American Express - 10-K annual report 2017

American Express Company, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global services company that provides customers with access to products, insights and experiences that enrich lives and build business success. Our principal products and services are charge and credit card products and travel-related services offered to consumers and businesses around the world.

We were founded in 1850 as a joint stock association and were incorporated in 1965 as a New York corporation. American Express Company and its principal operating subsidiary, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), are bank holding companies under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the BHC Act), subject to supervision and examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve).

Our headquarters are located in lower Manhattan, New York, New York. We also have offices in other locations throughout the world.

During 2017, we principally engaged in businesses comprising four reportable operating segments: U.S. Consumer Services, International Consumer and Network Services, Global Commercial Services and Global Merchant Services. Corporate functions and certain other businesses are included in Corporate & Other. You can find information regarding our reportable operating segments, geographic operations and classes of similar services in Note 25 to our “Consolidated Financial Statements.”

Our various products and services are sold globally to diverse customer groups, including consumers, small businesses, mid-sized companies and large corporations. These products and services are sold through various channels, including online applications, direct mail, in-house teams, third-party vendors and direct response advertising. Business travel-related services are offered through our non-consolidated joint venture, American Express Global Business Travel (the GBT JV).

Our general-purpose card network, card-issuing and merchant-acquiring and processing businesses are global in scope. We are a world leader in providing charge and credit cards to consumers, small businesses, mid-sized companies and large corporations. These cards include cards issued by American Express as well as cards issued by third-party banks and other institutions that are accepted by merchants on the American Express network. American Express^® cards permit Card Members to charge purchases of goods and services in most countries around the world at the millions of merchants that accept cards bearing our logo.

Our business as a whole has not experienced significant seasonal fluctuations, although card billed business tends to be moderately higher in the fourth quarter than in other quarters. As a result, the amount of Card Member loans and receivables outstanding tend to be moderately higher during that quarter. The average discount rate also tends to be slightly lower during the fourth quarter due to a higher level of retail-related billed business volumes.

Our brand and its attributes—trust, security and service—are key assets. We invest heavily in managing, marketing, promoting and protecting our brand, including through the delivery of our products and services in a manner consistent with our brand promise. Our brand has consistently been rated one of the most valuable brands in the world. We also place significant importance on trademarks, service marks and patents, and seek to secure our intellectual property rights around the world.

 

 

Wherever we manage both the card-issuing activities of the business and the acquiring relationship with merchants, there is a “closed loop” in that we have direct access to information at both ends of the card transaction, which distinguishes our integrated network from the bankcard networks. We maintain direct relationships with both our Card Members (as a card issuer) and merchants (as an acquirer), and we handle all key aspects of those relationships. Through contractual relationships, we also obtain data from third-party card issuers, merchant acquirers and processors with whom we do business. Our integrated network allows us to analyze information on Card Member spending and build algorithms and other analytical tools that we use to underwrite risk, reduce fraud and provide targeted marketing and other information services for merchants and special offers and services to Card Members through a variety of channels, all while respecting Card Member preferences and protecting Card Member and merchant data in compliance with applicable policies and legal requirements.

Our “spend-centric” business model focuses on generating revenues primarily by driving spending on our cards and secondarily by finance charges and fees. Spending on our cards, which is higher on average on a per-card basis versus our competitors, offers superior value to merchants in the form of loyal customers and larger transactions. Because of the revenues generated from having high-spending Card Members, we are able to invest in attractive rewards and other benefits for Card Members, as well as targeted marketing and other programs and investments for merchants. This creates incentives for Card Members to spend more on their cards and positively differentiates American Express cards.

We believe our integrated network and spend-centric model give us the ability to provide differentiated value to Card Members, merchants and our card-issuing partners.^*

 

We offer a wide range of charge cards and revolving credit cards to consumers in the United States and internationally through our U.S. Consumer Services (USCS) and International Consumer & Network Services (ICNS) segments. In addition to our proprietary cards, we partner with banks and other organizations to issue American Express-branded products. Moreover, we offer several services that complement our core business, including consumer travel services and deposit and non-card financing products such as installment lending.

Our global proprietary card business offers a broad set of card products, rewards and services to acquire and retain high-spending, engaged and creditworthy Card Members. Core elements of our strategy are:

Our charge cards are designed primarily as a method of payment with Card Members generally paying the full amount billed each month. Charges are approved based on a variety of factors, including a Card Member’s current spending patterns, payment history, credit record and financial resources. Some charge card accounts have features that allow Card Members to revolve certain charges. Revolving credit card products provide Card Members with the flexibility to pay their bill in full each month or carry a monthly balance on their cards to finance the purchase of goods or services. Some revolving credit cards in the United States have the Plan It^SM feature, which eligible Card Members can use to set up a monthly payment for certain purchases over a fixed period of time.

The GNS business has established card-issuing and/or merchant-acquiring arrangements with banks and other institutions in approximately 130 countries and territories.

In our Global Commercial Services (GCS) segment, we offer a wide range of card and payment programs, expense management tools, consulting services, business financing and cross-border payments solutions to small businesses, mid-size companies and large corporations around the world.

We have a suite of business-to-business payment solutions to help companies manage their spending and realize other potential benefits, including cost savings, process control and efficiency, and improved cash flow management. We offer local currency corporate cards and other expense management products in approximately 95 countries and territories, and have global U.S. dollar and euro corporate cards available in approximately 110 countries and territories. We also provide products and services, including charge cards, revolving credit cards and non-card payment and financing solutions, to small and mid-sized businesses in the United States and internationally.

We also engage in advocacy efforts on behalf of small businesses and seek to increase awareness of the importance of small businesses in our communities, including by continuing to lead Small Business Saturday^®.

Our Global Merchant Services (GMS) business builds and maintains relationships with merchants, merchant acquirers, aggregators and processors, and processes card transactions and settles with merchants that choose to accept our cards for purchases. We sign merchants to accept our cards and provide fraud-prevention tools, marketing solutions, digital assets and other programs and services to merchants leveraging the capabilities provided by our integrated network.

Through our direct and inbound channels, we contract with merchants, agree on the discount rate (a fee charged to the merchant for accepting our cards) and handle servicing. We also work with third parties to acquire small- and medium-sized merchants. For example, through our OptBlue^® merchant-acquiring program, third-party processors contract directly with small merchants for card acceptance and determine merchant pricing. The OptBlue program provides an alternative for eligible small merchants who may prefer to deal with one acquirer for all their card acceptance needs. OptBlue processors provide relevant merchant data back to us so we can maintain our closed loop of transaction data.

We continue to grow merchant acceptance of American Express cards around the world. We estimate that, as of the end of 2017, our merchant network in the United States could accommodate nearly 95 percent of general-purpose card spending. Our international spend coverage is more limited, although we continue to focus on expanding our merchant network in locations outside the United States. We estimate that our international merchant network as a whole could accommodate more than 80 percent of general-purpose card spending. These percentages are based on comparing spending on all networks’ general-purpose credit and charge cards at merchants that accept American Express cards with total general-purpose credit and charge card spending at all merchants, and are not percentages of locations accepting American Express cards.

GMS also builds loyalty coalition programs, such as the Payback^® program in Germany, India, Italy, Mexico and Poland. Our loyalty coalition programs enable consumers to earn rewards points and use them to save on purchases from a variety of participating merchants through multi-category rewards platforms. Merchants generally fund the consumer offers and are responsible to us for the cost of loyalty points; we earn revenue from operating the loyalty platform and by providing marketing support.

 

Corporate & Other consists of corporate functions and certain other businesses, including our prepaid services business that offers stored value/prepaid products, such as American Express Serve^®, Bluebird^®, the American Express^® Gift Card and Travelers Cheques. In August 2017, we announced that a third party, InComm, will assume program management and issuer processing responsibilities for our prepaid reloadable and gift card products in the United States, subject to final agreement. We also expect that InComm will acquire the Serve technology platform and other assets related to the American Express prepaid reloadable and gift card products business.

Our support functions, including servicing, credit, insurance and technology, are organized by process rather than business unit, which we believe serves to streamline costs, reduce duplication of work, better integrate skills and expertise and improve customer service.

We compete in the global payments industry with charge, credit and debit card networks, issuers and acquirers, paper-based transactions (e.g., cash and checks), bank transfer models (e.g., wire transfers and Automated Clearing House, or ACH), as well as evolving and growing alternative payment and financing providers. As the payments industry continues to evolve, we face increasing competition from non-traditional players that leverage new technologies and customer relationships to create payment or financing solutions.

As a card issuer, we compete with financial institutions that issue general-purpose charge and revolving credit cards and debit cards. We also encounter competition from businesses that issue their own private label cards, operate their own mobile wallets or extend credit to their customers. We face increasing competition for cobrand relationships, as both card issuer and network competitors have targeted key business partners with attractive value propositions.

Our global card network competes in the global payments industry with other card networks, including, among others, Visa, MasterCard, Discover (primarily in the United States), Diners Club International (which is owned by Discover Financial Services), and JCB and China UnionPay (primarily in Asia). We are the fourth largest general-purpose card network on a global basis based on purchase volume, behind China UnionPay, Visa and MasterCard. In addition to such networks, a range of companies globally, including merchant acquirers and processors, as well as regional payment networks (such as the National Payments Corporation of India), carry out some activities similar to those performed by our GMS and GNS businesses.

Another aspect of competition is the dynamic and rapid growth of alternative payment mechanisms, systems and products, which include aggregators (e.g., PayPal, Square and Amazon), marketplace lenders, wireless payment technologies (including using mobile telephone networks to carry out transactions), web- and mobile-based payment platforms (e.g., Alipay, PayPal and Venmo), electronic wallet providers (including handset manufacturers, telecommunication providers, retailers, banks and technology companies), prepaid systems, digital currencies, gift cards, blockchain and similar distributed ledger technologies, and systems linked to payment cards or that provide payment solutions. Partnerships have been formed by various competitors to integrate more financial services into their product offerings and competitors are attempting to replicate our closed-loop functionality, such as the merchant-processing platform ChaseNet. New payments competitors continue to emerge in response to evolving technologies, consumer habits and merchant needs.

 

In addition to the discussion in this section, see “Our operating results may suffer because of substantial and increasingly intense competition worldwide in the payments industry” in “Risk Factors” for further discussion of the potential impact of competition on our business, and “Our business is subject to comprehensive government regulation and supervision, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition” and “Ongoing legal proceedings regarding provisions in our merchant contracts could have a material adverse effect on our business, result in additional litigation and/or arbitrations, subject us to substantial monetary damages and damage to our reputation and brand” in “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the potential impact on our ability to compete effectively due to government regulations or if ongoing legal proceedings limit our ability to prevent merchants from engaging in various actions to discriminate against our card products.

As a participant in the financial services industry, we are subject to substantial regulation in the United States and in other jurisdictions, and the costs of compliance are substantial. In recent years, the financial services industry has been subject to rigorous scrutiny, high regulatory expectations, and a stringent regulatory enforcement environment. In addition, legislators and regulators in various countries in which we operate have focused on the operation of card networks, including through antitrust actions, legislation and regulations to change certain practices or pricing of card issuers, merchant acquirers and payment networks, and, in some cases, to establish broad and ongoing regulatory oversight regimes for payment systems. See “Risk Factors—Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Risks” for a discussion of the potential impact legislative and regulatory changes may have on our results of operations and financial condition.

Federal and state banking laws, regulations and policies extensively regulate the Company, TRS and our two U.S. bank subsidiaries, American Express Centurion Bank (Centurion Bank) and American Express Bank, FSB (American Express Bank). Both the Company and TRS are subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision, regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve under the BHC Act. Centurion Bank, a Utah-chartered industrial bank, is regulated, supervised and examined by the Utah Department of Financial Institutions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). American Express Bank, a federal savings bank, is regulated, supervised and examined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Company and its subsidiaries are also subject to the rulemaking, enforcement and examination authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Banking regulators have broad examination and enforcement power, including the power to impose substantial fines, limit dividends and other capital distributions, restrict operations and acquisitions and require divestitures. Many aspects of our business also are subject to rigorous regulation by other U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies and by non-U.S. government agencies and regulatory bodies.

On August 31, 2017, applications were made to the OCC for approval to convert Centurion Bank into a national bank and subsequently to merge American Express Bank into the successor national bank. The applications were conditionally approved on December 4, 2017. Subject to satisfaction of certain additional legal and regulatory requirements, we expect the conversion and merger to be completed in the first half of 2018. After completion, the former Centurion Bank and American Express Bank will be combined into a single national bank, to be known as American Express National Bank, subject to the regulation, supervision and examination of the OCC.

