our ability to attract and retain clients or our sources of funding for the same or other businesses. For example, we have experienced adverse publicity with respect to our indirect foreign exchange services, and this adverse publicity has contributed to a shift of client volume to other foreign exchange execution methods. Similar, regulatory and reputational issues in our transition management business in the U.K. in 2011 adversely affected our revenue from that business in 2012. Preserving and enhancing our reputation also depends on maintaining systems, procedures and controls that address known risks and regulatory requirements, as well as our ability to identify and mitigate additional risks that arise due to changes in our businesses and the marketplaces in which we operate, the regulatory environment and client expectations.
Cost shifting to non-U.S. jurisdictions may expose us to increased operational risk and reputational harm and may not result in expected cost savings.
We actively strive to achieve cost savings by shifting certain business processes and business support functions to lower-cost geographic locations, such as Poland, India and China. We may accomplish this shift by establishing operations in lower cost locations, by outsourcing to vendors in various jurisdictions or through joint ventures. This effort exposes us to the risk that we may not maintain service quality, control or effective management within these operations. In addition, we are exposed to the relevant macroeconomic, political and similar risks generally involved in doing business in those jurisdictions. The increased elements of risk that arise from conducting certain operating processes in some jurisdictions could lead to an increase in reputational risk. During periods of transition, greater operational risk and client concern exist with respect to maintaining a high level of service delivery. The extent and pace at which we are able to move functions to lower-cost locations may also be affected by regulatory and client acceptance issues. Such relocation of functions also entails costs, such as technology and real estate expenses, that may offset or exceed the expected financial benefits of the lower-cost locations. In addition, the financial benefits of lower-cost locations may diminish over time.
We depend on information technology, and any failures of or damage to, attack on or unauthorized access to our information technology systems or facilities, or those of third parties with which we do business, including as a result of cyber attacks, could result in significant limits on our ability to conduct our operations and activities, costs and reputational damage.
Our businesses depend on information technology infrastructure, both internal and external, to, among other things, record and process a large volume of increasingly complex transactions and other data, in many currencies, on a daily basis, across numerous and diverse markets. During 2011 and 2012, several financial services firms suffered successful cyber attacks launched domestically and from abroad, resulting in the disruption of services to clients, loss or misappropriation of sensitive or private data and reputational harm.
Our computer, communications, data processing, networks, backup or other operating, information or technology systems and facilities, including those that we outsource to other providers, may fail to operate properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors, including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, which could adversely affect our ability to process transactions, provide services, maintain compliance and internal controls or otherwise appropriately conduct our business activities. For example, there could be sudden increases in transaction volumes, electrical or telecommunications outages, cyber attacks or employee or contractor error or malfeasance. In addition, updates to these systems and facilities often involve implementation and integration risks. The third parties with which we do business or which facilitate our business activities, including financial intermediaries, are also susceptible to the foregoing risks (including regarding the third parties with which they are similarly interconnected), and our or their business operations and activities may therefore be adversely affected, perhaps materially, by failures, terminations, errors or malfeasance by, or attacks or constraints on, one or more financial, technology or infrastructure institutions or intermediaries with whom we or they are interconnected or conduct business.
In particular, we, like other financial services firms, will continue to face increasing cyber security threats, including computer viruses, malicious code, phishing attacks, information security breaches or employee or contractor error or malfeasance that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our, our clients' or other parties' confidential, proprietary or other information or otherwise disrupt or compromise our or our clients' or other parties' business operations and activities. We therefore could experience significant related costs and exposures, including lost
21
or constrained ability to provide our services to clients, regulatory inquiries, enforcements, actions and fines, loss of confidential, personal or proprietary information, litigation, damage to our reputation and enhanced competition.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property, and we are subject to claims of third-party intellectual property rights.
Our potential inability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology effectively may allow competitors to duplicate our technology and products and may adversely affect our ability to compete with them. To the extent that we do not protect our intellectual property effectively through patents or other means, other parties, including former employees, with knowledge of our intellectual property may leave and seek to exploit our intellectual property for their own or others' advantage. In addition, we may infringe on claims of third-party patents, and we may face intellectual property challenges from other parties. We may not be successful in defending against any such challenges or in obtaining licenses to avoid or resolve any intellectual property disputes. Third-party intellectual rights, valid or not, may also impede our deployment of the full scope of our products and service capabilities in all jurisdictions in which we operate or market our products and services. The intellectual property of an acquired business may be an important component of the value that we agree to pay for such a business. However, such acquisitions are subject to the risks that the acquired business may not own the intellectual property that we believe we are acquiring, that the intellectual property is dependent on licenses from third parties, that the acquired business infringes on the intellectual property rights of others, or that the technology does not have the acceptance in the marketplace that we anticipated.
Competition for our employees is intense, and we may not be able to attract and retain the highly skilled people we need to support our business.
Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract and retain key people. Competition for the best people in most activities in which we engage can be intense, and we may not be able to hire people or retain them, particularly in light of uncertainty concerning evolving compensation restrictions applicable, or which may become applicable, to banks and that potentially are not applicable to other financial services firms. The unexpected loss of services of key personnel could have a material adverse impact on our business because of their skills, their knowledge of our markets, operations and clients, their years of industry experience and, in some cases, the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel. Similarly, the loss of key employees, either individually or as a group, can adversely affect our clients' perception of our ability to continue to manage certain types of investment management mandates or to provide other services to them.
We are subject to intense competition in all aspects of our business, which could negatively affect our ability to maintain or increase our profitability.
The markets in which we operate across all facets of our business are both highly competitive and global. These markets are changing as a result of new and evolving laws and regulations applicable to financial services institutions. Regulatory-driven market changes cannot always be anticipated, and may adversely affect the demand for, and profitability of, the products and services that we offer. In addition, new market entrants and competitors may address changes in the markets more rapidly than we do, or may provide clients with a more attractive offering of products and services, adversely affecting our business. We have also experienced, and anticipate that we will continue to experience, pricing pressure in many of our core businesses. Many of our businesses compete with other domestic and international banks and financial services companies, such as custody banks, investment advisors, broker/dealers, outsourcing companies and data processing companies. Further consolidation within the financial services industry could also pose challenges to us in the markets we serve, including potentially increased downward pricing pressure across our businesses.
Some of our competitors, including our competitors in core services, have substantially greater capital resources than we do. In some of our businesses, we are service providers to significant competitors. These competitors are in some instances significant clients, and the retention of these clients involves additional risks, such as the avoidance of actual or perceived conflicts of interest and the maintenance of high levels of service quality and intra-company confidentiality. The ability of a competitor to offer comparable or improved products or services at a lower price would likely negatively affect our ability to maintain or increase our profitability. Many of our core services are subject to contracts that have relatively short terms or may be terminated by our client after a short notice period. In addition, pricing pressures as a result of the activities of competitors, client pricing reviews, and rebids, as well as the introduction of new products, may result in a reduction in the prices we can charge for our products and services.
Acquisitions, strategic alliances, joint ventures and divestitures pose risks for our business.
As part of our business strategy, we acquire complementary businesses and technologies, enter into strategic alliances and joint ventures and divest portions of our business. In 2012, we completed our acquisition of Goldman Sachs Administration Services, or GSAS, and we continued the integration of prior acquisitions. We undertake transactions of varying sizes to, among other reasons, expand our geographic footprint, access new clients, technologies or services, develop closer or more collaborative relationships with our business partners, efficiently deploy capital or leverage cost savings or other business or financial opportunities. We may not achieve the expected benefits of these transactions, which could result in increased costs,
22
lowered revenues, ineffective deployment of capital, regulatory concerns, exit costs or diminished competitive position or reputation.
Transactions of this nature also involve a number of risks and financial, accounting, tax, regulatory, managerial, operational, cultural and employment challenges, which could adversely affect our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. For example, the businesses that we acquire or our strategic alliances or joint ventures may under-perform relative to the price paid or the resources committed by us; we may not achieve anticipated cost savings; or we may otherwise be adversely affected by acquisition-related charges. Further, past acquisitions, including our acquisition of GSAS, have resulted in the recognition of goodwill and other significant intangible assets in our consolidated statement of condition. These assets are not eligible for inclusion in regulatory capital under current requirements and proposals. In addition, we may be required to record impairment in our consolidated statement of income in future periods if we determine that these assets will no longer have value.
Through our acquisitions or joint ventures, we may also assume unknown or undisclosed business, operational, tax, regulatory and other liabilities, fail to properly assess known contingent liabilities or assume businesses with internal control deficiencies. While in most of our transactions we seek to mitigate these risks through, among other things, due diligence and indemnification provisions, these or other risk mitigants we put in place may not be sufficient to address these liabilities and contingencies.
Various regulatory approvals or consents are generally required prior to closing of these transactions, which may include approvals of the Federal Reserve and other domestic and non-U.S. regulatory authorities. These regulatory authorities may impose conditions on the completion of the acquisition or require changes to its terms that materially affect the terms of the transaction or our ability to capture some of the opportunities presented by the transaction. Any such conditions, or any associated regulatory delays, could limit the benefits of the transaction. Acquisitions or joint ventures we announce may not be completed, if we do not receive the required regulatory approvals, if regulatory approvals are significantly delayed or if other closing conditions are not satisfied.
The integration of our acquisitions results in risks to our business and other uncertainties.
The integration of acquisitions presents risks that differ from the risks associated with our ongoing operations. Integration activities are complicated and time consuming. We may not be able to effectively assimilate services, technologies, key personnel or businesses of acquired companies into our business or service offerings as anticipated, alliances may not be successful, and we may not achieve related revenue growth or cost savings. We also face the risk of being unable to retain, or cross-sell our products or services to, the clients of acquired companies or joint ventures. Acquisitions of investment servicing businesses entail information technology systems conversions, which involve operational risks and may result in client dissatisfaction and defection. Clients of investment servicing businesses that we have acquired may be competitors of our non-custody businesses. The loss of some of these clients or a significant reduction in the revenues generated from them, for competitive or other reasons, could adversely affect the benefits that we expect to achieve from these acquisitions or cause impairment to goodwill and other intangibles.
With any acquisition, the integration of the operations and resources of the businesses could result in the loss of key employees, the disruption of our and the acquired company's ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures or policies that could adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with clients or employees or to achieve the anticipated benefits of the acquisition. Integration efforts may also divert management attention and resources.
Development of new products and services may impose additional costs on us and may expose us to increased operational risk.
