Bank of America
BAC
#27
Rank
NZ$644.90 B
Marketcap
NZ$88.31
Share price
-1.12%
Change (1 day)
10.23%
Change (1 year)

Bank of America Corporation is a major US bank headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. The company was at times the largest credit institution in the United States.

Bank of America - 10-Q quarterly report FY2011 Q2


Text size:
Table of Contents

 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
[ü] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2011
or
[   ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from          to
Commission file number:
1-6523
Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter:
Bank of America Corporation
State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization:
Delaware
IRS Employer Identification Number:
56-0906609
Address of Principal Executive Offices:
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(704) 386-5681
Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report:
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes ü     No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes ü     No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (check one).
       
Large accelerated filer ü     Accelerated filer     Non-accelerated filer
(do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
      Smaller reporting company
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).
Yes     No ü
On July 31, 2011, there were 10,134,295,342 shares of Bank of America Corporation Common Stock outstanding.
 

1


Table of Contents

Bank of America Corporation

June 30, 2011 Form 10-Q
INDEX
           
      Page   
Part I.
Financial
Information
 Item 1.       
      128   
      129   
      131   
      132   
      133   
      133   
      136   
      136   
      137   
      145   
      151   
      161   
      162   
      173   
      184   
      185   
      195   
      196   
      196   
      197   
      199   
      210   
      212   
      214   
      215   
          
 
  Item 2.   4   
      6   
      12   
      15   
      19   
      30   
      31   
      33   
      35   
      40   
      42   
      46   
      49   
      51   
      62   
      64   
      64   
      64   
      69   
      75   
      76   
      93   
      103   
      107   
      107   

2


Table of Contents

           
      111   
      112   
      114   
      119   
      119   
      120   
      120   
      124   
          
 
  Item 3.   127   
          
 
  Item 4.   127   
          
 
 
          
 
Part II.
Other Information
   
 
  219   
          
 
  Item 1.   219   
          
 
  Item 1A.   219   
          
 
  Item 2.   223   
          
 
  Item 5(a).   223   
          
 
  Item 6.   224   
          
 
  Signature  225   
          
 
  Index to Exhibits 226  
 
 EX-4.A
 EX-10.A
 EX-12
 EX-31.A
 EX-31.B
 EX-32.A
 EX-32.B
 EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
 EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

3


Table of Contents

Item 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
     This report on Form 10-Q, the documents that it incorporates by reference and the documents into which it may be incorporated by reference may contain, and from time to time Bank of America Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, the Corporation) and its management may make, certain statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements often use words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “targets,” “intends,” “plans,” “goal” and other similar expressions or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “may,” “might,” “should,” “would” and “could.” The forward-looking statements made represent the current expectations, plans or forecasts of the Corporation regarding the Corporation’s future results and revenues, and future business and economic conditions more generally, including statements concerning: 2011 expense levels; higher revenue and expense reductions in 2012; improving performance in retail businesses; home price assumptions and Home Price Index (HPI) estimates; the impact of the agreement with Assured Guaranty Ltd. and its subsidiaries (Assured Guaranty) and its cost, including the expected valueof the loss-sharing reinsurance arrangement; the adequacy of the liability for the remaining representations and warranties exposure to government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) (collectively, the GSEs) and the future impact to earnings, including the impact on such estimated liability arising from the recent announcement by FNMA regarding mortgage rescissions, cancellations and claim denials and the Corporation’s ability to resolve such rescissions, cancellations or claim denials within the appeal period allowed by FNMA; the expected repurchase claims on the 2004-2008 loan vintages; the Corporation’s belief that with the provision recorded in connection with the agreement to resolve nearly all of the legacy Countrywide-issued first-lien non-GSE residential mortgage-backed securitization repurchase exposures (the BNY Mellon Settlement), and the additional representations and warranties provisions recorded in the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation will provide for a substantial portion of its non-GSE representations and warranties exposure; in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, the Corporation’s obligations to pay, and estimates of, attorneys’ fees and costs of the group of 22 institutional investors supporting the BNY Mellon Settlement (the Investor Group) and the fees and expenses incurred by the trustee; the impact of the BNY Mellon Settlement on costs related to mortgage servicing obligations; the potential assertion and impact of additional claims not addressed by the BNY Mellon Settlement or any of the prior agreements entered into between the Corporation and the GSEs, monoline insurers and other investors; the resolution of certain related claims being litigated by investors in the event that final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement is obtained; the Corporation’s belief that private letter rulings from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other tax rulings and opinions will be obtained during the period prior to final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement; representations and warranties liabilities (also commonly referred to as reserves), and the estimated range of possible loss, expenses and repurchase claims and resolution of those claims, and any related servicing, securities, fraud, indemnity or other claims; the Corporation’s intention to vigorously contest any requests for repurchase for which it concludes that a valid basis does not exist; future impact of complying with the terms of the recent consent orders with federal bank regulators regarding the foreclosure process and potential civil monetary penalties that may be levied in connection therewith; the impact of delays in connection with the Corporation’s temporary halt of foreclosure proceedings in late 2010; the progress toward achieving a resolution in negotiations with law enforcement authorities and federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), involving mortgage servicing practices; the impact on economic conditions and on the Corporation arising from any changes to the credit rating or perceived creditworthiness of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by the U.S. government, or of institutions, agencies or instrumentalities directly linked to the U.S. government; charges to income tax expense resulting from reductions in the United Kingdom (U.K.) corporate income tax rate; future payment protection insurance (PPI) claims in the U.K.; future risk-weighted assets and any mitigation efforts to reduce risk-weighted assets; net interest income; credit trends and conditions, including credit losses, credit reserves, charge-offs, delinquency, collection and bankruptcy trends, and nonperforming asset levels; consumer and commercial service charges, including the impact of changes in the Corporation’s overdraft policy and the Corporation’s ability to mitigate a decline in revenues; liquidity; capital levels determined by or established in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and with the requirements of various regulatory agencies, including our ability to comply with any Basel capital requirements endorsed by U.S. regulators without raising additional capital and within any applicable regulatory timelines; the revenue impact of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the CARD Act); the revenue impact and the impact on the value of our assets and liabilities resulting from, and any mitigation actions taken in response to, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Financial Reform Act), including the impact of the Durbin Amendment, the Volcker Rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the CFPB); the risk retention rules and derivatives regulations; mortgage production levels; long-term debt levels; short-term debt levels, including the expected reduction of certain short-term unsecured borrowings, including commercial paper, in the