The BHC Act generally limits bank holding companies to activities that are considered to be banking activities and certain closely related activities. Each of the Company and TRS is a bank holding company and each has elected to become a financial holding company, which is authorized to engage in a broader range of financial and related activities. In order to remain eligible for financial holding company status, we must meet certain eligibility requirements. Those requirements include that the Company and each of its subsidiary U.S. depository institutions must be “well capitalized” and “well managed,” and each of its subsidiary U.S. depository institutions must have received at least a “satisfactory” rating on its most recent assessment under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the CRA). The Company and TRS engage in various activities permissible only for financial holding companies, including, in particular, providing travel agency services, acting as a finder and engaging in certain insurance underwriting and agency services. If the Company fails to meet eligibility requirements for financial holding company status, it is likely to be barred from engaging in new types of financial activities or making certain types of acquisitions or investments in reliance on its status as a financial holding company, and ultimately could be required to either discontinue the broader range of activities permitted to financial holding companies or divest its subsidiary U.S. depository institutions. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries are prohibited by law from engaging in practices that the relevant regulatory authority deems unsafe or unsound (which such authorities generally interpret broadly).

 

Applicable federal and state laws place limitations on the ability of persons to invest in or acquire control of us without providing notice to or obtaining the approval of one or more of our regulators. In addition, we are subject to banking laws and regulations that limit our investments and acquisitions and, in some cases, subject them to the prior review and approval of our regulators, including the Federal Reserve, the OCC and the FDIC. The banking agencies have broad discretion in evaluating proposed acquisitions and investments that are subject to their prior review or approval.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) and the Federal Reserve’s implementing regulations impose heightened prudential requirements on bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets, such as the Company, that are more stringent than those applicable to smaller bank holding companies. Under the Federal Reserve’s regulations, the Company is subject to annual supervisory and semiannual company-run stress testing requirements that are designed to evaluate whether a bank holding company has sufficient capital on a total consolidated basis to absorb losses and support operations under adverse economic conditions. Centurion Bank and American Express Bank are also subject to annual stress testing requirements. We publish the stress test results for the Company, Centurion Bank and American Express Bank on our Investor Relations website.

The results of the Company’s annual stress test are incorporated into our annual capital plan, which must cover a “planning horizon” of at least nine quarters and which we are required to submit to the Federal Reserve for review under its Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) process. As part of CCAR, the Federal Reserve evaluates whether the Company has sufficient capital to continue operations under various scenarios of economic and financial market stress (developed by both the Company and the Federal Reserve), including after taking into account planned capital distributions, such as dividend payments and common stock repurchases. Sufficient capital for these purposes is likely to require us to maintain capital ratios appreciably above applicable minimum requirements and buffers. The scenarios are designed to stress our risks and vulnerabilities and assess our pro-forma capital position and ratios under hypothetical stress environments.

We are required to submit our capital plans and stress testing results to the Federal Reserve on or before April 5 of each year. The Federal Reserve is expected to publish the decisions for all the bank holding companies participating in CCAR in 2018, including the reasons for any objection to capital plans, by June 30, 2018. In addition, the Federal Reserve will publish separately the results of its supervisory stress test under both the supervisory severely adverse and adverse scenarios. The information to be released will include, among other things, the Federal Reserve’s projection of company-specific information, including post-stress capital ratio information over the planning horizon.

We may be required to revise and resubmit our capital plan as required by the Federal Reserve following certain events, such as a significant acquisition. In addition to other limitations, our ability to make any capital distributions (including dividends and share repurchases) is contingent on the Federal Reserve’s non-objection to our capital plan.

 

The Company and TRS, as well as Centurion Bank, American Express Bank and the Company’s insurance subsidiaries, are limited in their ability to pay dividends by statutes, regulations and supervisory policy.

Dividend payments by the Company to shareholders are subject to the oversight of the Federal Reserve. See “Stress Testing and Capital Planning.” Even if the Federal Reserve has not objected to a distribution, the Company may still not make a distribution without Federal Reserve approval if, among other things, the Company would not meet a minimum regulatory capital ratio after giving effect to the capital distribution, changes in facts would require resubmission of our capital plan or the Company’s earnings are materially underperforming its projections in the capital plan.

In general, federal and applicable state banking laws prohibit, without first obtaining regulatory approval, insured depository institutions, such as Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, from making dividend distributions to, in our case, TRS, if such distributions are not paid out of available recent earnings or would cause the institution to fail to meet capital adequacy standards. In addition to specific limitations on the dividends the Company’s bank subsidiaries can pay to TRS, federal banking regulators have authority to prohibit or limit the payment of a dividend if, in the banking regulator’s opinion, payment of a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in light of the financial condition of the institution.

The Company, Centurion Bank and American Express Bank are required to comply with the applicable capital adequacy rules established by federal banking regulators. These rules are intended to ensure that bank holding companies and depository institutions (collectively, banking organizations) have adequate capital given the level of assets and off-balance sheet obligations. The federal banking regulators’ current capital rules, which, subject to phase-in provisions, generally became applicable to the Company, Centurion Bank and American Express Bank in 2014 (the Capital Rules), largely implement the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s (the Basel Committee) framework for strengthening international capital regulation, known as Basel III. The minimum capital and buffer requirements under the Capital Rules will be fully phased in by January 1, 2019. For additional information regarding our capital ratios, see “Consolidated Capital Resources and Liquidity” under “MD&A.”

Under the Capital Rules, banking organizations are required to maintain minimum ratios for Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1), Tier 1 and Total capital to risk-weighted assets. In addition, all banking organizations remain subject to a minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to average total consolidated assets (as defined for regulatory purposes). The Company, as an advanced approaches institution, became subject to a supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) on January 1, 2018.

Since 2014, we have reported our capital adequacy ratios on a parallel basis to federal banking regulators using both risk-weighted assets calculated under the Basel III standardized approach, as adjusted for certain items, and the requirements for an advanced approaches institution. During this parallel period, federal banking regulators assess our compliance with the advanced approaches requirements. The parallel period will continue until we receive regulatory notification to exit parallel reporting, at which point we will begin publicly reporting regulatory risk-based capital ratios calculated under both the advanced approaches and the standardized approach under the Capital Rules, and will be required to use the lower of these ratios in order to determine whether we are in compliance with minimum capital and buffer requirements for the Company, Centurion Bank and American Express Bank. Depending on how the advanced approaches are ultimately implemented for our asset types, our capital ratios calculated under the advanced approaches may be lower than under the standardized approach. The standardized approach is currently the applicable measurement used in CCAR.

The Company, Centurion Bank and American Express Bank must each maintain CET1, Tier 1 capital (that is, CET1 plus additional Tier 1 capital) and Total capital (that is, Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital) ratios of at least 4.5 percent, 6.0 percent and 8.0 percent, respectively. The Capital Rules also implement a 2.5 percent capital conservation buffer composed entirely of CET1, on top of these minimum risk-weighted asset ratios. As a result, the minimum ratios are effectively 7.0 percent, 8.5 percent and 10.5 percent for the CET1, Tier 1 capital and Total capital ratios, respectively, on a fully phased-in basis. Implementation of the capital conservation buffer began on January 1, 2016 at the 0.625 percent level and increases in equal increments at the beginning of each year (i.e., 1.875 percent as of January 1, 2018) until it is fully implemented on January 1, 2019. The required minimum capital ratios for the Company may be further increased by a countercyclical capital buffer composed entirely of CET1 up to 2.5 percent, which may be assessed when federal banking regulators determine that such a buffer is necessary to protect the banking system from disorderly downturns associated with excessively expansionary periods. In December 2017, the Federal Reserve affirmed the countercyclical capital buffer of zero percent. Assuming full phase in of the capital conservation buffer and the maximum countercyclical capital buffer were in place, the Company’s effective minimum CET1, Tier 1 capital and Total capital ratios could be 9.5 percent, 11.0 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively.

Banking institutions whose ratio of CET1, Tier 1 Capital or Total capital to risk-weighted assets is above the minimum but below the capital conservation buffer (or below the combined capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, when the latter is applied) will face constraints on discretionary distributions such as dividends, repurchases and redemptions of capital securities, and executive compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

 

 

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published standards that, among other things, revise the standardized approach for credit risk (including by recalibrating risk weights and introducing additional capital requirements for certain “unconditionally cancellable commitments” such as unused credit card lines of credit) and provide a new standardized calculation for operational risk capital requirements. If adopted in the United States as issued by the Basel Committee, the new standards could result in higher capital requirements for us.

We are also required to comply with minimum leverage ratio requirements. The leverage ratio is the ratio of a banking organization’s Tier 1 capital to its average total consolidated assets (as defined for regulatory purposes). All banking organizations are required to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 4.0 percent.

The Capital Rules also establish an SLR requirement for advanced approaches banking organizations such as the Company. The SLR is the ratio of Tier 1 capital to an expanded concept of leverage exposure that includes both on-balance sheet and certain off-balance sheet exposures. The Capital Rules require a minimum SLR of 3.0 percent beginning January 1, 2018. The SLR will be factored into our 2018 CCAR submission and evaluation of our capital plan by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve’s enhanced prudential standards rule includes heightened liquidity and overall risk management requirements. The rule requires the maintenance of a liquidity buffer, consisting of highly liquid assets, that is sufficient to meet projected net outflows for 30 days over a range of liquidity stress scenarios.

In addition, the Company, Centurion Bank and American Express Bank are subject to a liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) requirement, which is provided for in the Basel III liquidity framework and is designed to ensure that a banking entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets that can be converted into cash to meet its liquidity needs for a 30-day time horizon under an acute liquidity stress scenario specified by supervisors. The LCR measures the ratio of a firm’s high-quality liquid assets to its projected net outflows. The Company, Centurion Bank and American Express Bank are required to calculate the LCR each business day and maintain a minimum ratio of 100 percent. Beginning with the second quarter of 2018, we will be required to disclose certain LCR calculation data and other information on a quarterly basis.

A second standard provided for in the Basel III liquidity framework, referred to as the net stable funding ratio (NSFR), requires a minimum amount of longer-term funding based on the assets and activities of banking entities. The LCR and NSFR requirements may cause banking entities generally to increase their holdings of cash, U.S. Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a proportion of total assets and/or increase the proportion of longer-term debt. Federal banking regulators issued a proposed rule in May 2016 that would implement the NSFR for advanced approaches banking organizations, such as the Company. A final rule has not yet been issued and timing for implementation of the NSFR requirements is uncertain. The NSFR would also apply to Centurion Bank and American Express Bank. If implemented as proposed, the rule would require that “available stable funding” be no less than “required stable funding” for the Company, Centurion Bank, and American Express Bank, as each such measure is calculated under the rule.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) requires, among other things, that federal banking regulators take prompt corrective action in respect of FDIC-insured depository institutions (such as Centurion Bank and American Express Bank) that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The FDIA establishes five capital categories for FDIC-insured banks: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. The FDIA imposes progressively more restrictive constraints on operations, management and capital distributions, depending on the capital category in which an institution is classified. In order to be considered “well capitalized,” Centurion Bank and American Express Bank must maintain CET1, Tier 1 capital, Total capital and Tier 1 leverage ratios of 6.5 percent, 8.0 percent, 10.0 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively.

Under the FDIA, each of Centurion Bank and American Express Bank could be prohibited from accepting brokered deposits (i.e., deposits raised through third-party brokerage networks) or offering interest rates on any deposits significantly higher than the prevailing rate in its normal market area or nationally (depending upon where the deposits are solicited), unless (1) it is well capitalized or (2) it is adequately capitalized and receives a waiver from the FDIC. A significant amount of our outstanding U.S. retail deposits are considered brokered deposits for bank regulatory purposes. If a federal regulator determines that we are in an unsafe or unsound condition or that we are engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices, the regulator may reclassify our capital category or otherwise place restrictions on our ability to accept or solicit brokered deposits.

 

 

The Company is required to prepare and provide to regulators a plan for its rapid and orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the event of material distress or failure. This resolution planning requirement may, as a practical matter, present additional constraints on our structure, operations and business strategy, and on transactions and business arrangements between our bank and non-bank subsidiaries, because we must consider the impact of these matters on our ability to prepare and submit a resolution plan that demonstrates that we may be resolved under the Bankruptcy Code in a rapid and orderly manner. If the Federal Reserve and the FDIC determine that the Company’s plan is not credible and we fail to cure the deficiencies, we may be subject to more stringent capital, leverage or liquidity requirements; or restrictions on our growth, activities or operations; or may ultimately be required to divest certain assets or operations to facilitate an orderly resolution. Separately, American Express Bank is required to prepare and provide a separate resolution plan to the FDIC that would enable the FDIC, as receiver, to effectively resolve American Express Bank under the FDIA in the event of failure.

The Company could become subject to the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), a resolution regime under which the Treasury Secretary may appoint the FDIC as receiver to liquidate a systemically important financial company, if the Company is in danger of default and is determined to present a systemic risk to U.S. financial stability. As under the FDIC resolution model, under the OLA, the FDIC has broad power as receiver. Substantial differences exist, however, between the OLA and the FDIC resolution model for depository institutions, including the right of the FDIC under the OLA to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims in limited circumstances, the use of an administrative claims procedure to determine creditor claims (as opposed to the judicial procedure used in bankruptcy proceedings), and the right of the FDIC to transfer claims to a “bridge” entity. The OLA is separate from the Company’s resolution plan discussed in “Resolution Planning.”