Our financial performance depends, in part, on our ability to develop and market new and innovative services and to adopt or develop new technologies that differentiate our products or provide cost efficiencies, while avoiding increased related expenses. The introduction of new products and services can entail significant time and resources. Substantial risks and uncertainties are associated with the introduction of new products and services, including technical and control requirements that may need to be developed and implemented, rapid technological change in the industry, our ability to access technical and other information from our clients and the significant and ongoing investments required to bring new products and services to market in a timely manner at competitive prices. Regulatory and internal control requirements, capital requirements, competitive alternatives, vendor relationships and shifting market preferences may also determine if such initiatives can be brought to market in a manner that is timely and attractive to our clients. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business and reputation, as well as on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
Long-term contracts expose us to pricing and performance risk.
We enter into long-term contracts to provide middle office or investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing services to clients, primarily for conversions, including services related but not limited to certain trading activities, cash reporting, settlement and reconciliation activities, collateral management and information technology
23
development. These arrangements generally set forth our fee schedule for the term of the contract and, absent a change in service requirements, do not permit us to re-price the contract for changes in our costs or for market pricing. The long-term contracts for these relationships require, in some cases, considerable up-front investment by us, including technology and conversion costs, and carry the risk that pricing for the products and services we provide might not prove adequate to generate expected operating margins over the term of the contracts.
The profitability of these contracts is largely a function of our ability to accurately calculate pricing for our services, efficiently assume our contractual responsibilities in a timely manner, control our costs and maintain the relationship with the client for an adequate period of time to recover our up-front investment. Our estimate of the profitability of these arrangements can be adversely affected by declines in the assets under the clients' management, whether due to general declines in the securities markets or client-specific issues. In addition, the profitability of these arrangements may be based on our ability to cross-sell additional services to these clients, and we may be unable to do so.
Performance risk exists in each contract, given our dependence on successful conversion and implementation onto our own operating platforms of the service activities provided. Our failure to meet specified service levels or implementation timelines may also adversely affect our revenue from such arrangements, or permit early termination of the contracts by the client. If the demand for these types of services were to decline, we could see our revenue decline.
Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented, our risk management policies and procedures may be inadequate, and operational risk could adversely affect our consolidated results of operations.
We may fail to identify and manage risks related to a variety of aspects of our business, including, but not limited to, operational risk, interest-rate risk, foreign exchange risk, trading risk, fiduciary risk, legal and compliance risk, liquidity risk and credit risk. We have adopted various controls, procedures, policies and systems to monitor and manage risk. While we currently believe that our risk management process is effective, we cannot provide assurance that those controls, procedures, policies and systems will always be adequate to identify and manage the internal and external, including service provider, risks in our various businesses. Risks that individuals, either employees or contractors, consciously circumvent established control mechanisms to, for example, exceed trading or investment management limitations, or commit fraud, are particularly challenging to subject to a control framework. The financial and reputational impact of control failures can be significant. Persistent or repeated issues with respect to controls may raise concerns among regulators regarding our culture, governance and control environment.
In addition, our businesses and the markets in which we operate are continuously evolving. We may fail to fully understand the implications of changes in our businesses or the financial markets and fail to adequately or timely enhance our risk framework to address those changes. If our risk framework is ineffective, either because it fails to keep pace with changes in the financial markets, regulatory requirements, our businesses, our counterparties, clients or service providers or for other reasons, we could incur losses, suffer reputational damage or find ourselves out of compliance with applicable regulatory or contractual mandates or expectations.
Operational risk is inherent in all of our business activities. As a leading provider of services to institutional investors, we provide a broad array of services, including research, investment management, trading services and investment servicing that expose us to operational risk. In addition, these services generate a broad array of complex and specialized servicing, confidentiality and fiduciary requirements. We face the risk that the control policies, procedures and systems we have established to comply with our operational requirements will fail, will be inadequate or will become outdated. We also face the potential for loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, employee supervision or monitoring mechanisms, service-provider processes or other systems or controls, which could materially affect our future consolidated results of operations. Operational errors that result in us remitting funds to a failing or bankrupt entity may be irreversible, and may subject us to losses.
We may also be subject to disruptions from external events that are wholly or partly beyond our control, which could cause delays or disruptions to operational functions, including information processing and financial market settlement functions. In addition, our clients, vendors and counterparties could suffer from such events. Should these events affect us, or the clients, vendors or counterparties with which we conduct business, our consolidated results of operations could be negatively affected. When we record balance sheet reserves for probable and estimable loss contingencies related to operational losses, we may be unable to accurately estimate our potential exposure, and any reserves we establish to cover operational losses may not be sufficient to cover our actual financial exposure, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations in the period in which such actions or matters are resolved.
Changes in accounting standards may be difficult to predict and may adversely affect our consolidated financial statements.
New accounting standards, or changes to existing accounting standards, resulting both from initiatives of the Financial Accounting Standards Board or their convergence efforts with the International Accounting Standards Board, as well as changes in the interpretation of existing accounting standards, by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or the SEC or otherwise reflected in U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, potentially could affect our consolidated results of
24
operations, cash flows and financial condition. These changes are difficult to predict, and can materially affect how we record and report our consolidated results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and other financial information. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in the revised treatment of certain transactions or activities, and, in some cases, the restatement of consolidated financial statements for prior periods.
Changes in tax laws, rules or regulations, challenges to our tax positions with respect to historical transactions, and changes in the composition of our pre-tax earnings may increase our effective tax rate and thus adversely affect our consolidated financial statements.
Our businesses can be directly or indirectly affected by new tax legislation, the expiration of existing tax laws or the interpretation of existing tax laws worldwide. The U.S. federal government, Massachusetts, other state governments and jurisdictions around the world continue to review proposals to amend tax laws, rules and regulations applicable to our business that could have a negative impact on our after-tax earnings.
In the normal course of our business, we are subject to review by U.S. and non-U.S. tax authorities. A review by any such authority could result in an increase in our recorded tax liability. In addition to the aforementioned risks, our effective tax rate is dependent on the nature and geographic composition of our pre-tax earnings and could be negatively affected by changes in these factors.
Any theft, loss or other misappropriation of the confidential information we possess could have an adverse impact on our business and could subject us to regulatory actions, litigation and other adverse effects.
Our businesses and relationships with clients are dependent on our ability to maintain the confidentiality of our and our clients' trade secrets and confidential information (including client transactional data and personal data about our employees, our clients and our clients' clients). Unauthorized access to such information may occur, resulting in theft, loss or other misappropriation. Any theft, loss or other misappropriation of confidential information could have a material adverse impact on our competitive positions, our relationships with our clients and our reputation and could subject us to regulatory inquiries, enforcement and fines, civil litigation and possible financial liability or costs.
The quantitative models we use to manage our business may contain errors that result in inadequate risk assessments, inaccurate valuations or poor business decisions.
We use quantitative models to help manage many different aspects of our businesses. As an input to our overall assessment of capital adequacy, we use models to measure the amount of credit risk, market risk, operational risk, interest-rate risk and business risk we face. During the preparation of our consolidated financial statements, we sometimes use models to measure the value of asset and liability positions for which reliable market prices are not available. We also use models to support many different types of business decisions including trading activities, hedging, asset-and-liability management and whether to change business strategy. In all of these uses, errors in the underlying model or model assumptions, or inadequate model assumptions, could result in unanticipated and adverse consequences. Because of our widespread usage of models, potential errors in models pose an ongoing risk to us.
Additionally, we may fail to accurately quantify the magnitude of the risks we face. Our measurement methodologies rely on many assumptions and historical analyses and correlations. These assumptions may be incorrect, and the historical correlations on which we rely may not continue to be relevant. Consequently, the measurements that we make for regulatory and economic capital may not adequately capture or express the true risk profiles of our businesses. Additionally, as businesses and markets evolve, our measurements may not accurately reflect this evolution. While our risk measures may indicate sufficient capitalization, we may in fact have inadequate capital to conduct our businesses.
We may incur losses as a result of unforeseen events, including terrorist attacks, the emergence of a pandemic or acts of embezzlement.
Acts of terrorism or the emergence of a pandemic could significantly affect our business. We have instituted disaster recovery and continuity plans to address risks from terrorism and pandemic; however, forecasting or addressing all potential contingencies is not possible for events of this nature. Acts of terrorism, either targeted or broad in scope, could damage our physical facilities, harm our employees and disrupt our operations. A pandemic, or concern about a possible pandemic, could lead to operational difficulties and impair our ability to manage our business. Acts of terrorism and pandemics could also negatively affect our clients, counterparties and service providers, as well as result in disruptions in general economic activity and the financial markets.
Terrorism may also take the form of the theft or misappropriation of property, confidential information or financial assets. Due to our role as a financial services institution, our businesses are already subject to similar risks of theft, misappropriation and embezzlement with respect to our and our clients' property, information and assets. Our employees and contractors and other partners have access to our facilities and internal systems and may seek to create the opportunity to engage in these activities. In the event our controls and procedures to prevent theft, misappropriation or embezzlement fail or are circumvented, our business would be negatively affected by, among other things, the related financial losses, diminished reputation and the
25
threat of litigation and regulatory inquiry, enforcements and fines, or may have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2.PROPERTIES
We occupy a total of approximately 8.4 million square feet of office space and related facilities worldwide, of which approximately 7.4 million square feet are leased. Of the total leased space, approximately 3.3 million square feet are located in eastern Massachusetts. An additional 1.5 million square feet are located elsewhere throughout the U.S. and in Canada. We lease approximately 1.9 million square feet in the U.K. and elsewhere in Europe, and approximately 700,000 square feet in the Asia/Pacific region.
Our headquarters is located at State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts, a 36-story office building. Various divisions of our two lines of business, as well as support functions, occupy space in this building. We lease the entire 1,025,000 square feet of the building, as well as the entire 366,000-square-foot parking garage at One Lincoln Street, under 20-year non-cancelable capital leases expiring in 2023. A portion of the lease payments is offset by subleases for approximately 153,000 square feet of the building. We occupy three buildings located in Quincy, Massachusetts, one of which we own and two of which we lease. The buildings, containing a total of approximately 1.1 million square feet (720,000 square feet owned and 380,000 square feet leased), function as State Street Bank's principal operations facilities.
We occupy other principal properties located in Missouri, New Jersey, California and Ontario, composed of four leased buildings containing a total of approximately 860,000 square feet, under leases expiring from August 2015 to October 2022. Significant properties in the U.K. and Europe include seven buildings located in England, Poland, Ireland, Luxembourg and Italy, containing approximately 1.1 million square feet under leases expiring from April 2021 through August 2034. Principal properties located in China and Australia consist of three buildings containing approximately 420,000 square feet under leases expiring from February 2013 through May 2021.