4


Table of Contents

third quarter of 2011; run-off of loan portfolios; that it is the Corporation’s objective to maintain high-quality credit ratings; the estimated range of possible loss and the impact of various legal proceedings discussed in “Litigation and Regulatory Matters” in Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements; the number of delayed foreclosure sales and the resulting financial impact and other similar matters; the amount and timing of any clawback or earn-out payments relating to the sale of certain assets and liabilities of Balboa Insurance Company (Balboa); and other matters relating to the Corporation and the securities that it may offer from time to time. The foregoing is not an exclusive list of all forward-looking statements the Corporation makes. These statements are not guarantees of future results or performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict and often are beyond the Corporation’s control. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the Corporation’s forward-looking statements.
     You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement and should consider the following uncertainties and risks, as well as the risks and uncertainties more fully discussed elsewhere in this report, under Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K, and in any of the Corporation’s subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings: the Corporation’s timing and determinations regarding any potential revised comprehensive capital plan submission and the Federal Reserve’s response; the Corporation’s intent to build capital through retaining earnings, reducing legacy asset portfolios and implementing other non-dilutive capital related initiatives; the accuracy and variability of estimates and assumptions in determining the expected total cost of the BNY Mellon Settlement to the Corporation; the accuracy and variability of estimates and assumptions in determining the estimated liability and/or estimated range of possible loss for representations and warranties exposures to the GSEs, monolines and private-label and other investors; the accuracy and the variability of estimates and assumptions in determining the portion of the Corporation’s repurchase obligations for residential mortgage obligations sold by the Corporation and its affiliates to investors that has been paid or reserved after giving effect to the BNY Mellon Settlement and the charges in the quarter ended June 30, 2011; the possibility that a substantial number of objections to the approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement will be made and that these objections will delay or prevent receipt of final court approval; whether the conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement will be satisfied, including the receipt of final court approval and private letter rulings from the IRS and other tax rulings and opinions; whether conditions in the BNY Mellon Settlement that would permit the Corporation and legacy Countrywide to withdraw from the settlement will occur and whether the Corporation and legacy Countrywide will determine to withdraw from the settlement pursuant to the terms of the BNY Mellon Settlement; the impact of performance and enforcement of obligations under, and provisions contained in, the BNY Mellon Settlement and the agreement with the Investor Group, including performance of obligations under the BNY Mellon Settlement by the Corporation and the trustee and the performance of obligations under the agreement with the Investor Group by the Corporation and the Investor Group; the Corporation and certain of its affiliates’ ability to comply with the servicing and documentation obligations under the BNY Mellon Settlement; the potential assertion and impact of additional claims not addressed by the BNY Mellon Settlement or any of the prior agreements entered into between the Corporation and the GSEs, monoline insurers and other investors; the accuracy and variability of estimates and assumptions in determining the expected value of the loss-sharing reinsurance arrangement relating to the agreement with Assured Guaranty and the total cost of the agreement to the Corporation; the Corporation’s resolutionof certainrepresentations and warranties obligations with the GSEs and our ability to resolve its remaining claims; the Corporation’s ability to resolve its representations and warranties obligations, and any related servicing, securities, fraud, indemnity or other claims with monolines, and private-label investors and other investors, including those monolines and investors from whom we have not yet received claims or with whom we have not yet reached any resolutions; failure to satisfy our obligations as servicer in the residential mortgage securitization process; the adequacy of the liability and/or the estimated range of possible loss for the representations and warranties exposures to the GSEs, monolines and private-label and other investors; the foreclosure review and assessment process, the effectiveness of the Corporation’s response and any governmental findings or penalties or private third-party claims asserted in connection with these foreclosure matters; the ability to achieve resolution in negotiations with law enforcement authorities and federal agencies, including the DOJ and HUD, involving mortgage servicing practices, including the timing and any settlement terms; the adequacy of the reserve for future PPI claims in the U.K.; and the risk of a credit rating downgrade of the U.S. government; negative economic conditions generally including continued weakness in the U.S. housing market, high unemployment in the U.S., as well as economic challenges in many non-U.S. countries in which we operate and sovereign debt challenges; the Corporation’s mortgage modification policies and related results; the level and volatility of the capital markets, interest rates, currency values and other market indices; changes in consumer, investor and counterparty confidence in, and the related impact on, financial markets and institutions, including the Corporation as well as its business partners; the Corporation’s credit ratings and the credit ratings of its securitizations; the impact resulting from international and domestic sovereign credit uncertainties; the timing and amount of any potential dividend increase; estimates of the fair value of certain of the Corporation’s assets and liabilities; legislative and regulatory actions in the U.S. (including the impact of the Financial Reform Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the CARD Act and related regulations and interpretations) and internationally; the identification and effectiveness of any initiatives to mitigate the