The FDIC has developed a strategy under OLA, referred to as the “single point of entry” or “SPOE” strategy, under which the FDIC would resolve a failed financial holding company by transferring its assets (including shares of its operating subsidiaries) and, potentially, very limited liabilities to a “bridge” holding company; utilize the resources of the failed financial holding company to recapitalize the operating subsidiaries; and satisfy the claims of unsecured creditors of the failed financial holding company and other claimants in the receivership by delivering securities of one or more new financial companies that would emerge from the bridge holding company. Under this strategy, management of the failed financial holding company would be replaced and its shareholders and creditors would bear the losses resulting from the failure.

If the FDIC is appointed the conservator or receiver of Centurion Bank or American Express Bank, the FDIC has the power: (1) to transfer any of the depository institution’s assets and liabilities to a new obligor without the approval of the depository institution’s creditors; (2) to enforce the terms of the depository institution’s contracts pursuant to their terms; or (3) to repudiate or disaffirm any contract or lease to which the depository institution is a party, the performance of which is determined by the FDIC to be burdensome and the disaffirmation or repudiation of which is determined by the FDIC to promote the orderly administration of the depository institution. In addition, the claims of holders of U.S. deposit liabilities and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC against an insured depository institution would be afforded priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution, including claims of debt holders of the institution and depositors in non-U.S. offices, in the liquidation or other resolution of the institution by a receiver. As a result, whether or not the FDIC ever sought to repudiate any debt obligations of Centurion Bank or American Express Bank, the debt holders and depositors in non-U.S. offices would be treated differently from, and could receive substantially less, if anything, than the depositors in U.S. offices of the depository institution.

Under the “cross-guarantee” provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, each of Centurion Bank and American Express Bank may be liable to the FDIC with respect to any loss incurred or reasonably anticipated to be incurred by the FDIC in connection with the default of, or FDIC assistance to, the other. In that case, the liability to the FDIC generally has priority in right of payment to any obligation of the depository institution to its holding company or other affiliates.

 

 

Certain transactions (including loans and credit extensions from Centurion Bank and American Express Bank) between Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, on the one hand, and their affiliates (including the Company, TRS and their non-bank subsidiaries), on the other hand, are subject to quantitative and qualitative limitations, collateral requirements, and other restrictions imposed by statute and regulation. Transactions subject to these restrictions are generally required to be made on an arm’s-length basis.

Centurion Bank and American Express Bank accept deposits that are insured by the FDIC up to the applicable limits. Under the FDIA, the FDIC may terminate the insurance of an institution’s deposits upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices; is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations; or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC. We do not know of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of deposit insurance at either of our insured depository institution subsidiaries. The FDIC’s deposit insurance fund is funded by assessments on insured depository institutions, which are subject to adjustment by the FDIC.

Centurion Bank and American Express Bank are subject to the CRA, which imposes affirmative, ongoing obligations on depository institutions to meet the credit needs of their local communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the institution.

The Federal Reserve has not yet finalized prudential requirements, mandated by Dodd-Frank, regarding early remediation requirements for large bank holding companies experiencing financial distress and single counterparty credit limits (similar to bank-level lending limits but, as proposed, applicable to bank holding companies and controlled subsidiaries on a combined basis) for large bank holding companies.

In the United States, our marketing, sale and servicing of consumer financial products and our compliance with certain federal consumer financial laws are supervised and examined by the CFPB, which has broad rulemaking and enforcement authority over providers of credit, savings and payment services and products, and authority to prevent “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts or practices. In addition, a number of U.S. states have significant consumer credit protection, disclosure and other laws (in certain cases more stringent than U.S. federal laws). U.S. federal law also regulates abusive debt collection practices, which, along with bankruptcy and debtor relief laws, can affect our ability to collect amounts owed to us or subject us to regulatory scrutiny.

Internal and regulatory reviews to assess compliance with such laws and regulations have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, changes to our practices, products and procedures, restitution to our Card Members and increased costs related to regulatory oversight, supervision and examination. Such reviews may also result in additional regulatory actions, including civil money penalties.

These types of reviews are likely to be a continuing focus for the CFPB and regulators more broadly, as well as for the company itself. For example, in August 2017, we announced that certain of our subsidiaries signed a consent order with the CFPB to resolve issues related to a previously-disclosed internal review of our card product offerings in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other U.S. Territories.

As an issuer of stored value/prepaid products, we are regulated in the United States under the “money transmitter” or “sale of check” laws in effect in most states. We are also required by the laws of many states to comply with unclaimed and abandoned property laws, under which we must pay to states the face amount of any Travelers Cheque or prepaid card that is uncashed or unredeemed after a period of time depending on the type of product.

In countries outside the United States, we have seen an increase in regulatory focus in relation to a number of key areas impacting our card-issuing businesses, particularly consumer protection (such as the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom and Canada) and responsible lending (such as Australia, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore). Regulators in a number of countries are shifting their focus from just ensuring compliance with local rules and regulations toward paying greater attention to the product design and operation with a focus on customers and outcomes. Regulators’ expectations of firms in relation to their compliance, risk and control frameworks continue to increase and regulators are placing significant emphasis on a firm’s systems and controls relating to the identification and resolution of issues.

 

 

Legislators and regulators in various countries in which we operate have focused on the operation of card networks, including through antitrust actions, legislation and regulations to change certain practices or pricing of card issuers, merchant acquirers and payment networks, and, in some cases, to establish broad and ongoing regulatory oversight regimes for payment systems.

The EU, Australia and other jurisdictions have focused on the fees merchants pay to accept cards, including the way bankcard network members collectively set the “interchange” (that is, the fee paid by the bankcard merchant acquirer to the card issuer in “four party” networks like Visa and MasterCard), as well as the rules, contract terms and practices governing merchant card acceptance. In some cases, such regulation extends to certain aspects of our business. Even where we are not directly regulated, regulation of bankcard fees can significantly negatively impact the discount revenue derived from our business, including as a result of downward pressure on our discount rate from decreases in competitor pricing in connection with caps on interchange fees. Antitrust actions and government regulation relating to merchant pricing or terms of merchant rules and contracts can also adversely impact consumers and merchants. Among other things, lower interchange and/or merchant discount revenue can lead card issuers to look to reduce costs by scaling back or eliminating rewards, services or benefits to cardholders, merchants and other customers, or to look for other sources of revenue, including from consumers through higher annual card fees or interest charges.

In various countries, such as certain Member States in the EU and Australia, merchants are permitted by law to surcharge card purchases. In addition, the laws of a number of states in the United States that prohibit surcharging have been overturned in litigation brought by merchant groups. Surcharging is an adverse customer experience and could have a material adverse effect on us if it becomes widespread, particularly where it only or disproportionately impacts American Express Card Members, which is known as differential surcharging, In addition, other steering practices that are permitted by regulation in some countries could also have a material adverse effect on us if they become widespread and disproportionately impact American Express Card Members.

In Canada, regulators have prompted the major international card networks to make voluntary commitments on pricing, specifically interchange fee levels; as American Express does not operate with interchange fees, in the case of American Express, our commitment extends to maintaining current pricing practices whereby issuer rates received by GNS partners are agreed to bilaterally with each partner, rather than multilaterally, and merchant pricing is simple, transparent and value-based with the same rate for the acquiring of credit and charge card transactions for a particular merchant regardless of the type of card that is presented. Regulators may seek to change the commitments in Canada in the future.

In some countries governments have established regulatory regimes that require international card networks to be locally licensed and/or to localize aspects of their operations. For example, card network operators in India must obtain authorization from the Reserve Bank of India, which has broad power under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 to regulate the membership and operations of card networks. In Hong Kong, the local monetary authority has implemented a new regulatory framework under which card payment systems, including American Express, have been designated for supervision. In Russia, card network operators must be authorized by the central bank, and regulation requires networks to place security deposits with the central bank, process all local transactions using government-owned infrastructure and ensure that local transaction data remains within the country. Governments in some countries also provide resources or protection to select domestic payment card networks. For example, China adopted new regulation that will permit foreign card networks to operate domestically in the country for the first time, subject to licensing, capital and other requirements. The development and enforcement of these and other similar laws, regulations and policies in international markets may adversely affect our ability to compete effectively in such countries and maintain and extend our global network.

In 2015, the EU adopted legislation in two parts, covering a wide range of topics across the payments industry. The first part was an EU-wide regulation on interchange fees (the Interchange Fee Regulation); the second consisted of the Revised Payment Services Directive (the PSD2).

Among other things, the Interchange Fee Regulation caps interchange fees on consumer card transactions in the EU, generally at 20 basis points for debit and prepaid cards and 30 basis points for credit and charge cards, with the possibility of lower caps in some instances. The Interchange Fee Regulation excludes commercial card transactions from the scope of the caps. Although the discount rates we agree to with merchants are not capped, the interchange caps have exerted, and will likely continue to exert, downward pressure on merchant fees across the industry, including our discount rates.

The Interchange Fee Regulation provides that “three party” networks (such as American Express) should be subject to the interchange fee caps when they license third-party providers to issue cards and/or acquire merchants. In a ruling issued on February 7, 2018, the EU Court of Justice confirmed the validity of the application of the fee cap provisions as well as other provisions in circumstances where three party networks issue cards with a cobrand partner or through an agent, although the ruling gives only limited guidance as to when or how the provisions might apply in such circumstances.

 

The Interchange Fee Regulation also prohibits, with some exceptions, “anti-steering” and honor-all-cards rules across all card networks, including non-discrimination and honor-all-cards provisions in our card acceptance agreements. The absence of these provisions in our card acceptance agreements in the EU creates significant risk of customer confusion and Card Member dissatisfaction, which would result in harm to the American Express brand.

The PSD2 makes revisions to the original Payment Services Directive (PSD) adopted in 2007 and prescribes common rules across the EU for licensing and supervision of payment service providers, including card issuers and merchant acquirers, and for their conduct of business with customers. Member States had until January 13, 2018 to transpose the PSD2 into national law.

Under the PSD, Member States could choose to permit or prohibit surcharging and under the Consumer Rights Directive, merchants were prohibited from surcharging consumer purchases more than the merchants’ cost of acceptance of a given means of payment. The PSD2 includes an outright ban on surcharging for those transactions falling in scope of the Interchange Fee Regulation, with an option for individual Member States to prohibit surcharging altogether. Some Member States, such as France and Italy, have chosen to exercise the option, meaning that surcharging is banned altogether. In other Member States, such as Germany and Denmark, cards not subject to the Interchange Fee Regulation (e.g., cards issued by “three party” networks like American Express and commercial cards) can still be surcharged up to the cost of acceptance. The UK has chosen to ban surcharging altogether on consumer cards but allows surcharging on commercial cards, up to the cost of acceptance. The revised surcharging rules may increase instances of differential surcharging of our cards, customer and merchant confusion as to which transactions may be surcharged and lead to Card Member dissatisfaction.

The PSD2 also requires all networks, including “three party” networks that operate with licensing arrangements, such as our GNS business, to establish objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria under which a financial institution may access the network, for example, as a licensed issuer or acquirer. The combined impact of the Interchange Fee Regulation and the PSD2 imposes a regulatory burden on our GNS business that renders it no longer viable. As a result, we have shifted our focus to our proprietary card issuing business in the EU and will not issue new GNS licenses there. In addition, we have terminated the licenses with our existing GNS partners in the EU and are in the process of winding down those operations.

Under regulations adopted by the Reserve Bank of Australia in 2016, the interchange fee paid on Visa and MasterCard credit transactions as well as the payments we make to GNS partners must not exceed a weighted-average benchmark of 0.50 percent across all transactions, with a maximum interchange fee cap of 0.80 percent for each individual credit card transaction. The inclusion of our GNS business under interchange regulation has undermined our ability to attract and retain GNS partners in Australia. While the discount rates we agree to with merchants are not capped, the interchange caps have exerted, and will likely continue to exert, downward pressure on merchant fees across the industry, including our discount rates.

Regulatory and legislative activity in the areas of privacy, data protection and information and cyber security continues to increase worldwide. We have established and continue to maintain policies that provide a framework for compliance with applicable privacy, data protection and information and cyber security laws, meet evolving customer privacy expectations and support and enable business innovation and growth.

Our regulators are increasingly focused on ensuring that our privacy, data protection and information and cyber security-related policies and practices are adequate to inform customers of our data collection, use, sharing and/or security practices, to provide them with choices, if required, about how we use and share their information, and to appropriately safeguard their personal information and account access.

In the United States, certain of our businesses are subject to the privacy, disclosure and safeguarding provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and its implementing regulations and guidance. Among other things, the GLBA imposes certain limitations on our ability to share consumers’ nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third parties and requires us to develop, implement and maintain a written comprehensive information security program containing safeguards that are appropriate to the size and complexity of our business, the nature and scope of our activities and the sensitivity of customer information that we process. Various states also have adopted laws, rules and regulations pertaining to privacy and/or information and cyber security that may be more stringent and/or expansive than federal requirements. Certain of these requirements may apply to the personal information of our employees and contractors as well as to our customers. Various U.S. federal banking regulators, U.S. states and territories have also enacted data security breach notification requirements that are applicable to us.