We believe that our owned and leased facilities are suitable and adequate for our business needs. Additional information about our occupancy costs, including our commitments under non-cancelable leases, is provided in note 19 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are involved in disputes, litigation and regulatory inquiries and investigations, both pending and threatened. These matters, if resolved adversely against us, may result in monetary damages, fines and penalties or require changes in our business practices. The resolution of these proceedings is inherently difficult to predict. However, we do not believe that the amount of any judgment, settlement or other action arising from any pending matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, although an adverse outcome in certain of the matters described below could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations for the period in which such matter is resolved or a reserve is determined to be required, and on our consolidated financial condition and our reputation.
To the extent that we have established reserves in our consolidated statement of condition for probable loss contingencies, such reserves may not be sufficient to cover our ultimate financial exposure associated with any settlements or judgments. We may be subject to proceedings in the future that, if adversely resolved, would have a material adverse effect on our businesses or on our future consolidated financial statements. Except where otherwise noted below, we have not established reserves with respect to the claims discussed and do not believe that potential exposure, if any, as to any matters discussed can be reasonably estimated. For additional information with respect to our evaluation of loss contingencies and establishment of reserves, refer to note 11 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
SSgA
We are currently defending two related ERISA class actions by investors in unregistered SSgA-managed collective trust and common trust funds which challenge the division of our securities lending-related revenue between those funds and State Street in its role as lending agent. The first action alleges, among other things, that State Street breached its fiduciary duty to investors in those funds. The plaintiff contends that other State Street agency lending clients received more favorable fee splits than did the SSgA lending funds. In August 2012, the Court certified a class consisting of ERISA plans that invested in the SSgA collective trust between April 2004 and the present. We have not established a reserve with respect to this matter. The
26
second action, filed January 2013, challenges the division of our securities lending-related revenue between common trust funds and State Street in its role as lending agent. It similarly alleges, among other things, that State Street breached its fiduciary duty to investors in those funds.
We have previously reported on litigation and claims against State Street related to (i) the active fixed-income strategies that were the subject of our 2010 regulatory settlement with the SEC, the Massachusetts Attorney General and the Massachusetts Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of State, and (ii) certain prime brokerage arrangements between four SSgA-managed common trust funds and various Lehman entities. All of those matters have been settled.
Securities Finance
Two related participants in our agency securities lending program have brought suit against us challenging actions taken by us in response to their withdrawal from the program. We believe that certain withdrawals by these participants were inconsistent with the redemption policy applicable to the agency lending collateral pools and, consequently, redeemed their remaining interests through an in-kind distribution that reflected the assets these participants would have received had they acted in accordance with the collateral pools' redemption policy. The participants have asserted damages of $120 million, an amount that plaintiffs have stated was the difference between the amortized cost and market value of the assets that State Street proposed to distribute to the plans in-kind on or about August 2009. While management does not believe that such difference is an appropriate measure of damages, as of September 30, 2010, the last date on which State Street acted as custodian for the participants, the difference between the amortized cost and market value of the in-kind distribution was approximately $49 million, and if such securities were still held by the participants on such date, the difference would have been approximately $11 million as of December 31, 2012. In taking these actions, we believe that we acted in the best interests of all participants in the collateral pools. We have established a reserve of $10 million in connection with this matter.
Foreign Exchange
We offer our custody clients and their investment managers the option to route foreign exchange transactions to our foreign exchange desk through our asset-servicing operation. We record as revenue an amount approximately equal to the difference between the rates we set for those trades and indicative interbank market rates at the time of settlement of the trade. As discussed more fully below, claims have been asserted on behalf of certain current and former custody clients, and future claims may be asserted, alleging that our indirect foreign exchange rates (including the differences between those rates and indicative interbank market rates at the time we executed the trades) were not adequately disclosed or were otherwise improper, and seeking to recover, among other things, the full amount of the revenue we obtained from our indirect foreign exchange trading with them.
In October 2009, the Attorney General of the State of California commenced an action under the California False Claims Act and California Business and Professional Code related to services State Street provides to California state pension plans. The California Attorney General asserts that the pricing of certain foreign exchange transactions for these pension plans was governed by the custody contracts for these plans and that our pricing was not consistent with the terms of those contracts and related disclosures to the plans, and that, as a result, State Street made false claims and engaged in unfair competition. The Attorney General asserts actual damages of approximately $100 million for periods from 2001 to 2009 and seeks additional penalties, including treble damages. This action is in the discovery phase.
In October 2010, we entered into a $12 million settlement with the State of Washington. This settlement resolves a contract dispute related to the manner in which we priced some foreign exchange transactions during our ten-year relationship with the State of Washington. Our contractual obligations and related disclosures to the State of Washington were significantly different from those presented in our ongoing litigation in California.
We provide custody and principal foreign exchange services to government pension plans in other jurisdictions. Since the commencement of the litigation in California, attorneys general and other governmental authorities from a number of jurisdictions, as well as U.S. Attorney's offices, the U.S. Department of Labor and the SEC, have requested information or issued subpoenas in connection with inquiries into the pricing of our foreign exchange services. We continue to respond to such inquiries and subpoenas.
We offer indirect foreign exchange services such as those we offer to the California pension plans to a broad range of custody clients in the U.S. and internationally. We have responded and are responding to information requests from a number of clients concerning our indirect foreign exchange rates. In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009. The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts law and a breach of the duty of loyalty.
Two other putative class actions are currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging various violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with us that executed indirect foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 onward. The complaints allege that State Street caused class members to pay unfair and unreasonable rates for indirect foreign
27
exchange transactions with State Street. The complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief.
We have not established a reserve with respect to any of the pending legal proceedings related to our indirect foreign exchange services. We cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the pending proceedings, or whether other proceedings might be commenced against us by clients or government authorities. We expect that plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all or a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from providing indirect foreign exchange services.
Our estimated total revenue worldwide from such services was approximately $248 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, approximately $331 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, approximately $336 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, approximately $369 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 and approximately $462 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Although we did not calculate revenue for such services prior to 2006 in the same manner, and have refined our calculation method over time, we believe that the amount of our revenue for such services has been of a similar or lesser order of magnitude for many years. Our revenue calculations related to indirect foreign exchange services reflect a judgment concerning the relationship between the rates we charge for indirect foreign exchange execution and indicative interbank market rates near in time to execution. Our revenue from foreign exchange trading generally depends on the difference between the rates we set for indirect trades and indicative interbank market rates on the date trades settle.
We cannot predict the outcome of any pending matters or whether a court, in the event of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be the appropriate measure of damages.
Shareholder Litigation
Four shareholder-related complaints are currently pending in federal court in Boston. One complaint purports to be a class action on behalf of State Street shareholders. A second complaint is a purported shareholder derivative action on behalf of State Street. The two other complaints purport to be class actions on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the State Street Salary Savings Program who invested in the program's State Street common stock investment option. The complaints variously allege violations of the federal securities laws, common law and ERISA in connection with our foreign exchange trading business, our investment securities portfolio and our asset-backed commercial paper conduit program. We have not established a reserve with respect to these matters.
Transition Management
In 2011, we identified a limited number of instances in which clients of our U.K. transition management businesses had been intentionally charged amounts in excess of the contractual terms. We conducted an investigation of such business with the assistance of external counsel and accounting firms, and we notified and have reimbursed or offered to reimburse the limited number of clients which we identified as having been intentionally overcharged. We have also reported this matter to the U.K. FSA and have cooperated with them in connection with this matter. We have established reserves in an aggregate amount of $10 million for indemnification costs and the potential for a financial penalty in connection with a resolution of this matter with the FSA.
Investment Servicing
State Street is named as a defendant in a series of related complaints by investment management clients of TAG Virgin Islands, Inc., or TAG, who hold custodial accounts with State Street. The complaints, collectively, allege various claims, including claims under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, in connection with certain assets managed by TAG and custodied with State Street. The complaints include a putative class action, which alleges that the class has suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages, and a number of individual complaints, which seek unspecified damages. We have not established a reserve with respect to these matters.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
28
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The following table sets forth certain information with regard to each of our executive officers as of February 22, 2013.
Name | Age | Position | |||
Joseph L. Hooley | 55 | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer | |||
Joseph C. Antonellis | 58 | Vice Chairman | |||
Jeffrey N. Carp | 56 | Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary | |||
John L. Klinck, Jr. | 49 | Executive Vice President | |||
Andrew Kuritzkes | 52 | Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer | |||
James J. Malerba | 58 | Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer | |||
Peter O'Neill | 54 | Executive Vice President | |||
James S. Phalen | 62 | Executive Vice President | |||
Scott F. Powers | 53 | President and Chief Executive Officer of State Street Global Advisors | |||
Alison A. Quirk | 51 | Executive Vice President | |||
Edward J. Resch | 60 | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | |||
Michael F. Rogers | 55 | Executive Vice President | |||
All executive officers are appointed by the Board and hold office at the discretion of the Board. No family relationships exist among any of our directors and executive officers.
Mr. Hooley joined State Street in 1986 and has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer since March 2010, prior to which he had served as President and Chief Operating Officer since April 2008. From 2002 to April 2008, Mr. Hooley served as Executive Vice President and head of Investor Services and, in 2006, was appointed Vice Chairman and Global Head of Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading. Mr. Hooley was elected to serve on the Board of Directors effective October 22, 2009, and he was appointed Chairman of the Board effective January 1, 2011.
Mr. Antonellis joined State Street in 1991 and has served as head of all Europe and Asia/Pacific Global Services and Global Markets businesses since March 2010. Prior to this, in 2003, he was named head of Information Technology and Global Securities Services. In 2006, he was appointed Vice Chairman with additional responsibility as head of Investor Services in North America and Global Investment Manager Outsourcing Services.
Mr. Carp joined State Street in 2006 as Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer. Later in 2006, he was also appointed Secretary. From 2004 to 2005, Mr. Carp served as executive vice president and general counsel of Massachusetts Financial Services, an investment management and research company. From 1989 until 2004, Mr. Carp was a senior partner at the law firm of Hale and Dorr LLP, where he was an attorney since 1982. Mr. Carp served as interim Chief Risk Officer from February 2010 until September 2010.
Mr. Klinck joined State Street in 2006 and has served as Executive Vice President and global head of Corporate Development and Global Relationship Management since March 2010, prior to which he served as Executive Vice President and global head of Alternative Investment Solutions. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Klinck was with Mellon Financial Corporation, a global financial services company, from 1997 to 2006. During that time, he served as vice chairman and president of its Investment Manager Solutions group and before that as chairman for Mellon Europe, where he was responsible for the company’s investor services business in the region.