5


Table of Contents

negative impact of the Financial Reform Act; the impact of litigation and regulatory investigations, including costs, expenses, settlements and judgments as well as any collateral effects on our ability to do business and access the capital markets; various monetary, tax and fiscal policies and regulations of the U.S. and non-U.S. governments; changes in accounting standards, rules and interpretations, inaccurate estimates or assumptions in the application of accounting policies, including in determining reserves, applicable guidance regarding goodwill accounting and the impact on the Corporation’s financial statements; increased globalization of the financial services industry and competition with other U.S. and international financial institutions; adequacy of the Corporation’s risk management framework; the Corporation’s ability to attract new employees and retain and motivate existing employees; technology changes instituted by the Corporation, its counterparties or competitors; mergers and acquisitions and their integration into the Corporation, including the Corporation’s ability to realize the benefits and cost savings from the Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch) and Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide) acquisitions; the Corporation’s reputation, including the effects of continuing intense public and regulatory scrutiny of the Corporation and the financial services industry; the effects of any unauthorized disclosures of our or our customers’ private or confidential information and any negative publicity directed toward the Corporation; and decisions to downsize, sell or close units or otherwise change the business mix of the Corporation.
     Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and the Corporation undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statement was made.
     Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements referred to in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) are incorporated by reference into the MD&A. Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation. Throughout the MD&A, we use certain acronyms and abbreviations which are defined in the Glossary.
Executive Summary
Business Overview
     The Corporation is a Delaware corporation, a bank holding company and a financial holding company. When used in this report, “the Corporation” may refer to the Corporation individually, the Corporation and its subsidiaries, or certain of the Corporation’s subsidiaries or affiliates. Our principal executive offices are located in the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. Through our banking and various nonbanking subsidiaries throughout the United States and in certain international markets, we provide a diversified range of banking and nonbanking financial services and products through six business segments: Deposits, Global Card Services, Consumer Real Estate Services (CRES), Global Commercial Banking, Global Banking & Markets (GBAM) and Global Wealth & Investment Management (GWIM), with the remaining operations recorded in All Other. At June 30, 2011, the Corporation had $2.3 trillion in assets and approximately 288,000 full-time equivalent employees.
     As of June 30, 2011, we operated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and more than 40 non-U.S. countries. Our retail banking footprint covers approximately 80 percent of the U.S. population and in the U.S., we serve approximately 58 million consumer and small business relationships with approximately 5,700 banking centers, 18,000 ATMs, nationwide call centers, and leading online and mobile banking platforms. We have banking centers in 13 of the 15 fastest growing states and have leadership positions in market share for deposits in seven of those states. We offer industry-leading support to approximately four million small business owners. We are a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world.