 

 

We are also subject to certain privacy, data protection and information and cyber security laws in other countries in which we operate (including countries in the EU, Australia, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Mexico and Singapore), some of which are more stringent and/or expansive than those in the United States. We have also seen some countries institute laws requiring in-country data processing and/or in-country storage of the personal data of its citizens. Compliance with such laws could result in higher technology, administrative and other costs for us and could limit our ability to optimize the use of our closed-loop data. Data breach notification laws or regulatory activities to encourage breach notification are also becoming more prevalent in jurisdictions outside the U.S. in which we operate.

In Europe, the European Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive), providing for the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, will be replaced by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) as of May 2018. The EU GDPR includes, among other things, a requirement for prompt notice of data breaches, in certain circumstances, to data subjects and supervisory authorities, applying uniformly across sectors and the EU, with significant fines for non-compliance. The EU GDPR also requires companies processing personal data of individuals residing in the EU, regardless of the location of the company, to comply with EU privacy and data protection rules. We generally rely on our binding corporate rules as the primary method for lawfully transferring data from our European affiliates to our affiliates in the United States and elsewhere globally.

In addition, the European Directive 2002/58/EC (the e-Privacy Directive) will continue to set out requirements for the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector until the approval of forthcoming e-Privacy Regulation. The ePrivacy Directive places restrictions on, among other things, the sending of unsolicited marketing communications, as well as on the collection and use of data about internet users.

In 2015, the European Central Bank and the European Banking Authority enacted secondary legislation focused on security breaches, strong customer authentication and information security-related policies. Likewise, the Commission adopted a network information security directive, to be implemented into national laws by the Member States. PSD2 also contains regulatory requirements on strong customer authentication, open access to customer data and measures to prevent security incidents.

We are subject to significant supervision and regulation, and an increasingly stringent enforcement environment, with respect to compliance with anti-money laundering (AML), sanctions and anti-corruption laws and regulations in the United States and in other jurisdictions in which we operate. Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs and policies and procedures for AML, sanctions and anti-corruption compliance could have serious financial, legal and reputational consequences.

American Express is subject to a significant number of AML laws and regulations as a result of being a financial company headquartered in the United States, as well as having a global presence. In the United States, the majority of AML requirements are derived from the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act and the accompanying regulations issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (collectively referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act), as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the Patriot Act). In Europe, AML requirements are largely the result of countries transposing the 4th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive (and preceding EU Anti-Money Laundering Directives) into local laws and regulations. Numerous other countries, such as Argentina, Australia, Canada, India, Mexico, New Zealand and Russia, have also enacted or proposed new or enhanced AML legislation and regulations applicable to American Express.

Among other things, these laws and regulations require us to establish AML programs that meet certain standards, including, in some instances, expanded reporting, particularly in the area of suspicious transactions, and enhanced information gathering and recordkeeping requirements. Any errors, failures or delays in complying with federal, state or foreign AML and counter-terrorist financing laws could result in significant criminal and civil lawsuits, penalties and forfeiture of significant assets or other enforcement actions.

The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. The United States prohibits U.S. persons from engaging with individuals and entities identified as “Specially Designated Nationals,” such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers. These prohibitions are administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and are typically known as the OFAC rules. The OFAC rules prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in financial transactions with or relating to the prohibited individual, entity or country, require the blocking of assets in which the individual, entity or country has an interest, and prohibit transfers of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including property in the possession or control of U.S. persons) to such individual, entity or country. Blocked assets (e.g., property or bank deposits) cannot be paid out, withdrawn, set off or transferred in any manner without a license from OFAC. We maintain a global sanctions program designed to ensure compliance with OFAC requirements. Failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to serious legal and reputational consequences, including criminal penalties.

 

Pursuant to Section 219 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, which added Section 13(r) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), an issuer is required to disclose in its annual or quarterly reports, as applicable, whether it or any of its affiliates knowingly engaged in certain activities, transactions or dealings relating to Iran or with individuals or entities designated pursuant to certain Executive Orders. Disclosure is generally required even where the activities, transactions or dealings were conducted outside the United States by non-U.S. affiliates in compliance with applicable law, and whether or not the activities are sanctionable under U.S. law.

American Express Global Business Travel (GBT) and certain entities that may be considered affiliates of GBT have informed us that during the year ended December 31, 2017 approximately 300 visas were obtained from Iranian embassies and consulates around the world in connection with certain travel arrangements on behalf of clients. GBT had negligible gross revenues and net profits attributable to these transactions and intends to continue to engage in these activities on a limited basis so long as such activities are permitted under U.S. law.

We are subject to complex international and U.S. anti-corruption laws and regulations, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the FCPA), the UK Bribery Act and other laws that prohibit the making or offering of improper payments. The FCPA makes it illegal to corruptly offer or provide anything of value to foreign government officials, political parties or political party officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or an improper advantage. The FCPA also requires us to strictly comply with certain accounting and internal controls standards. In recent years, enforcement of the FCPA has become more intense. The UK Bribery Act also prohibits commercial bribery, and the receipt of a bribe, and makes it a corporate offense to fail to prevent bribery by an associated person, in addition to prohibiting improper payments to foreign government officials. Failure of the Company, our subsidiaries, employees, contractors or agents to comply with the FCPA, the UK Bribery Act and other laws can expose us and/or individual employees to investigation, prosecution and to potentially severe criminal and civil penalties.

Our compensation practices are subject to oversight by the Federal Reserve. The federal banking regulators’ guidance on sound incentive compensation practices sets forth three key principles for incentive compensation arrangements that are designed to help ensure that incentive compensation plans do not encourage imprudent risk-taking and are consistent with the safety and soundness of banking organizations. The three principles provide that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (1) provide incentives that appropriately balance risk and financial results in a manner that does not encourage employees to expose their organizations to imprudent risks, (2) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (3) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. Any deficiencies in our compensation practices that are identified by the Federal Reserve or other banking regulators in connection with its review of our compensation practices may be incorporated into our supervisory ratings, which can affect our ability to make acquisitions or perform other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against us if our incentive compensation arrangements or related risk-management control or governance processes are determined to pose a risk to our safety and soundness and we have not taken prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In May 2016, the federal banking regulators, the SEC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the National Credit Union Administration re-proposed a rule, originally proposed in 2011, on incentive-based compensation practices. The re-proposed rule would apply deferral, downward adjustment and forfeiture, and clawback requirements to incentive-based compensation arrangements granted to senior executive officers and significant risk-takers of covered institutions, with specific requirements varying based on the asset size of the covered institution and the category of employee. If these or other regulations are adopted in a form similar to what has been proposed, they will impose limitations on the manner in which we may structure compensation for our employees, which could adversely affect our ability to hire, retain and motivate key employees.

 

 

Set forth below, in alphabetical order, is a list of all our executive officers as of February 16, 2018, including each executive officer’s principal occupation and employment during the past five years and reflecting recent organizational changes. None of our executive officers has any family relationship with any other executive officer, and none of our executive officers became an officer pursuant to any arrangement or understanding with any other person. Each executive officer has been elected to serve until the next annual election of officers or until his or her successor is elected and qualified. Each officer’s age is indicated by the number in parentheses next to his or her name.

 

We had approximately 55,000 employees on December 31, 2017.

We maintain an Investor Relations website on the internet at http://ir.americanexpress.com. We make available free of charge, on or through this website, our annual, quarterly and current reports and any amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable following the time they are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). To access these materials, click on the “SEC Filings” link under the caption “Financial Information” on our Investor Relations homepage.

You can also access our Investor Relations website through our main website at www.americanexpress.com by clicking on the “Investor Relations” link, which is located at the bottom of our homepage. Information contained on our Investor Relations website, our main website and other websites referred to in this report is not incorporated by reference into this report or any other report filed with or furnished to the SEC. We have included such website addresses only as inactive textual references and do not intend them to be active links.

You can find certain statistical disclosures required of bank holding companies starting on page A-1, which are incorporated herein by reference.

This section highlights specific risks that could affect us and our businesses. You should carefully consider each of the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Based on the information currently known to us, we believe the following information identifies the most significant risk factors affecting us. However, the risks and uncertainties we face are not limited to those described below. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also adversely affect our business.

If any of the following risks and uncertainties develop into actual events or if the circumstances described in the risks and uncertainties occur or continue to occur, these events or circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. These events could also have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities.

Our results of operations are materially affected by economic, market, political and social conditions in the United States and abroad. We offer a broad array of products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients and thus are very dependent upon the level of consumer and business activity and the demand for payment and financing products. Slow economic growth or deterioration in economic conditions could change customer behaviors, including spending on our cards and the ability and willingness of Card Members to borrow and pay amounts owed to us. Political conditions in certain regions or countries could also negatively affect consumer and business spending, including in other parts of the world.

Factors such as consumer spending and confidence, unemployment rates, business investment, government spending, interest rates, taxes (including the broad and complex changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to the U.S. tax code), fuel and other energy costs, the volatility and strength of the capital markets, inflation and deflation all affect the economic environment and, ultimately, our profitability. Such factors may also cause our earnings, billings, loan balances, credit metrics and margins to fluctuate and diverge from expectations of analysts and investors, who may have differing assumptions regarding their impact on our business, adversely affecting, and/or increasing the volatility of, the trading price of our common shares.

 

 

Travel and entertainment expenditures, which comprised approximately 25 percent of our U.S. billed business during 2017, for example, are sensitive to business and personal discretionary spending levels and tend to decline during general economic downturns. Likewise, spending by small businesses and corporate clients, which comprised approximately 40 percent of our worldwide billed business during 2017, depends in part on the economic environment and a favorable climate for continued business investment and new business formation. Increases in delinquencies and write-off rates as a result of increases in bankruptcies, unemployment rates, changes in customer behaviors or otherwise could also have a negative impact on our results of operations. The consequences of negative circumstances impacting us or the environment generally can be sudden and severe.

The payments industry is highly competitive, and we compete with charge, credit and debit card networks, issuers and acquirers, paper-based transactions (e.g., cash and checks), bank transfer models (e.g., wire transfers and ACH), as well as evolving and growing alternative, non-traditional payment and financing providers.

We believe Visa and MasterCard are larger than we are in most countries. As a result, card issuers and acquirers on the Visa and MasterCard networks may be able to benefit from the dominant position, scale, resources, marketing and pricing of those networks. Our business may also be increasingly negatively affected if we are unable to increase merchant acceptance and our cards are not accepted at merchants that accept cards on the Visa and MasterCard networks.

Some of our competitors have developed, or may develop, for example, as a result of the recent reduction in the U.S. corporate tax rate, substantially greater financial and other resources than we have and may offer richer value propositions or a wider range of programs and services than we offer or may use more effective advertising, marketing or cross-selling strategies to acquire and retain more customers, capture a greater share of spending and borrowings, establish and develop more attractive cobrand card and other partner programs and maintain greater merchant acceptance than we have. We may not be able to compete effectively against these threats or respond or adapt to changes in consumer spending habits as effectively as our competitors. We expect expenses such as Card Member rewards and Card Member services expenses to continue to increase as we improve our value propositions for Card Members, including in response to increased competition.

Spending on our cards could continue to be impacted by increasing consumer usage of charge, credit and debit cards issued on other networks, as well as adoption of alternative payment systems. To the extent other payment mechanisms, systems and products continue to successfully expand, our discount revenues and our ability to access transaction data through our integrated network could be negatively impacted. The competitive value of our closed-loop data may also be diminished as traditional and non-traditional competitors use other, new data sources and technologies to derive similar insights. If we are not able to differentiate ourselves from our competitors, develop compelling value propositions for our customers and/or effectively grow in areas such as mobile and online payments and emerging technologies, we may not be able to compete effectively.

To the extent we expand into new business areas and new geographic regions, we may face competitors with more experience and more established relationships with relevant customers, regulators and industry participants, which could adversely affect our ability to compete. We may face additional compliance and regulatory risk to the extent that we expand into new business areas, and we may need to dedicate more expense, time and resources to comply with regulatory requirements than our competitors, particularly those that are not regulated financial institutions. In addition, companies that control access to consumer and merchant payment method choices through digital wallets, commerce-related experiences, mobile applications or other technologies, or at the point of sale could choose not to accept, suppress use of, or degrade the experience of using our products or could restrict our access to our customers and transaction data. Such companies could also require payments from us to participate in such digital wallets, experiences or applications, impacting our profitability on transactions. Laws and business practices that favor local competitors, require card transactions to be routed over domestic networks or prohibit or limit foreign ownership of certain businesses could slow our growth in international regions. Further, expanding our service offerings, adding customer acquisition channels and forming new partnerships could have higher costs than our current arrangements, and could adversely impact our average discount rate or dilute our brand.

Many of our competitors are subject to different, and in some cases, less stringent, legislative and regulatory regimes. More restrictive laws and regulations that do not apply to all of our competitors can put us at a competitive disadvantage, including prohibiting us from engaging in certain transactions, regulating our contract terms and practices governing merchant card acceptance or adversely affecting our cost structure. See “Ongoing legal proceedings regarding provisions in our merchant contracts could have a material adverse effect on our business, result in additional litigation and/or arbitrations, subject us to substantial monetary damages and damage our reputation and brand” for a discussion of the potential impact on our ability to compete effectively if ongoing legal proceedings limit our ability to prevent merchants from engaging in various actions to discriminate against our card products.