Mr. Kuritzkes joined State Street in 2010 as Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Kuritzkes was a partner at Oliver, Wyman & Company, an international management consulting firm, and led the firm’s Public Policy practice in North America. He joined Oliver, Wyman & Company in 1988, was a managing director in the firm’s London office from 1993 to 1997, and served as vice chairman of Oliver, Wyman & Company globally from 2000 until the firm’s acquisition by MMC in 2003. From 1986 to 1988, he worked as an economist and lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Mr. Malerba joined State Street in 2004 as Deputy Corporate Controller. In 2006, he was appointed Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer. Prior to joining State Street, he served as Deputy Controller at FleetBoston Financial Corporation from 2000 and continued in that role after the merger with Bank of America Corporation in 2004.
Mr. O'Neill has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Markets and Global Services in Europe, the Middle East and Africa since November 2012 and prior to that he served as head of Global Markets and Global Services in the Asia/Pacific region. He joined State Street in 1985 and has held several senior positions during his tenure, including his
29
appointment in January 2000 as managing director of State Street Global Markets in Europe. This role was expanded in June 2006 to include responsibility for Investor Services for the U.K., Middle East and Africa.
Mr. Phalen joined State Street in 1992 and has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Operations, Technology and Product Development since March 2010. Prior to that, starting in 2003, he served as Executive Vice President of State Street and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CitiStreet, a global benefits provider and retirement plan record keeper. In February 2005, he was appointed head of Investor Services in North America. In 2006, he was appointed head of international operations for Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading, based in Europe. From January 2008 until May 2008, he served on an interim basis as President and Chief Executive Officer of SSgA, following which he returned to his role as head of international operations for Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading.
Mr. Powers joined State Street in 2008 as President and Chief Executive Officer of State Street Global Advisors. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Powers served as Chief Executive Officer of Old Mutual US, the U.S. operating unit of London-based Old Mutual plc, an international savings and wealth management company, from 2001 through 2008.
Ms. Quirk joined State Street in 2002, and since January 2012 has served as Chief Human Resources and Citizenship Officer. She has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Human Resources since March 2010. Prior to that, Ms. Quirk served as Executive Vice President in Global Human Resources and held various senior roles in that group.
Mr. Resch joined State Street in 2002 as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. He also served as Treasurer from 2006 until January 2008. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Resch was Chief Financial Officer of Pershing, a Credit Suisse First Boston subsidiary, and prior to that, he served as Managing Director and Chief Accounting Officer of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc. and as Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of that firm's capital markets group. In November 2012, Mr. Resch informed State Street of his plan to retire in 2013, following the appointment of his successor and an orderly transition of his responsibilities.
Mr. Rogers joined State Street in 2007 as part of our acquisition of Investors Financial Services Corp., and he has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Markets and Global Services - Americas since November 2011. He has served as head of Global Services, including alternative investment solutions, for all of the Americas since March 2010. Mr. Rogers was previously head of the Relationship Management group, a role which he held since 2009. From State Street's acquisition of Investors Financial Services Corp. in July 2007 to 2009, Mr. Rogers headed the post-acquisition Investors Financial Services Corp. business and its integration into State Street. Before joining State Street at the time of the acquisition, Mr. Rogers spent 27 years at Investors Financial Services Corp. in various capacities, most recently as President beginning in 2001.
PART II
ITEM 5. | MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES |
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol STT. There were 3,532 shareholders of record as of January 31, 2013. Information concerning the market prices of, and dividends on, our common stock during the past two years is provided in “Quarterly Summarized Financial Information (Unaudited)” included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference.
In March 2012, our Board of Directors approved a common stock purchase program authorizing the purchase by us of up to $1.80 billion of our common stock through March 31, 2013. We may employ third-party broker/dealers to acquire shares on the open market in connection with our common stock purchase programs.
The following table presents purchases of our common stock and related information for each of the months in the quarter ended December 31, 2012. All shares of our common stock purchased during the periods indicated were purchased under the above-described Board-approved program.
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts, shares in thousands) Period | Total Number of Shares Purchased Under Publicly Announced Program | Average Price Paid per Share | Approximate Dollar Value of Shares Purchased Under Publicly Announced Program | Approximate Dollar Value of Shares Yet to be Purchased Under Publicly Announced Program | |||||||||||
October 1 - October 31, 2012 | 4,449 | $ | 42.84 | $ | 191 | $ | 649 | ||||||||
November 1 - November 30, 2012 | 5,838 | 44.79 | 261 | 388 | |||||||||||
December 1 - December 31, 2012 | 625 | 44.74 | 28 | 360 | |||||||||||
Total | 10,912 | $ | 43.99 | $ | 480 | $ | 360 | ||||||||
30
Additional information about our common stock, including Board of Directors authorization with respect to purchases by us of our common stock, is provided under “Capital - Regulatory Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and in note 13 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference.
RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
As a bank holding company, the parent company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its principal banking subsidiary, State Street Bank, and its non-banking subsidiaries. The right of the parent company to participate as a shareholder in any distribution of assets of State Street Bank upon its liquidation, reorganization or otherwise is subject to the prior claims by creditors of State Street Bank, including obligations for federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements and deposit liabilities.
Payment of dividends by State Street Bank is subject to the provisions of the Massachusetts banking law, which provide that State Street Bank's Board of Directors may declare, from State Street Bank's net profits (as defined below), cash dividends annually, semi-annually or quarterly (but not more frequently) and can declare non-cash dividends at any time. Under Massachusetts banking law, for purposes of determining the amount of cash dividends that are payable by State Street Bank, “net profits” is defined as an amount equal to the remainder of all earnings from current operations plus actual recoveries on loans and investments and other assets, after deducting from the total thereof all current operating expenses, actual losses, accrued dividends on preferred stock, if any, and all federal and state taxes.
No dividends may be declared, credited or paid so long as there is any impairment of capital stock. The approval of the Massachusetts Commissioner of Banks is required if the total of all dividends declared by State Street Bank in any calendar year would exceed the total of its net profits for that year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfer to surplus or to a fund for the retirement of any preferred stock.
Under the Federal Reserve Act, the approval of the Federal Reserve would be required for the payment of dividends by State Street Bank if the total amount of all dividends declared by State Street Bank in any calendar year, including any proposed dividend, would exceed the total of its net income for such calendar year as reported in State Street Bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic and Foreign Offices Only - FFIEC 031, commonly referred to as the “Call Report,” as submitted through the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and provided to the Federal Reserve, plus its “retained net income” (as defined below) for the preceding two calendar years.
“Retained net income,” as of any date of determination, is defined as an amount equal to State Street Bank's net income (as reported in its Call Reports for the calendar year in which retained net income is being determined) less any dividends declared during such year. In determining the amount of dividends that are payable, the total of State Street Bank's net income for the current year and its retained net income for the preceding two calendar years is reduced by any net losses incurred in the current or preceding two years and any required transfers to surplus or to a fund for the retirement of preferred stock.
Prior Federal Reserve approval also must be obtained if a proposed dividend would exceed State Street Bank's “undivided profits” (retained earnings) as reported in its Call Reports. State Street Bank may include in its undivided profits amounts contained in its surplus account, if the amounts reflect transfers of undivided profits made in prior periods and if the Federal Reserve's approval for the transfer back to undivided profits has been obtained.
Under the prompt corrective action, or PCA, provisions adopted pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, State Street Bank may not pay a dividend when it is deemed, under the PCA framework, to be under-capitalized, or when the payment of the dividend would cause State Street Bank to be under-capitalized. If State Street Bank is under-capitalized for purposes of the PCA framework, it must cease paying dividends for so long as it is deemed to be under-capitalized. Once earnings have begun to improve and an adequate capital position has been restored, dividend payments may resume in accordance with federal and state statutory limitations and guidelines.
In 2012, the parent company declared quarterly common stock dividends to its shareholders totaling $0.96 per share, or approximately $456 million. In 2011, the parent company declared quarterly common stock dividends to its shareholders totaling $0.72 per share, or approximately $358 million. Currently, the prior approval of the Federal Reserve is required for the parent company to pay future common stock dividends to its shareholders. Information about our dividends and dividends from our subsidiary banks is provided under “Capital - Regulatory Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and in note 15 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference. Future dividend payments of State Street Bank and our non-banking subsidiaries cannot be determined at this time. In addition, refer to the risk factor titled “Our business and capital-related activities, including our ability to return capital to shareholders and purchase our capital stock, may be adversely affected by our implementation of the revised regulatory capital and liquidity standards that we must meet under the Basel II and Basel III capital and liquidity standards and the Dodd-Frank Act, or in the event our capital plan or post-stress capital ratios are determined to be insufficient as a result of regulatory stress testing” included under Item 1A of this Form 10-K.
31
In 2012, we issued and sold 20 million depositary shares, each representing a 1/4,000th ownership interest in a share of State Street’s non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, Series C, without par value, with a liquidation preference of $100,000 per share (equivalent to $25 per depositary share), in a public offering. We issued 5,000 shares of Series C preferred stock in connection with the depositary share offering. The aggregate proceeds from the offering, net of underwriting discounts, commissions and other issuance costs, were approximately $488 million.
We used the proceeds from the above-described offering, together with cash on hand, to redeem all 5,001 outstanding shares of our floating-rate non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, Series A, liquidation preference per share of $100,000, for an aggregate of approximately $500 million. The Series A preferred stock, issued in March 2011, was held by State Street Capital Trust III, and constituted the principal asset of the trust. Additional information about the Series C offering and the Series A redemption is provided in “Financial Condition – Capital” in Management's Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and in note 15 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, of this Form 10-K.
Information about our equity compensation plans is included under Item 12, and in note 14 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, of this Form 10-K, and is incorporated herein by reference.
32
SHAREHOLDER RETURN PERFORMANCE PRESENTATION
The graph presented below compares the cumulative total shareholder return on State Street's common stock to the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index and the S&P Financial Index over a five-year period. The cumulative total shareholder return assumes the investment of $100 in State Street common stock and in each index on December 31, 2007 at the closing price on the last trading day of 2007, and also assumes reinvestment of common stock dividends. The S&P Financial Index is a publicly available measure of 80 of the Standard & Poor's 500 companies, representing 26 diversified financial services companies, 22 insurance companies, 17 real estate companies and 15 banking companies.