6


Table of Contents

     Table 1 provides selected consolidated financial data for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 and at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                          
  Table 1
  Selected Financial Data
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30 
  (Dollars in millions, except per share information) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Income statement
                
Revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) (1)
 $13,483  $29,450  $40,578  $61,740 
Net income (loss)
  (8,826)  3,123   (6,777)  6,305 
Net income (loss), excluding goodwill impairment charge (2)
  (6,223)  3,123   (4,174)  6,305 
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share
  (0.90)  0.27   (0.73)  0.55 
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share, excluding goodwill impairment charge (2)
  (0.65)  0.27   (0.48)  0.55 
Dividends paid per common share
 $0.01  $0.01  $0.02  $0.02 
  
Performance ratios
                
Return on average assets
  n/m   0.50 %  n/m   0.51 %
Return on average assets, excluding goodwill impairment charge (2)
  n/m   0.50   n/m   0.51 
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity (1)
  n/m   8.98   n/m   9.26 
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity, excluding goodwill impairment charge (1, 2)
  n/m   8.98   n/m   9.26 
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis) (1)
  n/m   58.58   n/m   56.73 
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis), excluding goodwill impairment charge (1, 2)
  n/m   58.58   n/m   56.73 
  
Asset quality
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses at period end
         $37,312  $45,255 
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding at period end (3)
          4.00 %  4.75 %
Nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties at period end (3)
         $30,058  $35,598 
Net charge-offs
 $5,665  $9,557   11,693   20,354 
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding (3)
  2.44 %  3.98 %  2.53 %  4.21 %
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding excluding purchased credit-impaired loans (3)
  2.54   4.11   2.63   4.36 
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at period end to annualized net charge-offs (3)
  1.64   1.18   1.58   1.10 
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at period end to annualized net charge-offs excluding purchased credit-impaired loans (3)
  1.28   1.05   1.23   0.98 
 
         
     
  June 30 December 31
  2011 2010
Balance sheet
        
Total loans and leases
 $941,257  $940,440 
Total assets
  2,261,319   2,264,909 
Total deposits
  1,038,408   1,010,430 
Total common shareholders’ equity
  205,614   211,686 
Total shareholders’ equity
  222,176   228,248 
 
Capital ratios
        
Tier 1 common equity
  8.23 %  8.60 %
Tier 1 capital
  11.00   11.24 
Total capital
  15.65   15.77 
Tier 1 leverage
  6.86   7.21 
 
(1) 
FTE basis, return on average tangible shareholders’ equity and the efficiency ratio are non-GAAP measures. Other companies may define or calculate these measures differently. For additional information on these measures and ratios, and for a corresponding reconciliation to GAAP financial measures, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 19.
 
(2) 
Net income (loss), diluted earnings (loss) per common share, return on average assets, return on average tangible shareholders’ equity and the efficiency ratio have been calculated excluding the impact of the goodwill impairment charge of $2.6 billion in the second quarter of 2011 and accordingly, these are non-GAAP measures. For additional information on these measures and ratios, and for a corresponding reconciliation to GAAP financial measures, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 19.
 
(3) 
Balances and ratios do not include loans accounted for under the fair value option. For additional exclusions on nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties, see Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 90 and corresponding Table 42, and Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 98 and corresponding Table 51.
 
n/m = not meaningful
Second Quarter 2011 Economic and Business Environment
     The banking environment and markets in which we conduct our businesses, particularly in Europe, have continued to be strongly influenced by developments in the U.S. and global economies, as well as the continued implementation and rulemaking from recent financial reforms. The U.S. economic momentum slowed in the first quarter of 2011, and remained weak in the second quarter. The sharp rise in prices of gasoline and food pushed up inflation and slowed consumer spending for a wide array of goods and services, while supply chain effects following the Japanese natural disaster aggravated the slowdown, especially in the motor vehicle sector. In response, businesses trimmed production and scaled back growth in investment spending on equipment and software. In addition, job layoffs rose and hiring moderated, contributing to a renewed upward drift in the unemployment rate to 9.2 percent in June, from 8.9 percent in March. Economic and financial performance ended the second quarter 2011 on a fairly weak note, with soft growth and concerns about Europe’s financial crisis and the recent political situation in Washington, D.C. regarding the U.S. Federal debt ceiling. These concerns heightened uncertainty and dampened confidence.