 

 

In the ordinary course of our business we enter into different types of contractual arrangements with business partners in a variety of industries. For example, we have partnered with Delta Air Lines, as well as many others globally, to offer cobranded cards for consumers and small businesses, and through our Membership Rewards program we have partnered with businesses in many industries, including the airline industry, to offer benefits to Card Member participants. Competition for relationships with key business partners is very intense and there can be no assurance we will be able to grow or maintain these partner relationships or that they will remain as profitable. Establishing and retaining attractive cobrand card partnerships is particularly competitive among card issuers and networks as these partnerships typically appeal to high-spending loyal customers. Our entire cobrand portfolio accounted for approximately 16 percent of our worldwide billed business for the year ended December 31, 2017. Card Member loans related to our cobrand portfolio accounted for approximately 36 percent of our worldwide Card Member loans as of December 31, 2017. Delta cobrand accounts, our largest cobrand portfolio, accounted for approximately 8 percent of our worldwide billed business for the year ended December 31, 2017 and approximately 21 percent of worldwide Card Member loans as of December 31, 2017. Our relationships with, and revenues related to, Delta extend beyond cobrand accounts and include merchant acceptance of American Express cards, participation in our Membership Rewards program and travel-related benefits and services.

Cobrand arrangements are entered into for a fixed period, generally ranging from five to eight years, and will terminate in accordance with their terms, including at the end of the fixed period unless extended or renewed at the option of the parties, or upon early termination as a result of an event of default or otherwise. We face the risk that we could lose partner relationships, even after we have invested significant resources in the relationships. The volume of billed business could decline and Card Member attrition could increase, in each case, significantly as a result of the termination of one or more cobrand partnership relationships. In addition, some of our cobrand arrangements provide that, upon expiration or termination, the cobrand partner may purchase or designate a third party to purchase the loans generated with respect to its program, which could result in a significant decline in our Card Member loans outstanding. For example, our U.S. cobrand relationship with Costco ended in 2016, and we sold the outstanding Card Member loans associated with the Costco portfolio.

We also face the risk that existing relationships will be renegotiated with less favorable terms for us as competition for such relationships continues to increase. We make payments to our cobrand partners, which can be significant, based primarily on the amount of Card Member spending and corresponding rewards earned on such spending and, under certain arrangements, on the number of accounts acquired and retained. The amount we pay to our cobrand partners has increased, particularly in the United States, and may continue to increase as arrangements are renegotiated due to increasingly intense competition for cobrand partners among card issuers and networks. We may also choose to not continue certain cobrand relationships.

The loss of exclusivity arrangements with business partners or the loss of business partners altogether (whether by non-renewal at the end of the contract period, such as the end of our relationship with Costco in the United States in 2016, or as the result of a merger or otherwise, such as the withdrawal of American Airlines in 2014 from our Airport Club Access program for Centurion^® and Platinum Card^® Members) or the renegotiation of existing partnerships with terms that are significantly worse for us could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations. In addition, any publicity associated with the loss of any of our key business partners could harm our reputation, making it more difficult to attract and retain Card Members and merchants, and could weaken our negotiating position with our remaining and prospective business partners.

Unlike our competitors in the payments industry that rely on revolving credit balances to drive profits, our business model is focused on Card Member spending. Discount revenue, which represents fees generally charged to merchants when Card Members use their cards to purchase goods and services on our network, is primarily driven by billed business volumes and is our largest single revenue source. In recent years, we experienced some reduction in our global weighted average merchant discount rate and have been under increasing pressure, including as a result of regulatory-mandated reductions to competitors’ pricing, to reduce merchant discount rates and undertake other repricing initiatives. We also face pressure from competitors that have other sources of income or lower costs that can make their pricing more attractive to key business partners and merchants. Merchants are also able to negotiate incentives and pricing concessions from us as a condition to accepting our cards or being cobrand partners. As merchants consolidate and become even larger, we may have to increase the amount of incentives and/or concessions we provide to certain merchants, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. Competitive and regulatory pressures on pricing could make it difficult to offset the costs of these incentives. We also expect further erosion of our average merchant discount rate as we seek to increase merchant acceptance. We may not be successful in significantly expanding merchant acceptance or offsetting rate erosion with volumes at new merchants.

In addition, the regulatory environment and differentiated payment models and technologies from non-traditional players in the alternative payments space could pose challenges to our traditional payment model and adversely impact our average merchant discount rate. Some merchants continue to invest in their own payment solutions, such as proprietary-branded mobile wallets, using both traditional and new technology platforms. If merchants are able to drive broad consumer adoption and usage, it could adversely impact our average merchant discount rate and billed business volumes.

 

A continuing priority of ours is to drive greater and differentiated value to our merchants which, if not successful, could negatively impact our discount revenue and financial results. If the average merchant discount rate declines more than expected, we will need to find ways to offset the financial impact by increasing billed business volumes, increasing other sources of revenue, such as fee-based revenue or interest income, or both. We may not succeed in maintaining merchant discount rates or offsetting the impact of declining merchant discount rates, particularly in the current regulatory environment, which could materially and adversely affect our revenues and profitability, and therefore our ability to invest in innovation and in value-added services for merchants and Card Members.

In certain countries, such as Australia and certain Member States in the EU, merchants are expressly permitted by law to surcharge certain card purchases. In addition, the laws of a number of states in the United States that prohibit surcharging have been overturned in litigation brought by merchant groups. In jurisdictions allowing surcharging, we have seen merchant surcharging on American Express cards in certain merchant categories, and in some cases, either the surcharge is greater than that applied to Visa and MasterCard cards or Visa and MasterCard cards are not surcharged at all, practices that are known as differential surcharging, even though there are many cards issued on competing networks that have an equal or greater cost of acceptance for the merchant.

We also encounter merchants that accept our cards, but tell their customers that they prefer to accept another type of payment or otherwise seek to suppress use of our cards. Our Card Members value the ability to use their cards where and when they want to, and we, therefore, take steps to meet our Card Members’ expectations and to protect the American Express brand by prohibiting this form of discrimination, subject to local legal requirements.

If surcharging, steering or other forms of discrimination become widespread, American Express cards and credit and charge cards generally could become less desirable to consumers, which could result in a decrease in cards-in-force and transaction volumes. The impact could vary depending on such factors as the manner in which a surcharge is levied, how Card Members are steered to other card products or payment forms at the point of sale and whether and to what extent these actions are applied to other payment cards, including whether it varies depending on the type of card, network, acquirer or issuer. Discrimination against American Express cards could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, particularly to the extent it disproportionately impacts our Card Members.

 If we are not able to invest successfully in, and compete at the leading edge of, technological developments across all our businesses, our revenue and profitability could be negatively affected.

Our industry is subject to rapid and significant technological changes. In order to compete in our industry, we need to continue to invest across all areas of our business, including in transaction processing, data management and analytics, customer interactions and communications, alternative payment mechanisms, authentication technologies and risk management and compliance systems. Incorporating new technologies into our products and services may require substantial expenditures and take considerable time, and ultimately may not be successful. We expect that new technologies in the payments industry will continue to emerge, and these new technologies may be superior to, or render obsolete, the technologies we currently use in our products and services.

The process of developing new products and services, enhancing existing products and services and adapting to technological changes and evolving industry standards is complex, costly and uncertain, and any failure by us to anticipate customers’ changing needs and emerging technological trends accurately could significantly impede our ability to compete effectively. Consumer and merchant adoption is a key competitive factor and our competitors may develop products, platforms or technologies that become more widely adopted than ours. In addition, we may underestimate the time and expense we must invest in new products and services before they generate material revenues, if at all.

Our ability to develop, acquire or access competitive technologies or business processes on acceptable terms may also be limited by intellectual property rights that third parties, including competitors and potential competitors, may assert. In addition, our ability to adopt new technologies may be inhibited by a need for industry-wide standards, a changing legislative and regulatory environment, the need for internal product and engineering expertise, resistance to change from Card Members or merchants, or the complexity of our systems.

 

 

Revenue growth is dependent on increasing consumer and business spending on our cards and growing loan balances. We have been investing in a number of growth initiatives over the past several years, including to attract new Card Members, reduce Card Member attrition and capture a greater share of customers’ total spending and borrowings. There can be no assurance that our investments to acquire Card Members, provide differentiated features and services and increase usage of our cards will be effective. For example, we may not be successful in developing and issuing new and enhanced cards or customers may not accept or be willing to pay for our new products and services, which would negatively impact our results of operations. In addition, if we develop new products or offers that attract customers looking for short-term incentives rather than incentivize long-term loyalty, Card Member attrition and costs could increase. Increasing spending on our cards also depends on our continued expansion of merchant acceptance of our cards. If the rate of merchant acceptance growth slows or reverses itself, our business could suffer.

Another way we invest in customer value is through our Membership Rewards program, as well as other Card Member benefits. Any significant change in, or failure by management to reasonably estimate, actual redemptions of Membership Rewards points and associated redemption costs could adversely affect our profitability. In addition, many credit card issuers have instituted rewards and cobrand programs and may introduce programs and services that are similar to or more attractive than ours. Our inability to continue to differentiate our products and services generally could materially adversely affect us.

We may not be able to cost-effectively manage and expand Card Member benefits, including containing the growth of marketing, promotion, rewards and Card Member services expenses in the future. If such expenses continue to increase beyond our expectations, we will need to find ways to offset the financial impact by increasing payments volume, increasing other areas of revenues such as fee-based revenues, or both. We may not succeed in doing so, particularly in the current competitive and regulatory environment.

Our brand and its attributes are key assets, and we believe our continued success depends on our ability to preserve, grow and leverage the value of our brand. Our ability to attract and retain consumer and small business Card Members and corporate clients is highly dependent upon the external perceptions of our level of service, trustworthiness, business practices, management, workplace culture, merchant acceptance, financial condition, our response to unexpected events and other subjective qualities. Negative perceptions or publicity regarding these matters—even if related to seemingly isolated incidents and whether or not factually correct—could erode trust and confidence and damage our reputation among existing and potential Card Members and corporate clients, which could make it difficult for us to attract new Card Members and customers and maintain existing ones. Negative public opinion could result from actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities or circumstances, including card practices, regulatory compliance and the use and protection of customer information, and from actions taken by regulators or others in response to such conduct. Social media channels can also cause rapid, widespread reputational harm to our brand.

Our brand and reputation may also be harmed by actions taken by third parties that are outside our control. For example, any shortcoming of or controversy related to a third-party vendor, merchant acquirer or GNS partner may be attributed by Card Members and merchants to us, thus damaging our reputation and brand value. The lack of acceptance or suppression of card usage by merchants can also negatively impact perceptions of our brand and our products, lower overall transaction volume and increase the attractiveness of other payment products or systems. Adverse developments with respect to our industry may also, by association, negatively impact our reputation, or result in greater regulatory or legislative scrutiny or litigation against us. Furthermore, as a corporation with headquarters and operations located in the United States, a negative perception of the United States arising from its political or other positions could harm the perception of our company and our brand. Although we monitor developments for areas of potential risk to our reputation and brand, negative perceptions or publicity could materially and adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

We and other third parties process, transmit, store and provide access to account information in connection with our charge and credit cards, and prepaid and other products, and in the normal course of our business, we collect, analyze and retain significant volumes of certain types of personally identifiable and other information pertaining to our customers and employees.

 

 

Global financial institutions like us have experienced a significant increase in information and cyber security risk in recent years and will likely continue to be the target of increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks, including computer viruses, malicious or destructive code, ransomware, social engineering attacks (including phishing and impersonation), hacking, denial-of-service attacks and other attacks and similar disruptions from the unauthorized use of or access to computer systems. For example, we and other U.S. financial services providers have been the targets of distributed denial-of-service attacks from sophisticated third parties.

Our networks and systems are subject to constant attempts to identify and exploit potential vulnerabilities in our operating environment with intent to disrupt our business operations and capture, destroy or manipulate various types of information relating to corporate trade secrets, customer information, including Card Member, travel and loyalty program account information, employee information and other sensitive business information, including acquisition activity, financial results and intellectual property. There are a number of motivations for cyber threat actors, including criminal activities such as fraud, identity theft and ransom, corporate or nation-state espionage, political agendas, public embarrassment with the intent to cause financial or reputational harm, intent to disrupt information technology systems, and to expose and exploit potential security and privacy vulnerabilities in corporate systems and websites.

As outsourcing, specialization of functions, third-party digital services and technology innovation within the payments industry increase (including with respect to mobile technologies, tokenization, big data and cloud storage solutions), more third parties are involved in processing card transactions and there is a risk the confidentiality, integrity, privacy and/or security of data held by, or accessible to, third parties, including merchants that accept our cards, payment processors and our business partners, may be compromised, which could lead to unauthorized transactions on our cards and costs associated with responding to such an incident. In addition, high profile data breaches such as the one announced in 2017 by Equifax, one of the three major credit reporting agencies in the United States, could change consumer behaviors, impact our ability to access data to make product offers and credit decisions and result in legislation and additional regulatory requirements.