Comparison of Five-Year Cumulative Total Shareholder Return
2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | ||||||||||||||||||
State Street Corporation | $ | 100 | $ | 49 | $ | 55 | $ | 58 | $ | 52 | $ | 61 | |||||||||||
S&P 500 Index | 100 | 63 | 80 | 92 | 94 | 109 | |||||||||||||||||
S&P Financial Index | 100 | 45 | 52 | 59 | 49 | 63 | |||||||||||||||||
33
ITEM 6. | SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA |
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts or where otherwise noted)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31: | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | ||||||||||||||
Total fee revenue | $ | 7,088 | $ | 7,194 | $ | 6,540 | $ | 5,935 | $ | 7,747 | |||||||||
Net interest revenue | 2,538 | 2,333 | 2,699 | 2,564 | 2,650 | ||||||||||||||
Gains (Losses) related to investment securities, net(1) | 23 | 67 | (286 | ) | 141 | (54 | ) | ||||||||||||
Gain on sale of CitiStreet interest, net of exit and other associated costs | — | — | — | — | 350 | ||||||||||||||
Total revenue | 9,649 | 9,594 | 8,953 | 8,640 | 10,693 | ||||||||||||||
Provision for loan losses | (3 | ) | — | 25 | 149 | — | |||||||||||||
Expenses: | |||||||||||||||||||
Expenses from operations | 6,905 | 6,789 | 6,176 | 5,667 | 6,780 | ||||||||||||||
Claims resolution | (362 | ) | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||
Provision for indemnification exposure | — | — | — | — | 200 | ||||||||||||||
Provisions for litigation exposure and other costs | 118 | — | — | 250 | — | ||||||||||||||
Securities lending charge | — | — | 414 | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Provision for investment account infusion | — | — | — | — | 450 | ||||||||||||||
Acquisition costs, net(2) | 26 | 16 | 96 | 49 | 115 | ||||||||||||||
Restructuring charges | 199 | 253 | 156 | — | 306 | ||||||||||||||
Total expenses | 6,886 | 7,058 | 6,842 | 5,966 | 7,851 | ||||||||||||||
Income before income tax expense and extraordinary loss | 2,766 | 2,536 | 2,086 | 2,525 | 2,842 | ||||||||||||||
Income tax expense(3) | 705 | 616 | 530 | 722 | 1,031 | ||||||||||||||
Income before extraordinary loss | 2,061 | 1,920 | 1,556 | 1,803 | 1,811 | ||||||||||||||
Extraordinary loss, net of taxes | — | — | — | (3,684 | ) | — | |||||||||||||
Net income (loss) | $ | 2,061 | $ | 1,920 | $ | 1,556 | $ | (1,881 | ) | $ | 1,811 | ||||||||
Adjustments to net income (loss)(4) | (42 | ) | (38 | ) | (16 | ) | (163 | ) | (22 | ) | |||||||||
Net income before extraordinary loss available to common shareholders | $ | 2,019 | $ | 1,882 | $ | 1,540 | $ | 1,640 | $ | 1,789 | |||||||||
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders | $ | 2,019 | $ | 1,882 | $ | 1,540 | $ | (2,044 | ) | $ | 1,789 | ||||||||
PER COMMON SHARE: | |||||||||||||||||||
Earnings per common share before extraordinary loss: | |||||||||||||||||||
Basic | $ | 4.25 | $ | 3.82 | $ | 3.11 | $ | 3.50 | $ | 4.32 | |||||||||
Diluted | 4.20 | 3.79 | 3.09 | 3.46 | 4.30 | ||||||||||||||
Earnings (loss) per common share: | |||||||||||||||||||
Basic | $ | 4.25 | $ | 3.82 | $ | 3.11 | $ | (4.32 | ) | $ | 4.32 | ||||||||
Diluted | 4.20 | 3.79 | 3.09 | (4.31 | ) | 4.30 | |||||||||||||
Cash dividends declared | .96 | .72 | .04 | .04 | .95 | ||||||||||||||
Closing market price (at year end) | $ | 47.01 | $ | 40.31 | $ | 46.34 | $ | 43.54 | $ | 39.33 | |||||||||
AT YEAR END: | |||||||||||||||||||
Investment securities | $ | 121,061 | $ | 109,153 | $ | 94,130 | $ | 93,576 | $ | 76,017 | |||||||||
Average total interest-earning assets | 167,615 | 147,657 | 126,256 | 122,923 | 132,625 | ||||||||||||||
Total assets | 222,582 | 216,827 | 160,505 | 157,946 | 173,631 | ||||||||||||||
Deposits | 164,181 | 157,287 | 98,345 | 90,062 | 112,225 | ||||||||||||||
Long-term debt | 7,429 | 8,131 | 8,550 | 8,838 | 4,419 | ||||||||||||||
Total shareholders' equity | 20,869 | 19,398 | 17,787 | 14,491 | 12,774 | ||||||||||||||
Assets under custody and administration (in billions) | 24,371 | 21,807 | 21,527 | 18,795 | 15,907 | ||||||||||||||
Assets under management (in billions) | 2,086 | 1,845 | 2,010 | 1,951 | 1,466 | ||||||||||||||
Number of employees | 29,660 | 29,740 | 28,670 | 27,310 | 28,475 | ||||||||||||||
RATIOS: | |||||||||||||||||||
Return on average common shareholders' equity before extraordinary loss | 10.3 | % | 10.0 | % | 9.5 | % | 13.2 | % | 14.8 | % | |||||||||
Return on average assets before extraordinary loss | 1.05 | 1.09 | 1.02 | 1.12 | 1.11 | ||||||||||||||
Common dividend payout before extraordinary loss | 22.43 | 18.83 | 1.29 | 1.17 | 22.4 | ||||||||||||||
Average common equity to average total assets | 10.1 | 10.9 | 10.8 | 8.5 | 7.5 | ||||||||||||||
Net interest margin, fully taxable-equivalent basis | 1.59 | 1.67 | 2.24 | 2.19 | 2.08 | ||||||||||||||
Tier 1 risk-based capital | 19.1 | 18.8 | 20.5 | 17.7 | 20.3 | ||||||||||||||
Total risk-based capital | 20.6 | 20.5 | 22.0 | 19.1 | 21.6 | ||||||||||||||
Tier 1 leverage ratio | 7.1 | 7.3 | 8.2 | 8.5 | 7.8 | ||||||||||||||
(1) Amount for 2012 reflected a $46 million loss from the sale of Greek investment securities; amount for 2010 included a net loss of $344 million related to a repositioning of the investment portfolio.
(2) Amounts for 2012 and 2011 reflected acquisition costs of $66 million and $71 million, respectively, offset by indemnification benefits of $40 million and $55 million, respectively, for the assumption of income tax liabilities related to the 2010 acquisition of the Intesa securities services business; amount for 2010 included a $7 million tax on bonus payments to employees in the U.K.
(3) Amounts for 2012 and 2011 reflected the net effects of certain tax matters ($7 million benefit and $55 million expense, respectively) associated with the 2010 Intesa acquisition. Amounts for 2011 and 2010 reflected discrete tax benefits of $103 million and $180 million, respectively, attributable to costs incurred in terminating former conduit asset structures.
(4) Amounts for 2012 and 2011 represented preferred stock dividends and the allocation of earnings to participating securities using the two-class method. Amount for 2010 represented the allocation of earnings to participating securities using the two-class method. Amounts for 2009 and 2008 represented dividends and discount related to preferred stock issued in connection with the U.S. Treasury's TARP program in 2008 and redeemed in 2009.
34
STATE STREET CORPORATION
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
35
ITEM 7. | MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS |
GENERAL
State Street Corporation, or the parent company, is a financial holding company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Unless otherwise indicated or unless the context requires otherwise, all references in this Management's Discussion and Analysis to “State Street,” “we,” “us,” “our” or similar terms mean State Street Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. Our principal banking subsidiary is State Street Bank and Trust Company, or State Street Bank. As of December 31, 2012, we had consolidated total assets of $222.58 billion, consolidated total deposits of $164.18 billion, consolidated total shareholders' equity of $20.87 billion and 29,660 employees. With $24.37 trillion of assets under custody and administration and $2.09 trillion of assets under management as of December 31, 2012, we are a leading specialist in meeting the needs of institutional investors worldwide.
We have two lines of business:
Investment Servicing provides services for mutual funds, collective investment funds and other investment pools, corporate and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations and endowments worldwide. Products include custody, product- and participant-level accounting, daily pricing and administration; master trust and master custody; record-keeping; foreign exchange, brokerage and other trading services; securities finance; deposit and short-term investment facilities; loans and lease financing; investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing; and performance, risk and compliance analytics to support institutional investors.
Investment Management, through State Street Global Advisors, or SSgA, provides a broad range of investment management strategies, specialized investment management advisory services and other financial services, such as securities finance, for corporations, public funds, and other sophisticated investors. Management strategies offered by SSgA include passive and active, such as enhanced indexing, using quantitative and fundamental methods for both U.S. and non-U.S. equity and fixed-income securities. SSgA also offers exchange-traded funds, or ETFs.
For financial and other information about our lines of business, refer to “Line of Business Information” included in this Management's Discussion and Analysis and in note 24 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
This Management's Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K. Certain previously reported amounts presented have been reclassified to conform to current-year presentation. We prepare our consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S., referred to as GAAP. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions in its application of certain accounting policies that materially affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses.
The significant accounting policies that require us to make estimates and assumptions that are difficult, subjective or complex about matters that are uncertain and may change in subsequent periods are accounting for fair-value measurements, other-than-temporary impairment of investment securities, and impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets. These significant accounting policies require the most subjective or complex judgments, and underlying estimates and assumptions could be subject to revision as new information becomes available. An understanding of the judgments, estimates and assumptions underlying these significant accounting policies is essential in order to understand our reported consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
Certain financial information presented in this Management's Discussion and Analysis is prepared on both a GAAP, or reported basis, and a non-GAAP, or operating basis. We measure and compare certain financial information on an operating basis, as we believe that this presentation supports meaningful comparisons from period to period and the analysis of comparable financial trends with respect to State Street's normal ongoing business operations. We believe that operating-basis financial information, which reports non-taxable revenue, such as interest revenue associated with tax-exempt investment securities, on a fully taxable-equivalent basis and excludes the impact of revenue and expenses outside of the normal course of our business, facilitates an investor's understanding and analysis of State Street's underlying financial performance and trends in addition to financial information prepared and reported in conformity with GAAP. Operating-basis financial information should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for or superior to, financial information prepared in conformity with GAAP. Any non-GAAP, or operating-basis, financial information presented in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis is reconciled to its most directly comparable GAAP-basis measure.
This Management's Discussion and Analysis contains statements that are considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations about financial performance, capital, market growth, acquisitions, joint ventures and divestitures, new technologies, services and opportunities
36
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
and earnings, management's confidence in our strategies and other matters that do not relate strictly to historical facts. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially. We undertake no obligation to revise the forward-looking statements contained in this Management's Discussion and Analysis to reflect events after the time we file this Form 10-K with the SEC. Additional information about forward-looking statements and related risks and uncertainties is provided in Risk Factors included under Item 1A of this Form 10-K.
OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
Years Ended December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | ||||||||
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts) | |||||||||||
Total fee revenue | $ | 7,088 | $ | 7,194 | $ | 6,540 | |||||
Net interest revenue | 2,538 | 2,333 | 2,699 | ||||||||
Gains (Losses) related to investment securities, net | 23 | 67 | (286 | ) | |||||||
Total revenue | 9,649 | 9,594 | 8,953 | ||||||||
Provision for loan losses | (3 | ) | — | 25 | |||||||
Expenses: | |||||||||||
Expenses from operations | 6,905 | 6,789 | 6,176 | ||||||||
Claims resolution(1) | (362 | ) | — | — | |||||||
Provisions for litigation exposure and other costs(2) | 118 | — | — | ||||||||
Securities lending charge | — | — | 414 | ||||||||
Acquisition costs, net(3) | 26 | 16 | 96 | ||||||||
Restructuring charges, net | 199 | 253 | 156 | ||||||||
Total expenses | 6,886 | 7,058 | 6,842 | ||||||||
Income before income tax expense | 2,766 | 2,536 | 2,086 | ||||||||
Income tax expense(4) | 705 | 616 | 530 | ||||||||
Net income | $ | 2,061 | $ | 1,920 | $ | 1,556 | |||||
Adjustments to net income: | |||||||||||
Dividends on preferred stock(5) | (29 | ) | (20 | ) | — | ||||||
Earnings allocated to participating securities(6) | (13 | ) | (18 | ) | (16 | ) | |||||
Net income available to common shareholders | $ | 2,019 | $ | 1,882 | $ | 1,540 | |||||
Earnings per common share: | |||||||||||
Basic | $ | 4.25 | $ | 3.82 | $ | 3.11 | |||||
Diluted | 4.20 | 3.79 | 3.09 | ||||||||
Average common shares outstanding (in thousands): | |||||||||||
Basic | 474,458 | 492,598 | 495,394 | ||||||||
Diluted | 481,129 | 496,072 | 497,924 | ||||||||
Cash dividends declared per common share | $ | .96 | $ | .72 | $ | .04 | |||||
Return on average common equity | 10.3 | % | 10.0 | % | 9.5 | % | |||||
(1)Represented a benefit related to claims associated with the 2008 Lehman Brothers bankruptcy; refer to “Consolidated Results of Operations - Expenses” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.
(2)Composed of provisions totaling $80 million for exposure primarily related to previously disclosed litigation associated with asset management and securities lending, a special one-time additional charitable contribution of $25 million, and a $13 million loss related to a Lehman Brothers-related OREO property. Additional information about our litigation and other exposure is provided in note 11 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
(3)Amounts for 2012 and 2011 reflected acquisition costs of $66 million and $71 million, respectively, offset by indemnification benefits of $40 million and $55 million, respectively, for the assumption of income tax liabilities related to the 2010 acquisition of the Intesa securities services business. Amount for 2010 included a $7 million tax on bonus payments to employees in the U.K.
(4)Amounts for 2012 and 2011 reflected the net effects of certain tax matters ($7 million benefit and $55 million expense, respectively) associated with the 2010 Intesa acquisition. Amounts for 2011 and 2010 reflected discrete income tax benefits of $103 million and $180 million, respectively, attributable to costs incurred in terminating former conduit asset structures.
(5)Amount for 2012 included $8 million related to Series C Preferred stock and $21 million related to Series A Preferred stock; amount for 2011 related to Series A Preferred stock.
(6)Refer to note 23 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
37
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
The following “Highlights” and “Financial Results” sections provide information related to significant 2012 events, as well as highlights of our consolidated financial results for 2012 presented in the preceding table. More detailed information about our consolidated financial results, including comparisons of our results for 2012 to those for 2011, is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations,” which follows these sections.
Highlights
In March 2012, following our receipt of the results of the Federal Reserve's review of our 2012 capital plan, with respect to which the Federal Reserve did not object to the capital actions we proposed, we took two significant actions. First, we declared a quarterly common stock dividend of $0.24 per share, or approximately $118 million, which was paid in April 2012. This action restored our common stock dividend to its previous split-adjusted high. In all of 2012, we declared quarterly common stock dividends totaling $0.96 per share, or approximately $456 million. In 2011, we declared quarterly common stock dividends totaling $0.72 per share, or approximately $358 million.
Second, our Board of Directors approved a new common stock purchase program authorizing the purchase by us of up to $1.80 billion of our common stock through March 31, 2013. This new program followed our 2011 common stock purchase program, under which we purchased approximately 16.3 million shares of our common stock at an aggregate cost of approximately $675 million, all in 2011. In 2012, we purchased approximately 33.4 million shares of our common stock, all under the March 2012 program, at an aggregate cost of $1.44 billion. Shares acquired in connection with these purchase programs which remained unissued as of year-end were recorded as treasury stock in our consolidated statement of condition as of December 31, 2012 and 2011.
The Federal Reserve is currently conducting a review of 2013 capital plans submitted by us and by other systemically important financial institutions in January 2013. The levels at which we will be able to declare dividends and purchase shares of our common stock subsequent to the Federal Reserve's review and our receipt of the results of that review will depend on the Federal Reserve's assessment of our capital plan. Additional information about our common stock dividends and our common stock purchase program is provided under “Financial Condition – Capital” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis. In addition, information about dividends from our subsidiary banks is provided in “Related Stockholder Matters” included under Item 5 of this Form 10-K.
We continued the implementation of our Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program. In connection with the program, in 2011 and 2012, we achieved approximately $86 million and $112 million, respectively, of incremental pre-tax expense savings, primarily employee compensation and benefits expenses, resulting in cumulative pre-tax expense savings as of December 31, 2012 of $198 million since the program's inception in 2010. Incremental pre-tax expense savings in 2013 are forecasted to be approximately $220 million. These pre-tax expense savings relate only to the Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program and are based on projected improvement from our total 2010 expenses from operations. Our actual total expenses have increased since 2010, and may in the future increase or decrease, due to other factors. Additional information about our Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations – Expenses” in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis.
In December 2012, we recorded pre-tax restructuring charges of $133 million associated with targeted staff reductions announced in January 2013 and expected to be substantially completed during 2013. The targeted staff reductions, which were separate from those associated with our Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program, were undertaken to better align our expenses to our business strategy and related outlook for 2013, and will involve the elimination of approximately 630 positions worldwide. More detailed information about these charges, as well as charges associated with other expense control measures and with the Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program, is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations - Expenses” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.
In December 2012, State Street Bank issued $1 billion of 13-month extendible senior unsecured floating-rate notes. Each of the notes had an initial maturity date of January 13, 2014; on the 18th day of each month, commencing January 18, 2013, holders are entitled to extend the maturity date of their notes for successive one-month periods in accordance with defined procedures. Pursuant to these procedures, the maturity of all of these notes has been extended to March 18, 2014. Additional information about the extendible notes is provided in note 10 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
In October 2012, we completed our acquisition of Goldman Sachs Administration Services, or GSAS, a global hedge-fund service provider with approximately $200 billion of single-manager hedge fund assets under administration, at a total purchase price of approximately $550 million, subject to certain adjustments. Additional information about the GSAS acquisition is provided in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
In September 2012, we reached an agreement to settle our claims against the Lehman Brothers estate in the U.K., resolving the remainder of our indemnified repurchase and securities lending claims in the U.S. and the U.K. associated with
38
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
the 2008 Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. In connection with the resolution of these claims in the U.S. and the U.K., we recognized a benefit of approximately $362 million in our consolidated statement of income. Additional information about the settlement and related benefit is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations - Expenses” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.
In August 2012, we issued and sold 20 million depositary shares, each representing a 1/4,000th ownership interest in a share of State Street’s non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, Series C, without par value, with a liquidation preference of $100,000 per share (equivalent to $25 per depositary share), in a public offering. We issued 5,000 shares of Series C preferred stock in connection with the depositary share offering. The aggregate proceeds from the offering, net of underwriting discounts, commissions and other issuance costs, were approximately $488 million.
In October 2012, we used the proceeds from the above-described offering, together with cash on hand, to redeem all 5,001 outstanding shares of our floating-rate non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, Series A, liquidation preference per share of $100,000, for an aggregate payment of approximately $500 million. The Series A preferred stock, issued in March 2011, was held by State Street Capital Trust III, and constituted the principal asset of the trust. Additional information about the Series C offering and the Series A redemption is provided under “Financial Condition – Capital” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis, and in note 13 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, of this Form 10-K.
Financial Results
Total revenue for 2012 increased 1% compared to 2011, primarily the result of a slight increase in servicing fee revenue and an 8% increase in management fee revenue, as well as a higher level of net interest revenue, partly offset by declines in trading services revenue and processing fees and other revenue.
Servicing fees for 2012 increased 1% from 2011, mainly due to stronger equity markets, the impact of net new business and revenue added from acquired businesses, partly offset by the impacts of the weaker Euro and client de-risking. In both 2012 and 2011, servicing fees generated outside the U.S.were approximately 42% of total servicing fees. Management fees for 2012 increased 8% from 2011, primarily due to the impact of stronger equity markets, net new business and higher performance fees. Management fees generated outside the U.S. in 2012 were approximately 37% of total management fees, compared to 41% in 2011, with the decline mainly the result of higher levels of management fees generated in the U.S.
Trading services revenue for 2012 declined 17%, mainly the result of a decline in revenue from foreign exchange trading, due to lower currency volatility, and changes in product mix, partly offset by higher client volumes. Securities finance revenue for 2012 increased 7% as a result of higher spreads across all lending programs, partly offset by lower lending volumes.
Net interest revenue for 2012 increased 9% compared to 2011. The overall increase generally resulted from higher levels of interest-earning assets, mainly related to our investment of higher levels of excess client deposits primarily with the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, or ECB; growth in the investment portfolio, as we purchased additional securities; and lower funding costs. These increases were partly offset by the impact of generally lower rates on interest-earning assets. Net interest revenue for 2012 and 2011 included $215 million and $220 million, respectively, of discount accretion related to investment securities added to our consolidated statement of condition in connection with our 2009 asset-backed commercial paper conduit consolidation.
Net interest margin, calculated on fully taxable-equivalent net interest revenue, declined 8 basis points to 1.59% in 2012 from 1.67% in 2011. The investment of excess client deposits, amid continued market uncertainty, increased our average interest-earning assets and our net interest revenue, but negatively affected our net interest margin, as we generally placed such deposits with central banks, and as a result earned the relatively low interest rates paid by the central banks on these balances. Discount accretion, fully taxable-equivalent net interest revenue and net interest margin are discussed in more detail under “Consolidated Results of Operations - Net Interest Revenue” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.
As presented in the foregoing “Overview of Financial Results” table, our total expenses declined 2% from 2011. The 2012 expenses reflected the aforementioned benefit of $362 million related to settlements of claims against the Lehman Brothers estate in connection with our resolution of the indemnified repurchase and securities lending claims in the U.S. and the U.K. This benefit was mostly offset by aggregate acquisition and restructuring costs of $225 million and provisions for litigation exposure and other costs of $118 million. These provisions were mainly related to previously disclosed litigation associated with asset management and securities lending. The 2011 expenses included aggregate acquisition and restructuring costs of $269 million.
Compensation and employee benefits expenses were relatively flat in 2012 compared to 2011, as costs associated with merit increases and acquisitions in 2012 were almost completely offset by the savings associated with the execution of our Business Operations and Information Technology Transformation program. Compensation and employee benefits expenses included approximately $90 million of costs related to our implementation of the program in 2012, compared to approximately $47 million of such costs in 2011, which costs are not expected to recur subsequent to full implementation of the program.
39
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
More detailed information with respect to our expenses is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations - Expenses” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.
In 2012, we secured mandates for approximately $1.2 trillion of new business in assets to be serviced; of the total, $671 billion was installed prior to December 31, 2012, with the remaining $551 billion expected to be installed in later periods. The new business not installed by December 31, 2012 was not included in assets under custody and administration as of that date, and had no impact on servicing fee revenue for 2012, as the assets are not included until their installation is complete and we begin to service them. Once installed, the assets generate servicing fee revenue in subsequent periods in which the assets are serviced. We will provide one or more of various services for these new assets to be serviced, including accounting, fund administration, custody, foreign exchange, securities finance, transfer agency, performance analytics, compliance reporting and monitoring, hedge fund servicing, private equity administration, real estate administration, depository banking services, wealth management services, and investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing.
In 2012, SSgA added approximately $81 billion of net new business in assets to be managed; this net new business includes the previously-disclosed impact of approximately $31 billion of planned redemptions related to the U.S. Treasury's winding down of its portfolio of agency-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities completed in 2012. The net new business of $81 billion was generally composed of approximately $35 billion of net inflows into fixed-income funds, primarily passive; approximately $41 billion of net inflows into ETFs; and approximately $7 billion of net inflows into active and enhanced equity funds; partly offset by approximately $2 billion of net outflows from managed cash.
An additional $18 billion of new business awarded to SSgA but not installed by December 31, 2012 was not included in assets under management as of that date, and had no impact on management fee revenue for 2012, as the assets are not included until their installation is complete and we begin to manage them. Once installed, the assets generate management fee revenue in subsequent periods in which the assets are managed.
CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
This section discusses our consolidated results of operations for 2012 compared to 2011, and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K. A comparison of consolidated results of operations for 2011 with those for 2010 is provided in this Management's Discussion and Analysis under “Comparison of 2011 and 2010.”
TOTAL REVENUE
Years Ended December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | % Change 2011-2012 | ||||||||||
(Dollars in millions) | ||||||||||||||
Fee revenue: | ||||||||||||||
Servicing fees | $ | 4,414 | $ | 4,382 | $ | 3,938 | 1 | % | ||||||
Management fees | 993 | 917 | 829 | 8 | ||||||||||
Trading services: | ||||||||||||||
Foreign exchange trading | 511 | 683 | 597 | (25 | ) | |||||||||
Brokerage and other trading services | 499 | 537 | 509 | (7 | ) | |||||||||
Total trading services | 1,010 | 1,220 | 1,106 | (17 | ) | |||||||||
Securities finance | 405 | 378 | 318 | 7 | ||||||||||
Processing fees and other | 266 | 297 | 349 | (10 | ) | |||||||||
Total fee revenue | 7,088 | 7,194 | 6,540 | (1 | ) | |||||||||
Net interest revenue: | ||||||||||||||
Interest revenue | 3,014 | 2,946 | 3,462 | 2 | ||||||||||
Interest expense | 476 | 613 | 763 | (22 | ) | |||||||||
Net interest revenue | 2,538 | 2,333 | 2,699 | 9 | ||||||||||
Gains (Losses) related to investment securities, net | 23 | 67 | (286 | ) | ||||||||||
Total revenue | $ | 9,649 | $ | 9,594 | $ | 8,953 | 1 | |||||||
Our broad range of services generates fee revenue and net interest revenue. Fee revenue generated by our investment servicing and investment management businesses is augmented by trading services, securities finance and processing fees and other revenue. We earn net interest revenue from client deposits and short-term investment activities by providing deposit
40
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
services and short-term investment vehicles, such as repurchase agreements and commercial paper, to meet clients' needs for high-grade liquid investments, and investing these sources of funds and additional borrowings in assets yielding a higher rate.
Fee Revenue
Servicing and management fees collectively composed approximately 76% of our total fee revenue for 2012 and 74% for 2011. The level of these fees is influenced by several factors, including the mix and volume of assets under custody and administration and assets under management, securities positions held and the volume of portfolio transactions, and the types of products and services used by clients, and is generally affected by changes in worldwide equity and fixed-income security valuations.
Generally, servicing fees are affected, in part, by changes in daily average valuations of assets under custody and administration. Additional factors, such as the relative mix of assets serviced, the level of transaction volumes, changes in service level, the nature of services provided, balance credits, client minimum balances, pricing concessions and other factors, may have a significant effect on our servicing fee revenue.
Generally, management fees are affected, in part, by changes in month-end valuations of assets under management. Management fee revenue is relatively more sensitive to market valuations than servicing fee revenue, since a higher proportion of the underlying services provided, and the associated management fees earned, are dependent on equity and fixed-income values. Additional factors, such as the relative mix of assets managed, changes in service level and other factors, may have a significant effect on our management fee revenue. While certain management fees are directly determined by the value of assets under management and the investment strategy employed, management fees reflect other factors as well, including our relationship pricing for clients using multiple services. Management fees for actively managed products are generally earned at higher rates than those for passive products. Actively managed products may also involve performance fee arrangements. Performance fees are generated when the performance of certain managed funds exceeds benchmarks specified in the management agreements. Generally, we experience more volatility with performance fees than with more traditional management fees.
In light of the above, we estimate, assuming all other factors remain constant, that a 10% increase or decrease in worldwide equity valuations would result in a corresponding change in our total revenue of approximately 2%. If fixed-income security valuations were to increase or decrease by 10%, we would anticipate a corresponding change of approximately 1% in our total revenue.
The following table presents selected equity market indices. Daily averages and the averages of month-end indices demonstrate worldwide changes in equity markets that affect our servicing and management fee revenue, respectively. Year-end indices affect the value of assets under custody and administration and assets under management as of those dates. The index names listed in the table are service marks of their respective owners.
INDEX
Daily Averages of Indices | Averages of Month-End Indices | Year-End Indices | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2012 | 2011 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | ||||||||||||||||||
S&P 500® | 1,379 | 1,268 | 9 | % | 1,387 | 1,281 | 8 | % | 1,426 | 1,258 | 13 | % | ||||||||||||||
NASDAQ® | 2,966 | 2,677 | 11 | 2,984 | 2,701 | 10 | 3,020 | 2,605 | 16 | |||||||||||||||||
MSCI EAFE® | 1,489 | 1,590 | (6 | ) | 1,499 | 1,609 | (7 | ) | 1,604 | 1,413 | 14 | |||||||||||||||
41
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
FEE REVENUE
Years Ended December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | % Change 2011-2012 | ||||||||||
(Dollars in millions) | ||||||||||||||
Servicing fees | $ | 4,414 | $ | 4,382 | $ | 3,938 | 1 | % | ||||||
Management fees | 993 | 917 | 829 | 8 | ||||||||||
Trading services: | ||||||||||||||
Foreign exchange trading | 511 | 683 | 597 | (25 | ) | |||||||||
Brokerage and other trading services | 499 | 537 | 509 | (7 | ) | |||||||||
Total trading services | 1,010 | 1,220 | 1,106 | (17 | ) | |||||||||
Securities finance | 405 | 378 | 318 | 7 | ||||||||||
Processing fees and other | 266 | 297 | 349 | (10 | ) | |||||||||
Total fee revenue | $ | 7,088 | $ | 7,194 | $ | 6,540 | (1 | ) | ||||||
Servicing Fees
Servicing fees include fee revenue from U.S. mutual funds, collective investment funds worldwide, corporate and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations, endowments, and other investment pools. Products and services include custody; product- and participant-level accounting; daily pricing and administration; record-keeping; investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing; master trust and master custody; and performance, risk and compliance analytics.
We are the largest provider of mutual fund custody and accounting services in the U.S., based on asset rankings published in the 2012 Mutual Fund Service Guide. We distinguish ourselves from other mutual fund service providers by offering clients a broad range of integrated products and services, including accounting, daily pricing and fund administration. As of December 31, 2012, we calculated approximately 39.5% of the U.S. mutual fund prices provided to NASDAQ that appeared daily in The Wall Street Journal and other publications with an accuracy rate of 99.94%. We serviced U.S. tax-exempt assets for corporate and public pension funds, and we provided trust and valuation services for more than 5,800 daily-priced portfolios as of December 31, 2012.
We are a service provider outside of the U.S. as well. In Germany, Italy, France and Luxembourg, we provide depotbank services (a fund oversight role created by regulation) for retail and institutional fund assets, as well as custody and other services to pension plans and other institutional clients. In the U.K., we provide custody services for pension fund assets and administration services for mutual fund assets. As of December 31, 2012, we serviced approximately $914 billion of offshore assets, primarily domiciled in Ireland, Luxembourg and Canada. As of December 31, 2012, we serviced $1.11 trillion of assets under administration in the Asia/Pacific region, and in Japan, we serviced approximately 96% of the trust assets serviced by non-domestic trust banks.
We are an alternative asset servicing provider worldwide, servicing hedge, private equity and real estate funds. As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $1.12 trillion of alternative assets under administration.
The 1% increase in servicing fees compared to 2011 primarily resulted from the impact of stronger equity markets, the impact of net new business installed on current-year revenue, and the addition of revenue from acquired businesses, primarily GSAS. These factors were largely offset by the impacts of the weaker Euro and de-risking by clients, as they remained conservative in their investment allocations. The combined daily averages of equity market valuations, individually presented in the foregoing “INDEX” table, were up an average of approximately 5% compared to 2011. For both 2012 and 2011, servicing fees generated outside the U.S. were approximately 42% of total servicing fees.