We develop and maintain systems and processes aimed at detecting and preventing information and cyber security incidents and fraudulent activity, which require significant investment, maintenance and ongoing monitoring and updating as technologies and regulatory requirements change and as efforts to overcome security measures become more sophisticated. Despite our efforts, the possibility of information and cyber security incidents, malicious social engineering, fraudulent or other malicious activities and human error or malfeasance cannot be eliminated entirely. Risks associated with each of these remain, including the unauthorized disclosure, release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, modification, loss or destruction of confidential, proprietary or other information (including account data information) or negative impact to online accounts and systems. These risks will likely evolve as new technology is deployed. For example, with the increased use of EMV technology, we may see a decrease in traditional fraud risk, but sophisticated fraudsters may develop new ways to commit fraud and we may see an increase in online fraud and impersonation and identity takeover attempts.

Our information technology systems, including our transaction authorization, clearing and settlement systems, and data centers may experience service disruptions or degradation because of technology malfunction, sudden increases in customer transaction volume, natural disasters, accidents, power outages, internet outages, telecommunications failures, fraud, denial-of-service and other cyberattacks, terrorism, computer viruses, physical or electronic break-ins, or similar events. Service disruptions could prevent access to our online services and account information, compromise Company or customer data, and impede transaction processing and financial reporting. Inadequate infrastructure in lesser-developed countries could also result in service disruptions, which could impact our ability to do business in those countries.

If our information technology systems experience a significant disruption or breach, or if actual or perceived fraud levels or other illegal activities involving our cards, customer online accounts or systems were to rise due to an information or cyber security incident at a business partner, merchant or other market participant, employee error, malfeasance or otherwise, it could lead to the loss of data or data integrity, regulatory investigations and intervention (such as mandatory card reissuance), increased litigation (including class action litigation), remediation and response costs, greater concerns of customers and/or business partners relating to the privacy and security of their data, and reputational and financial damage to our brand, which could reduce the use and acceptance of our cards, and have a material adverse impact on our business.

If such disruptions or breaches are not detected quickly, their effect could be compounded. Information or cyber security incidents and other actual or perceived failures to maintain confidentiality, integrity, privacy and/or security, including leaked business data, may also disrupt our operations, undermine our competitive advantage through the disclosure of sensitive company information, divert management attention and resources, and negatively impact the assessment of us and our subsidiaries by banking regulators and rating agencies.

Successful cyberattacks or data breaches at other large financial institutions, large retailers or other market participants, whether or not we are impacted, could lead to a general loss of customer confidence that could negatively affect us, including harming the market perception of the effectiveness of our security measures or harming the reputation of the financial system in general, which could result in reduced use of our products and services. Although we have insurance for losses related to cyber risks and attacks and information and cyber security and privacy liability, it may not be sufficient to offset the impact of a material loss event.

 

 

We may be obligated to make or accelerate payments to certain business partners such as cobrand partners upon the occurrence of certain triggering events such as a shortfall in certain performance and revenue levels. If we are not able to effectively manage these triggering events, we could unexpectedly have to make payments to these partners, which could have a negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are also exposed to risk from bankruptcies, liquidations, insolvencies, financial distress, restructurings, consolidations and other similar events that may occur in any industry representing a significant portion of our billed business, which could negatively impact particular card products and services (and billed business generally) and our financial condition and results of operations. For example, we could be materially impacted if we were obligated to or elected to reimburse Card Members for products and services purchased from merchants that have ceased operations or stopped accepting our cards.

We are exposed to credit risk in the airline industry, which accounted for approximately 8 percent of our worldwide billed business for the year ended December 31, 2017, to the extent we protect Card Members against non-delivery of goods and services, such as where we have remitted payment to an airline for a Card Member purchase of tickets that have not yet been used or “flown.” If we are unable to collect the amount from the airline, we may bear the loss for the amount credited to the Card Member.

For additional information relating to the general risks related to the airline industry, see “Risk Management—Institutional Credit Risk—Exposure to the Airline Industry” under “MD&A.”

We have acquired a number of businesses and have made a number of strategic investments, and continue to evaluate potential transactions. These transactions could be material to our financial condition and results of operations. There is no assurance that we will be able to successfully identify and secure future acquisition candidates on terms and conditions that are acceptable to us or complete proposed acquisitions and investments, which could impair our growth. The process of integrating an acquired company, business or technology could create unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures, result in unanticipated liabilities and harm our business generally. It may take us longer than expected to fully realize the anticipated benefits of these transactions, and those benefits may ultimately be smaller than anticipated or may not be realized at all, which could adversely affect our business and operating results, including as a result of write-downs of goodwill and other intangible assets.

We may also face risks with other types of strategic transactions, such as the sale to InComm of the operations relating to our prepaid reloadable and gift card business in the United States, which is still subject to final agreement on the program management and issuer processing arrangements. If that transaction is consummated, we could experience disruption in our ability to service our prepaid customers if InComm’s services are interrupted, suspended or terminated for any reason, which could result in additional costs, regulatory risks and harm to our business and reputation.

Joint ventures, including our GBT JV, and minority investments inherently involve a lesser degree of control over business operations, thereby potentially increasing the financial, legal, operational and/or compliance risks associated with the joint venture or minority investment. In addition, we may be dependent on joint venture partners, controlling shareholders or management who may have business interests, strategies or goals that are inconsistent with ours. Business decisions or other actions or omissions of the joint venture partner, controlling shareholders or management may adversely affect the value of our investment, result in litigation or regulatory action against us and otherwise damage our reputation and brand.

We rely on third-party service providers, merchants, customer acquisition channels, processors, aggregators, GNS partners and other third parties for services that are integral to our operations and are subject to the risk that activities of such third parties may adversely affect our business. For example, we rely on third parties for the timely transmission of accurate information across our global network, card acquisition and provision of services to our customers. If a service provider or other third party ceases to provide the data quality or communications capacity we expect or services upon which we rely, as a result of natural disaster, operational disruptions or errors, terrorism, information or cyber security incidents, or any other reason, the failure could interrupt or compromise the quality of our services to customers or impact our ability to grow our business. There is also a risk the confidentiality, integrity, privacy and/or security of data held by, or accessible to, third parties or communicated over third-party networks or platforms could become compromised, which could significantly harm our business even if the attack or breach does not impact our systems. We are also exposed to the risk that a disruption or other event at a service provider to one of our service providers or partners could impede their ability to provide to us services or data on which we rely to operate our business. Service providers or other third parties could also cease providing data to us if we are unable to negotiate for data use rights or use our data for purposes that do not benefit us, which could diminish the competitive value of our closed loop.

 

 

The management of multiple third-party vendors increases our operational complexity and decreases our control. A failure to exercise adequate oversight over third-party service providers, including compliance with service level agreements or regulatory or legal requirements, could result in regulatory actions, fines, sanctions or economic and reputational harm to us. In addition, we may not be able to effectively monitor or mitigate operational risks relating to our vendors’ service providers.

Geopolitical events, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, severe weather conditions, floods, health pandemics, information or cyber security incidents (including intrusion into or degradation of systems or technology by cyberattackers) and other catastrophic events can have a negative effect on our business. Because of our proximity to the World Trade Center, our headquarters were damaged as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In 2017, hurricanes impacted spending and credit performance in the areas affected. Similar events or other disasters or catastrophic events in the future, and events impacting other sectors of the economy, including the telecommunications and energy sectors, could have a negative effect on our businesses and infrastructure, including our technology and systems. Card Members in California, New York, Florida, Texas and Georgia account for a significant portion of U.S. Consumer billed business and Card Members loans, and our results of operations could be impacted by events or conditions that disproportionately or specifically affect one or more of those states.

Because we derive a portion of our revenues from travel-related spending, our business is sensitive to safety concerns related to travel and tourism, limitations on travel and mobility, and health-related risks. In addition, disruptions in air travel and other forms of travel can result in the payment of claims under travel interruption insurance policies we offer and, if such disruptions to travel are prolonged, they can materially adversely affect overall travel-related spending.

If the conditions described above (or similar ones) result in widespread or lengthy disruptions to travel, they could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Card Member spending may also be negatively impacted in areas affected by natural disasters or other catastrophic events. The impact of such events on the overall economy may also adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

Our business in the United Kingdom and elsewhere may be negatively impacted by the uncertainty regarding the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union (commonly referred to as Brexit), including from a deterioration of consumer and business activity in the United Kingdom and other countries and general uncertainty in the overall business environment in which we operate. We may experience increased volatility in the value of the pound sterling and the euro, further strengthening the U.S. dollar, which could continue to adversely impact our results of operations from our international activities. The exit itself could also have a negative impact on the United Kingdom and other European economies, which could adversely affect spending on our cards and the ability and willingness of Card Members to pay amounts owed to us. As of December 31, 2017, the EMEA region constituted approximately 11 percent of our worldwide billed business. It is unclear at this stage the financial, trade and legal implications of Brexit, although we expect to make changes to the structure of our business operations in Europe as a result.

Our success depends, in part, on our executive officers and other key personnel. Our senior management team has significant industry experience and would be difficult to replace. We rely upon our key personnel not only for business success, but also to lead with integrity. To the extent our leaders behave in a manner that does not comport with our company’s values, the consequences to our brand and reputation could be severe and could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The market for qualified individuals is highly competitive, and we may not be able to attract and retain qualified personnel or candidates to replace or succeed members of our senior management team or other key personnel. Changes in immigration and work permit laws and regulations or the administration or enforcement of such laws or regulations can also impair our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, or to employ such personnel in the location(s) of our choice. As further described in “Supervision and Regulation—Compensation Practices,” our compensation practices are subject to review and oversight by the Federal Reserve and the compensation practices of our U.S. bank subsidiaries are subject to review and oversight by the FDIC and the OCC. This regulatory review and oversight could further affect our ability to attract and retain our executive officers and other key personnel. The loss of key personnel could materially adversely affect our business.

 

 

 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and certain states’ attorneys general brought an action against us alleging that the provisions in our card acceptance agreements with merchants that prohibit merchants from discriminating against our card products violate the U.S. antitrust laws. Following a non-jury trial in the case, the trial court found that the challenged provisions were anticompetitive and issued a final judgment entering a permanent injunction. Following our appeal of this judgment, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the trial court decision and directed the trial court to enter a judgment for American Express. Eleven of the 17 states that are party to the case filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a review of the Second Circuit’s decision. On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and oral argument is scheduled for February 26, 2018. We are also a defendant in a number of actions and arbitration proceedings, including proposed class actions, filed by merchants that challenge the non-discrimination and honor-all-cards provisions in our card acceptance agreements and seek damages. A description of these legal proceedings is contained in “Legal Proceedings.”

An adverse outcome in these proceedings against us could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations, require us to change our merchant agreements in a way that could expose our cards to increased merchant steering and other forms of discrimination that could impair the Card Member experience, result in additional litigation and/or arbitrations, impose substantial monetary damages and damage our reputation and brand. Even if we were not required to change our merchant agreements, changes in Visa’s and MasterCard’s policies or practices as a result of legal proceedings, lawsuit settlements or regulatory actions pending against them could result in changes to our business practices and materially and adversely impact our profitability.

We are subject to comprehensive government regulation and supervision in jurisdictions around the world, which significantly affects our business, and has the potential to restrict the scope of our existing businesses, increase our costs of doing business, limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, require changes to business practices, affect our relationships with partners, merchants and Card Members, or make our products and services more expensive for customers. Regulatory oversight and supervision of our businesses are generally designed to protect consumers and enhance financial stability and are not designed to protect our security holders.

New laws or regulations, enhanced supervision efforts or changes in the enforcement of existing laws or regulations applicable to our businesses could impact the profitability of our business activities, limit our ability to pursue business opportunities or adopt new technologies, require us to change certain of our business practices or alter our relationships with partners, merchants and Card Members, or affect retention of our key personnel. Such changes also may require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes and could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Legislators and regulators around the world are aware of each other’s approaches to the regulation of the payments industry. Consequently, a development in one country, state or region may influence regulatory approaches in another. To the extent that different regulatory systems impose overlapping or inconsistent requirements on the conduct of our business, we face complexity and additional costs in our compliance efforts.

If we fail to satisfy regulatory requirements or maintain our financial holding company status, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected, and we may be restricted in our ability to take certain capital actions (such as declaring dividends or repurchasing outstanding shares) or engage in certain activities or acquisitions. Additionally, our banking regulators have wide discretion in the examination and the enforcement of applicable banking statutes and regulations and may restrict our ability to engage in certain activities or acquisitions or require us to maintain more capital.

In recent years, legislators and regulators have focused on the operation of card networks, including interchange fees paid to card issuers in payment networks such as Visa and MasterCard and the fees merchants are charged to accept cards. Even where we are not directly regulated, regulation of bankcard fees can significantly negatively impact the discount revenue derived from our business, including as a result of downward pressure on our discount rate from decreases in competitor pricing in connection with caps on interchange fees. In some cases, regulations extend to certain aspects of our business, such as GNS and cobrand arrangements or terms of card acceptance for merchants, including terms relating to non-discrimination and honor-all-cards. For example, regulations in the EU and Australia have undermined our GNS business in those jurisdictions and have resulted in the moderation of GNS billed business growth. In addition, there is uncertainty as to when or how interchange fee cap provisions and other provisions might apply when we work with cobrand partners and agents in the EU following a ruling from the EU Court of Justice, and there can be no assurance we will be able to maintain such relationships in their current form.