The following tables present the components, financial instrument mix and geographic mix of assets under custody and administration as of the dates indicated:
42
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
ASSETS UNDER CUSTODY AND ADMINISTRATION
As of December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2011-2012 Annual Growth Rate | 2008-2012 Compound Annual Growth Rate | ||||||||||||||||||
(Dollars in billions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mutual funds | $ | 5,852 | $ | 5,265 | $ | 5,540 | $ | 4,734 | $ | 4,093 | 11 | % | 9 | % | |||||||||||
Collective funds | 5,363 | 4,437 | 4,350 | 3,580 | 2,679 | 21 | 19 | ||||||||||||||||||
Pension products | 5,339 | 4,837 | 4,726 | 4,395 | 3,621 | 10 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||
Insurance and other products | 7,817 | 7,268 | 6,911 | 6,086 | 5,514 | 8 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total | $ | 24,371 | $ | 21,807 | $ | 21,527 | $ | 18,795 | $ | 15,907 | 12 | 11 | |||||||||||||
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT MIX OF ASSETS UNDER CUSTODY AND ADMINISTRATION
As of December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | ||||||||
(In billions) | |||||||||||
Equities | $ | 12,276 | $ | 10,849 | $ | 11,000 | |||||
Fixed-income | 8,885 | 8,317 | 7,875 | ||||||||
Short-term and other investments | 3,210 | 2,641 | 2,652 | ||||||||
Total | $ | 24,371 | $ | 21,807 | $ | 21,527 | |||||
GEOGRAPHIC MIX OF ASSETS UNDER CUSTODY AND ADMINISTRATION(1)
As of December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | ||||||||
(In billions) | |||||||||||
United States | $ | 17,711 | $ | 15,745 | $ | 15,889 | |||||
Other Americas | 752 | 622 | 599 | ||||||||
Europe/Middle East/Africa | 4,801 | 4,400 | 4,067 | ||||||||
Asia/Pacific | 1,107 | 1,040 | 972 | ||||||||
Total | $ | 24,371 | $ | 21,807 | $ | 21,527 | |||||
(1)Geographic mix is based on the location at which the assets are serviced.
The increase in total servicing assets from 2011 to 2012 primarily resulted from net increases in worldwide equity markets, net client subscriptions, and a higher level of net new servicing business installations in 2012 compared to net new servicing business installations in 2011. Total servicing asset levels as of December 31, 2012 did not reflect the $551 billion of new business in assets to be serviced awarded to us in 2012 but not installed prior to December 31, 2012. The value of assets under custody and administration is a broad measure of the relative size of various markets served. Changes in the values of assets under custody and administration do not necessarily result in proportional changes in our servicing fee revenue.
Management Fees
Through SSgA, we provide a broad range of investment management strategies, specialized investment management advisory services and other financial services for corporations, public funds, and other sophisticated investors. SSgA offers a broad array of investment management strategies, including passive and active, such as enhanced indexing, using quantitative and fundamental methods for both U.S. and global equity and fixed-income securities. SSgA also offers ETFs, such as the SPDR® ETF brand. While certain management fees are directly determined by the value of assets under management and the investment strategy employed, management fees reflect other factors as well, including our relationship pricing for clients who use multiple services, and the benchmarks specified in the respective management agreements related to performance fees.
43
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
The 8% increase in management fees compared to 2011 primarily resulted from stronger equity markets, the impact of net new business installed on current-year revenue and higher performance fees. Combined average month-end equity market valuations, individually presented in the foregoing “INDEX” table, were up an average of approximately 5% compared to 2011. Management fees generated outside the U.S. were approximately 37% of total management fees for 2012 and 41% for 2011, with the decline mainly the result of higher levels of management fees generated in the U.S.
The following tables present the components and geographic mix of assets under management as of the dates indicated.
ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT
As of December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2011-2012 Annual Growth Rate | 2008-2012 Compound Annual Growth Rate | ||||||||||||||||||
(Dollars in billions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Passive: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equities | $ | 755 | $ | 638 | $ | 655 | $ | 504 | $ | 344 | 18 | % | 22 | % | |||||||||||
Fixed-income | 292 | 246 | 363 | 395 | 200 | 19 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||
Exchange-traded funds(1) | 337 | 274 | 255 | 205 | 170 | 23 | 19 | ||||||||||||||||||
Other(2) | 211 | 195 | 210 | 211 | 163 | 8 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Passive | 1,595 | 1,353 | 1,483 | 1,315 | 877 | 18 | 16 | ||||||||||||||||||
Active: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equities | 52 | 50 | 55 | 66 | 72 | 4 | (8 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
Fixed-income | 17 | 19 | 17 | 25 | 32 | (11 | ) | (15 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Other | 55 | 45 | 28 | 28 | 17 | 22 | 34 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Active | 124 | 114 | 100 | 119 | 121 | 9 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
Cash | 367 | 378 | 427 | 517 | 468 | (3 | ) | (6 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Total | $ | 2,086 | $ | 1,845 | $ | 2,010 | $ | 1,951 | $ | 1,466 | 13 | 9 | |||||||||||||
(1)Includes SPDR® Gold Fund, for which State Street is not the investment manager but acts as distribution agent.
(2)Includes currency, alternatives, assets passed to sub-advisors and multi-asset class solutions.
GEOGRAPHIC MIX OF ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT(1)
As of December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | ||||||||
(In billions) | |||||||||||
United States | $ | 1,394 | $ | 1,285 | $ | 1,425 | |||||
Other Americas | 39 | 30 | 29 | ||||||||
Europe/Middle East/Africa | 351 | 320 | 341 | ||||||||
Asia/Pacific | 302 | 210 | 215 | ||||||||
Total | $ | 2,086 | $ | 1,845 | $ | 2,010 | |||||
(1)Geographic mix is based on the location at which the assets are managed.
The increase in total assets under management from 2011 to 2012 resulted from net market appreciation during the year in the values of the assets managed, as well as net new business installed of $81 billion, which included the previously-disclosed impact of the planned redemption in 2012 of $31 billion of assets in connection with the Department of the U.S. Treasury's winding down of its portfolio of agency-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. In 2012, ETF assets under management increased 23%, due partly to $41 billion of net inflows, passive equities under management increased 18% and passive fixed-income assets under management increased 19%, the result of net inflows, partly offset by the impact of the above-described U.S. Treasury asset redemptions.
44
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
The following table presents activity in assets under management for the three years ended December 31:
ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT
Years Ended December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | ||||||||
(In billions) | |||||||||||
Balance at beginning of year | $ | 1,845 | $ | 2,010 | $ | 1,951 | |||||
Net new (lost) business | 112 | (30 | ) | (12 | ) | ||||||
Sales of U.S. Treasury portfolio of asset-backed securities(1) | (31 | ) | (125 | ) | (56 | ) | |||||
Assets added from Bank of Ireland Asset Management acquisition | — | 23 | — | ||||||||
Market appreciation (depreciation) | 160 | (33 | ) | 127 | |||||||
Balance at end of year | $ | 2,086 | $ | 1,845 | $ | 2,010 | |||||
(1) Amounts were associated with the U.S. Treasury's winding down of its portfolio of agency-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities.
The net new business of $81 billion for 2012 presented in the table did not include $18 billion of new business awarded to SSgA in 2012 but not installed prior to December 31, 2012. This new business will be reflected in assets under management in future periods after installation, and will generate management fee revenue in subsequent periods.
Trading Services
The following table summarizes the components of trading services revenue for the years ended December 31:
Years Ended December 31, | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | % Change 2011-2012 | ||||||||||
(Dollars in millions) | ||||||||||||||
Foreign exchange trading: | ||||||||||||||
Direct sales and trading | $ | 263 | $ | 352 | $ | 261 | (25 | )% | ||||||
Indirect foreign exchange trading | 248 | 331 | 336 | (25 | ) | |||||||||
Total foreign exchange trading | 511 | 683 | 597 | (25 | ) | |||||||||
Brokerage and other trading services: | ||||||||||||||
Electronic foreign exchange trading | 210 | 249 | 211 | (16 | ) | |||||||||
Other trading, transition management and brokerage | 289 | 288 | 298 | — | ||||||||||
Total brokerage and other trading services | 499 | 537 | 509 | (7 | ) | |||||||||
Total trading services revenue | $ | 1,010 | $ | 1,220 | $ | 1,106 | (17 | ) | ||||||
Trading services revenue includes revenue from foreign exchange trading, as well as revenue from brokerage and other trading services. We earn foreign exchange trading revenue by acting as a principal market maker. We offer a range of foreign exchange, or FX, products, services and execution models. Most of our FX products and execution services can be grouped into three broad categories, which are further explained below: “direct sales and trading FX,” “indirect FX” and “electronic foreign exchange trading.” With respect to electronic foreign exchange trading, we provide an execution venue but do not act as agent or principal.
We also offer a range of brokerage and other trading products tailored specifically to meet the needs of the global pension community, including transition management, commission recapture and self-directed brokerage. These products are differentiated by our position as an agent of the institutional investor. Revenue earned from these brokerage and other trading products is recorded in other trading, transition management and brokerage within brokerage and other trading services revenue.
Foreign exchange trading revenue is influenced by three principal factors: the volume and type of client FX transactions; currency volatility; and the management of currency and rate market risks. Revenue earned from direct sales and trading FX and indirect FX is recorded in foreign exchange trading revenue. Revenue earned from electronic foreign exchange trading is recorded in brokerage and other trading services revenue.
The 17% decline in trading services revenue compared to 2011, composed of separate changes related to FX trading and brokerage and other trading services, is explained below.
45
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
Total FX trading revenue declined 25% compared to 2011. The decline was primarily the result of declines in currency volatility and spreads, partly offset by higher client volumes. This revenue was also affected by changes in mix between direct and indirect FX trading activities. We enter into FX transactions with clients and investment managers that contact our trading desk directly. These trades are all executed at negotiated rates. We refer to this activity, and our principal market-making activities, as “direct sales and trading FX.” Alternatively, clients or their investment managers may elect to route FX transactions to our FX desk through our asset-servicing operation; we refer to this activity as “indirect FX.” We execute indirect FX trades as a principal at rates disclosed to our clients. We calculate revenue for indirect FX using an attribution methodology based on estimated effective mark-ups/downs and observed client volumes.
For 2012 and 2011, our estimated indirect FX revenue declined 25%, mainly the result of lower volatility, a 17% decline in client volumes and lower spreads. All other FX revenue, other than this indirect FX revenue estimate, is estimated and considered by us to be direct sales and trading FX revenue. For 2012</