 

 

We are subject to certain provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, with regard to maintaining effective AML programs. Similar AML requirements apply under the laws of most jurisdictions where we operate. Increased regulatory focus in this area could result in additional obligations or restrictions with respect to the types of products and services we may offer to consumers, the countries in which our cards may be used, and the types of customers and merchants who can obtain or accept our cards. Activity such as money laundering or terrorist financing involving our cards could result in enforcement action, and our reputation may suffer due to our customers’ association with certain countries, persons or entities or the existence of any such transactions.

U.S. federal law regulates abusive debt collection practices, which, along with bankruptcy and debtor relief laws, can affect our ability to collect amounts owed to us or subject us to regulatory scrutiny. Our ability to recover debt we had previously written-off may be limited, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations.

Various regulatory agencies and legislatures are also considering regulations and legislation covering identity theft, account management guidelines, credit bureau reporting, disclosure rules, security and marketing that would impact us directly, in part due to increased scrutiny of our underwriting and account management standards. These new requirements may restrict our ability to issue charge and credit cards or partner with other financial institutions, which could adversely affect our revenue growth.

See “Supervision and Regulation” for more information about certain laws and regulations to which we are subject and their impact on us.

Businesses in the financial services and payments industries have historically been subject to significant legal actions, including class action lawsuits. Many of these actions have included claims for substantial compensatory or punitive damages. While we have historically relied on our arbitration clause in agreements with customers to limit our exposure to class action litigation, there can be no assurance that we will continue to be successful in enforcing our arbitration clause in the future. The continued focus of merchants on issues relating to the acceptance of various forms of payment may lead to additional litigation and other legal actions. Given the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some matters asserted against us, there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate liability we may incur from litigation matters.

We have been subject to regulatory actions by the CFPB and other regulators and may continue to be subject to such actions, including governmental inquiries, investigations and enforcement proceedings, in the event of noncompliance or alleged noncompliance with laws or regulations. Regulatory action could subject us to significant fines, penalties or other requirements resulting in Card Member reimbursements, increased expenses, limitations or conditions on our business activities, and damage to our reputation and our brand, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. We expect that regulators will continue taking formal enforcement actions against financial institutions in addition to addressing supervisory concerns through non-public supervisory actions or findings, which could involve restrictions on our activities, among other limitations that could adversely affect our business.

Failure to meet current or future capital or liquidity requirements, including those imposed by the Capital Rules, the LCR, the NSFR or by regulators in implementing other portions of the Basel III framework and the enhanced supervision requirements of Dodd-Frank, could compromise our competitive position and could result in restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve, including limiting our ability to pay dividends, repurchase our capital stock, invest in our business, expand our business or engage in acquisitions.

Some elements of the capital and liquidity regimes are not yet final and certain developments could significantly impact the requirements applicable to financial institutions. For example, the Basel Committee finalized revisions to the standardized approach for credit risk and operational risk capital requirements. If these revisions are adopted in the United States, we could be required to hold significantly more capital. As a result, the ultimate impact on our long-term capital and liquidity planning and our results of operations is not certain, although an increase in our capital and liquid asset levels could lower our return on equity. As part of our required stress testing, both internally and by the Federal Reserve, we must continue to comply with applicable capital standards as calculated under the standardized approach in the adverse and severely adverse economic scenarios published by the Federal Reserve each year. To satisfy these requirements, it may be necessary for us to hold additional capital in excess of that required by the Capital Rules.

Compliance with capital adequacy and liquidity rules, including the Capital Rules and the LCR, requires a material investment of resources. An inability to meet regulatory expectations regarding our compliance with applicable capital adequacy and liquidity rules may also negatively impact the assessment of the Company and our U.S. bank subsidiaries by federal banking regulators.

 

 

We continue to progress through the parallel run phase of Basel III advanced approaches implementation. Depending on how the advanced approaches are ultimately implemented for our asset types, our capital ratios calculated under the advanced approaches may be lower than under the standardized approach. In such a case, we may need to hold significantly more regulatory capital in order to maintain a given capital ratio.

For more information on capital adequacy requirements, see “Capital, Leverage and Liquidity Regulation” under “Supervision and Regulation.”

We are limited in our ability to pay dividends and repurchase capital stock by our regulators, who have broad authority to prohibit any action that would be considered an unsafe or unsound banking practice. For example, we are subject to a requirement to submit capital plans that include, among other things, projected dividend payments and repurchases of capital stock to the Federal Reserve for review. As part of the capital planning and stress testing process, our proposed capital actions are assessed against our ability to satisfy applicable capital requirements in the event of a stressed market environment. If the Federal Reserve objects to our capital plan or if we fail to satisfy applicable capital requirements, our ability to undertake capital actions may be restricted.

In addition, the Capital Rules include a capital conservation buffer and a countercyclical capital buffer, which is currently set at zero but which could be increased by the Federal Reserve in the future. These buffers can be satisfied only with CET1 capital. If our risk-based capital ratios were to fall below the applicable buffer levels, we would be subject to certain restrictions on dividends, stock repurchases and other capital distributions, as well as discretionary bonus payments to executive officers.

A failure to increase dividends along with our competitors, or any reduction of, or elimination of, our common stock dividend or share repurchase program would likely adversely affect the market price of our common stock and market perceptions of American Express.

Our ability to declare or pay dividends on, or to purchase, redeem or otherwise acquire, shares of our common stock will be prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, in the event that we do not declare and pay in full dividends for the last preceding dividend period of our Series B and Series C preferred stock.

American Express Company relies on dividends from its subsidiaries for liquidity, and federal and state laws limit the amount of dividends that our subsidiaries may pay to the parent company. In particular, our U.S. bank subsidiaries are subject to various statutory and regulatory limitations on their declaration and payment of dividends. These limitations may hinder our ability to access funds we may need to make payments on our obligations, make dividend payments on outstanding American Express Company capital stock or otherwise achieve strategic objectives.

For more information on bank holding company and depository institution dividend restrictions, see “Dividends and Other Capital Distributions” under “Supervision and Regulation,” as well as “Consolidated Capital Resources and Liquidity—Share Repurchases and Dividends” under “MD&A” and Note 23 to our “Consolidated Financial Statements.”

As privacy, data protection and information and cyber security laws, including data localization, authentication and account access laws, are interpreted and applied, compliance costs may increase, particularly in the context of ensuring that adequate data protection, data transfer and account access mechanisms are in place. In recent years, there has been increasing regulatory enforcement and litigation activity in the areas of privacy, data protection and information security in the United States and in various countries in which we operate.

In addition, state and federal legislators and/or regulators in the United States and other countries in which we operate are increasingly adopting or revising privacy, data protection, account access and information and cyber security laws that potentially could have significant impact on our current and planned privacy, data protection, account access and information and cyber security-related practices, our collection, use, sharing, retention and safeguarding of consumer and/or employee information, and some of our current or planned business activities. New legislation or regulation could increase our costs of compliance and business operations and could reduce revenues from certain business initiatives. Moreover, the application of existing or new laws to existing technology and practices can be uncertain and may lead to additional compliance risk and cost.

Compliance with current or future privacy, data protection, account access and information and cyber security laws relating to consumer and/or employee data could result in higher compliance and technology costs and could restrict our ability to fully maximize our closed-loop capability or provide certain products and services, which could materially and adversely affect our profitability. Our failure to comply with privacy, data protection, account access and information and cyber security laws could result in potentially significant regulatory and/or governmental investigations and/or actions, litigation, fines, sanctions, ongoing regulatory monitoring, customer attrition, decreases in the use or acceptance of our cards and damage to our reputation and our brand.

 

 

We consider operational risk to be the risk of not achieving business objectives due to inadequate or failed processes or information systems, poor data quality, human error or the external environment (e.g., natural disasters). Operational risk includes, among others, the risk that employee error or intentional misconduct could result in a material financial misstatement, a failure to monitor a third party’s compliance with a service level agreement or regulatory or legal requirements, or a failure to adequately monitor and control access to, or use of, data in our systems we grant to third-party service providers. As processes or organizations are changed, or new products and services are introduced, we may not fully appreciate or identify new operational risks that may arise from such changes. Compliance risk arises from the failure to adhere to applicable laws, rules, regulations and internal policies and procedures. Operational and compliance risks can expose us to reputational and legal risks as well as fines, civil money penalties or payment of damages and can lead to diminished business opportunities and diminished ability to expand key operations.

We rely on a variety of measures to protect our intellectual property and control access to, and distribution of, our proprietary information. These measures may not prevent infringement of our intellectual property rights or misappropriation of our proprietary information and a resulting loss of competitive advantage. In addition, competitors or other third parties may allege that our systems, processes or technologies infringe on their intellectual property rights. Given the complex, rapidly changing and competitive technological and business environments in which we operate, and the potential risks and uncertainties of intellectual property-related litigation, a future assertion of an infringement or misappropriation claim against us could cause us to lose significant revenues, incur significant defense, license, royalty or technology development expenses, and/or pay significant monetary damages.

We are subject to income and other taxes in the United States and in various foreign jurisdictions. The laws and regulations related to tax matters are extremely complex and subject to varying interpretations. Although management believes our positions are reasonable, we are subject to audit by the Internal Revenue Service in the United States and by tax authorities in all the jurisdictions in which we conduct business operations. We are being challenged in a number of countries regarding our application of value-added taxes (VAT) to certain transactions. While we believe we comply with all applicable VAT and other tax laws, rules and regulations in the relevant jurisdictions, the tax authorities may determine that we owe additional taxes or apply existing laws and regulations more broadly, which could result in a significant increase in liabilities for taxes and interest in excess of accrued liabilities.

New tax legislative initiatives may be proposed from time to time, which may impact our effective tax rate and could adversely affect our tax positions or tax liabilities. For example, the impacts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the United States resulted in a $2.6 billion charge in the fourth quarter of 2017, representing our current estimate of taxes primarily on the deemed repatriation of certain overseas earnings and the remeasurement of U.S. deferred tax assets and liabilities. In addition, unilateral or multi-jurisdictional actions by various tax authorities, including an increase in tax audit activity, could have an adverse impact on our tax liabilities.

We are subject to changes in and interpretations of financial accounting matters that govern the measurement of our performance, which could change the way we account for certain of our transactions even if we do not change the way in which we transact. A change in accounting guidance can have a significant effect on our reported results, may retroactively affect previously reported results and could cause fluctuations in our reported results. For more information on recently issued accounting standards, see Note 1 to our “Consolidated Financial Statements.”

 

 

Our risk management framework seeks to identify and mitigate risk and appropriately balance risk and return. We have established policies and procedures intended to identify, monitor and manage the types of risk to which we are subject, including credit risk, market risk, asset liability risk, liquidity risk, operational risk, compliance risk, model risk, strategic and business risk and reputational risk. See “Risk Management” under “MD&A” for a discussion of the policies and procedures we use to identify, monitor and manage the risks we assume in conducting our businesses. Although we have devoted significant resources to develop our risk management policies and procedures and expect to continue to do so in the future, these policies and procedures, as well as our risk management techniques, such as our hedging strategies, may not be fully effective. There may also be risks that exist, or develop in the future, that we have not appropriately anticipated, identified or mitigated. As regulations and markets in which we operate continue to evolve, our risk management framework may not always keep sufficient pace with those changes. If our risk management framework does not effectively identify or mitigate our risks, we could suffer unexpected losses and could be materially adversely affected.

Management of our risks in some cases depends upon the use of analytical and/or forecasting models. Although we have a governance framework for model development and independent model validation, the modeling methodology could be erroneous or the models could be misused. If our decisions are based on incorrect or misused model outputs and reports, we may face adverse consequences, such as financial loss, poor business and strategic decision-making, or damage to our reputation. In addition, some decisions our regulators make, including those related to our capital distribution plans, may be adversely impacted if they perceive the quality of our models to be insufficient.

We are exposed to both individual credit risk, principally from consumer and small business Card Member receivables and loans, and institutional credit risk from merchants, GNS partners, GCS clients, loyalty coalition partners and treasury and investment counterparties. Third parties may default on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons. Country, regional and political risks can contribute to credit risk. Our ability to assess creditworthiness may be impaired if the criteria or models we use to manage our credit risk become less predictive of future losses, which could cause our losses to rise and have a negative impact on our results of operations. Rising delinquencies and rising rates of bankruptcy are often precursors of future write-offs and may require us to increase our reserve for loan losses. We are continuing to experience relatively low delinquency and write-off rates, but expect that these rates will increase over time. Higher write-off rates and the resulting increase in our reserve for loan losses adversely affect our profitability and the performance of our securitizations, and may increase our cost of funds.

Although we make estimates to provide for credit losses in our outstanding portfolio of loans and receivables, these estimates may not be accurate. In addition, the information we use in managing our credit risk may be inaccurate or incomplete. Although we regularly review our credit exposure to specific clients and counterparties and to specific industries, countries and regions that we believe may present credit concerns, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to foresee or detect, such as fraud. In addition, our ability to manage credit risk may be adversely affected by legal or regulatory changes (such as bankruptcy laws and minimum payment regulations). Increased credit risk, whether resulting from underestimating the credit losses inherent in our portfolio of loans and receivables, deteriorating economic conditions (particularly in the United States where approximately 74 percent of our revenues are generated), increases in the level of loan balances, changes in our mix of business or otherwise, could require us to increase our provisions for losses and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

If the rate of interest we pay on our borrowings increases more than the rate of interest we earn on our loans, our net interest yield, and consequently our net income, could fall. Our interest expense was approximately $2.1 billion for the year ended December 31, 2017. A hypothetical 100 basis point increase in market interest rates would have resulted in a decrease to our annual net interest income of approximately $167 million as of December 31, 2017. We expect the rates we pay on our deposits will increase as benchmark interest rates increase. In addition, interest rate changes may affect customer behavior, such as impacting the loan balances Card Members carry on their credit cards or their ability to make payments as higher interest rates lead to higher payment requirements, further impacting our results of operations.

For a further discussion of our interest rate risk, see “Risk Management ― Market Risk Management Process” under “MD&A.”

 

 

We need liquidity to pay merchants, operating and other expenses, interest on debt and dividends on capital stock and to repay maturing liabilities. The principal sources of our liquidity are payments from Card Members, cash flows from our investment portfolio, cash and cash equivalents, proceeds from the issuance of unsecured medium- and long-term notes and asset securitizations and direct and third-party sourced deposits, securitized borrowings through our secured financing facilities, a committed bank borrowing facility and the Federal Reserve discount window.

Our ability to obtain financing in the debt capital markets for unsecured term debt and asset securitizations is dependent on market conditions. Disruptions, uncertainty or volatility across the financial markets, as well as adverse developments affecting our competitors and the financial industry generally, could negatively impact market liquidity and limit our access to funding required to operate our business. Such market conditions may also limit our ability to replace, in a timely manner, maturing liabilities, satisfy regulatory capital requirements and access the funding necessary to grow our business. In some circumstances, we may incur an unattractive cost to raise capital, which could decrease profitability and significantly reduce financial flexibility.

For a further discussion of our liquidity and funding needs, see “Consolidated Capital Resources and Liquidity ― Funding Programs and Activities” under “MD&A.”

Rating agencies regularly evaluate us and our subsidiaries, and their ratings of our and our subsidiaries’ long-term and short-term debt and deposits are based on a number of factors, including financial strength as well as factors not within our control, including conditions affecting the financial services industry generally, and the wider state of the economy. Our and our subsidiaries’ ratings could be downgraded at any time and without any notice by any of the rating agencies, which could, among other things, adversely limit our access to the capital markets and adversely affect the cost and other terms upon which we and our subsidiaries are able to obtain funding.

During 2017, approximately 26 percent of our total revenues net of interest expense were generated from activities outside the United States. We are exposed to foreign exchange risk from our international operations, and accordingly the revenue we generate outside the United States is subject to unpredictable fluctuations if the values of other currencies change relative to the U.S. dollar, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Foreign exchange regulations or capital controls might restrict or prohibit the conversion of other currencies into U.S. dollars or our ability to transfer them. Political and economic conditions in other countries could also impact the availability of foreign exchange for the payment by the local card issuer of obligations arising out of local Card Members’ spending outside such country and for the payment of card bills by Card Members who are billed in a currency other than their local currency. Substantial and sudden devaluation of local Card Members’ currency can also affect their ability to make payments to the local issuer of the card in connection with spending outside the local country. The occurrence of any of these circumstances could further impact our results of operations.

Continuing concerns regarding the overall stability of the euro and the suitability of the euro as a single currency given the diverse economic and political circumstances in individual Eurozone countries may cause the value of the euro to fluctuate more widely than in the past and could lead to the reintroduction of individual currencies in one or more Eurozone countries, or, in more extreme circumstances, the possible dissolution of the euro currency entirely. If there is a significant devaluation of the euro and we are unable to hedge our foreign exchange exposure to the euro, the value of our euro-denominated assets and liabilities would be correspondingly reduced when translated into U.S. dollars for inclusion in our financial statements. Similarly, the reintroduction of certain individual country currencies or the complete dissolution of the euro could adversely affect the value of our euro-denominated assets and liabilities. The reintroduction of individual country currencies would require us to reconfigure our billing and other systems to reflect individual country currencies in place of the euro. Implementing such changes could be costly and failures in the currency reconfiguration could cause disruptions in our normal business operations. In addition, foreign currency derivative instruments to hedge our market exposure to re-introduced currencies may not be immediately available or may not be available on terms that are acceptable to us.

The potential developments regarding Europe and the euro, or market perceptions concerning these and related issues, could continue to have an adverse impact on consumer and business behavior in Europe and globally, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

Our U.S. bank subsidiaries accept deposits from individuals through third-party brokerage networks as well as directly from consumers through American Express Personal Savings, and use the proceeds as a source of funding. As of December 31, 2017, we had approximately $63.7 billion in total U.S. retail deposits, of which a significant amount had been raised through third-party brokerage networks. We face strong competition with regard to deposits, and pricing and product changes may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain cost-effective deposit balances. If we are required to offer higher interest rates to attract or maintain deposits, our funding costs will be adversely impacted.

Our ability to obtain deposit funding and offer competitive interest rates on deposits is also dependent on capital levels of our U.S. bank subsidiaries. The FDIA’s brokered deposit provisions and related FDIC rules in certain circumstances prohibit banks from accepting or renewing brokered deposits and apply other restrictions, such as a cap on interest rates that can be paid. See “Prompt Corrective Action” under “Supervision and Regulation” for additional information.

While Centurion Bank and American Express Bank were considered “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2017 and had no restrictions regarding acceptance of brokered deposits or setting of interest rates, there can be no assurance they will continue to meet this definition. The Capital Rules require bank holding companies and their bank subsidiaries to maintain substantially more capital, with a greater emphasis on common equity. Additionally, our regulators can adjust the requirements to be “well capitalized” at any time and have authority to place limitations on our deposit businesses, including the interest rates we pay on deposits. An inability to attract or maintain deposits in the future could materially adversely affect our liquidity position and our ability to fund our business.

Market risk includes the loss in value of portfolios and financial instruments due to adverse changes in market variables, which could negatively impact our financial condition. We held approximately $3.2 billion of investment securities as of December 31, 2017. In the event that actual default rates of these investment securities were to significantly change from historical patterns due to challenges in the economy or otherwise, it could have a material adverse impact on the value of our investment portfolio, potentially resulting in impairment charges. Defaults or economic disruptions, even in countries or territories in which we do not have material investment exposure, conduct business or have operations, could adversely affect us.

Not applicable.

Our principal executive offices are in a 2.2 million square foot building located in lower Manhattan on land leased from the Battery Park City Authority for a term expiring in 2069. We have an approximately 49 percent ownership interest in the building and an affiliate of Brookfield Financial Properties owns the remaining approximately 51 percent interest in the building. We also lease space in the building from Brookfield’s affiliate.

Other owned or leased principal locations include American Express offices in Sunrise, Florida, Phoenix, Arizona, Salt Lake City, Utah, Mexico City, Mexico, Sydney, Australia, Singapore, Gurgaon, India, Manila, Philippines, and Brighton, England; the American Express data centers in Phoenix, Arizona and Greensboro, North Carolina; the headquarters for American Express Services Europe Limited in London, England; and the Amex Bank of Canada and Amex Canada Inc. headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Generally, we lease the premises we occupy in other locations. We believe the facilities we own or occupy suit our needs and are well maintained.

 

 

In the ordinary course of business, we are subject to various pending and potential legal actions, arbitration proceedings, claims, investigations, examinations, information gathering requests, subpoenas, inquiries and matters relating to compliance with laws and regulations (collectively, legal proceedings).

We do not believe we are a party to, nor are any of our properties the subject of, any legal proceeding that would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or liquidity. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, including the fact that some pending legal proceedings are at preliminary stages and seek an indeterminate amount of damages, it is possible that the outcome of legal proceedings could have a material impact on our results of operations. In addition, it is possible that significantly increased merchant steering or other actions impairing the Card Member experience as a result of the DOJ or merchant cases described later in this section could have a material adverse effect on our business. Certain legal proceedings involving us or our subsidiaries are described below. For additional information, see Note 13 to our “Consolidated Financial Statements.”

In 2010, the DOJ, along with Attorneys General from Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii (Hawaii has since withdrawn its claim), Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Vermont filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against us alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaint included allegations that provisions in our merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from steering a customer to use another network’s card or another type of general-purpose card (“anti-steering” and “non-discrimination” contractual provisions) violate the antitrust laws. The complaint sought a judgment permanently enjoining us from enforcing our non-discrimination contractual provisions. The complaint did not seek monetary damages.

Following a non-jury trial, the trial court found that the challenged provisions were anticompetitive and on April 30, 2015, the court issued a final judgment entering a permanent injunction. Following our appeal of this judgment, on September 26, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the trial court decision and judgment in favor of American Express was entered on January 25, 2017. Eleven of the 17 states that are party to the case filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a review of the Second Circuit’s decision. On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and oral argument is scheduled for February 26, 2018 in the case, now captioned Ohio v. American Express Co.

In addition, individual merchant cases and a putative class action, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), are pending in the Eastern District of New York against us alleging that our anti-steering provisions in merchant card acceptance agreements violate U.S. antitrust laws. The individual merchant cases seek damages in unspecified amounts and injunctive relief.

In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in another putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.

In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) and The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., including a trial previously scheduled in the individual merchant cases, are stayed pending resolution of the appeal in Ohio v. American Express Co. Further proceedings are anticipated.

Individual merchants have also initiated arbitration proceedings raising similar claims concerning the anti-steering provisions in our card acceptance agreements and seeking damages. We are vigorously defending against those claims, which are similarly stayed.

On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam’s Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam’s Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California’s Cartwright Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against American Express Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. An amended complaint was filed on July 15, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court denied our motion to dismiss as to claims brought by merchants who do not accept American Express cards, and on May 4, 2017, the California court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

 

On July 30, 2015, plaintiff Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of American Express stock, filed a suit, captioned Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for violation of federal securities law, alleging that the Company deliberately issued false and misleading statements to, and omitted important information from, the public relating to the financial importance of the Costco cobrand relationship to the Company, including, but not limited to, the decision to accelerate negotiations to renew the cobrand agreement. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief. On October 2, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The plaintiff has appealed the court’s decision.

Not applicable.

The table below sets forth the information with respect to purchases of our common stock made by us or on our behalf during the quarter ended December 31, 2017.

 

 

The average discount rate was 2.43 percent, 2.45 percent and 2.46 percent for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The decrease in the average discount rate in 2017 compared to 2016 primarily reflected rate pressure from merchant negotiations, including those resulting from the recent regulatory changes affecting competitor pricing in certain international markets, the continued growth of the OptBlue program, and changes in industry and geographic mix. We expect the average discount rate will continue to decline over time due to a greater shift of existing merchants into OptBlue, merchant negotiations and competition, volume related pricing discounts, certain pricing initiatives mainly driven by pricing regulation (including regulation of competitors’ interchange rates) and other factors.

Net card fees increased in both periods. The increase in 2017 was primarily driven by growth in the Platinum and Delta portfolios and growth in key international markets. The increase in 2016 was primarily driven by growth in the Platinum, Gold and Delta portfolios.

Other fees and commissions increased in 2017 compared to 2016, and decreased in 2016 compared to 2015. The increase in 2017 was primarily driven by an increase in delinquency fees due to a change in the late fee assessment date for certain U.S. charge cards and an increase in foreign exchange conversion revenue. The decrease in 2016 was primarily due to lower Costco-related fees, partially offset by an increase in delinquency and loyalty coalition-related fees.

Other revenues decreased in 2017 compared to 2016, and were relatively flat in 2016 compared to 2015. The decrease in 2017 was primarily driven by prior-year revenues related to the Loyalty Edge business, which was sold in the fourth quarter of 2016, and a contractual payment from a GNS partner also in the prior year. 2016 included the previously-mentioned contractual payment from a GNS partner and higher revenues from our Prepaid Services business compared to 2015, offset by lower revenues related to Costco, Loyalty Edge and the GBT JV transition services agreement.

Interest income increased in 2017 compared to 2016 and decreased in 2016 compared to 2015. The increase in 2017 primarily reflected higher average Card Member loans and higher yields. The growth in average Card Member loans was primarily driven by a mix shift over time towards non-cobrand lending products, where Card Members tend to revolve more of their loan balances. The increase in yields was primarily driven by a greater percentage of loans at higher rate buckets, specific pricing actions, and increases in benchmark interest rates. The decrease in 2016 was primarily driven by lower Costco cobrand loans and the associated interest income, partially offset by modestly higher yields and an increase in average Card Member loans across other lending products.

Interest expense increased in both periods. The increase in 2017 was primarily driven by higher interest rates and higher average long-term debt. The increase in 2016 was primarily driven by higher average customer deposit balances, partially offset by lower average long-term debt.