7


Table of Contents

     The housing market remained depressed, with weak sales and continued modest declines in home prices as measured by the HPI. Declines in home prices added uncertainty about future home prices, dampening home sales. The magnitude of distressed mortgages remained very high, and there were ongoing delays in foreclosure processes. Loans to businesses rose modestly, while loans to households remained weak. Credit quality of bank loans to businesses and households continued to improve.
     While the global economy showed signs of moderating, the impact of Japan’s disaster is expected to be temporary and the focus has once more shifted to Europe’s financial crisis. Core European economies, led by Germany’s strength, were healthy, but peripheral European Union nations were mired in recession-type conditions and Greece teetered toward a debt service liquidity crisis. As the second quarter of 2011 ended, a coordinated European financial support package for Greece temporarily eased financial market concerns.
     Key emerging nations, particularly China, experienced further inflation pressures during the second quarter of 2011, and their central banks tightened monetary policy and credit in efforts to constrain excess demand. Although there was some concern that these restrictive policies would generate sharper-than-desired economic slowdowns that would adversely impact global economic performance, economic growth in those countries remained healthy. For more information on our exposure in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Japan, see Non-U.S. Portfolio on page 103.
Recent Events
Private-label Securitization Settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon
     As previously announced, on June 28, 2011, the Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (BAC HLS, which subsequently merged with and into Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) in July 2011), and certain Countrywide affiliates entered into a settlement agreement with The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon), as trustee (Trustee), to resolve all outstanding and potential claims related to alleged representations and warranties breaches (including repurchase claims), substantially all historical loan servicing claims and certain other historical claims with respect to 525 legacy Countrywide first-lien and five second-lien non-GSE residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts (the Covered Trusts) with loans principally originated between 2004 and 2008 and for which BNY Mellon acts as trustee or indenture trustee (the BNY Mellon Settlement). The Covered Trusts had an original principal balance of approximately $424 billion, of which $409 billion was originated between 2004 and 2008, and a total current unpaid principal balance (calculated as outstanding principal plus the unpaid principal balance of defaulted loans) of approximately $220 billion, of which $217 billion was originated between 2004 and 2008, as of June 28, 2011. The BNY Mellon Settlement is supported by a group of 22 institutional investors (the Investor Group) and is subject to final court approval and certain other conditions. The BNY Mellon Settlement provides for a cash payment of $8.5 billion (the Settlement Payment) to the Trustee for distribution to the Covered Trusts after final court approval of the settlement and an estimated $100 million in additional expenses and fees to the Investor Group’s counsel and the Trustee. We are also obligated to pay certain other fees and expenses of the Trustee and the Investor Group. The BNY Mellon Settlement also includes provisions related to specific mortgage servicing standards and other servicing matters.
     The Trustee has determined that the BNY Mellon Settlement is in the best interests of the Covered Trusts and is seeking the necessary court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement. Under an order entered by the court, certificateholders and noteholders in the Covered Trusts have the opportunity to file objections until August 30, 2011 and responses to those objections and statements in support of the settlement until October 31, 2011. In connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, we entered into an agreement with the Investor Group, which provides that, among other things, the Investor Group will use reasonable best efforts and cooperate in good faith to effectuate the settlement, including obtaining final court approval. The Investor Group has filed, and the court has granted, a petition to intervene as a party to the proceeding so that it may support of the BNY Mellon Settlement. Several alleged investors outside the Investor Group have filed, and the court has granted, petitions to intervene as parties in the pending court proceeding. Certain of these intervenors have stated that they intend to object to the BNY Mellon Settlement, while others have said that they need more information in order to determine whether to object, and indicated that they, therefore, intend to seek discovery. In addition, it is possible that a substantial number of additional investors outside the Investor Group will also seek to intervene as parties, and some intervenors and other investors may object to the BNY Mellon Settlement. The resolutions of the objections of intervenors and/or other investors who object may delay or ultimately prevent receipt of final court approval. There can be no assurance that final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement will be obtained, that all conditions will be satisfied or, if certain conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement permitting withdrawal are met, that we and legacy Countrywide will not determine to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement. The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the Trustee’s request for entry of an order approving the BNY Mellon Settlement on November 17, 2011.

8


Table of Contents

     For additional information about the BNY Mellon Settlement, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51 and Other Mortgage-related Matters on page 60. For more information about the risks associated with the BNY Mellon Settlement, see Item 1A. Risk Factors on page 219.
U.S. Debt Ceiling and the Risk of U.S. Downgrade; EU Sovereign Risks
     The U.S. government recently increased its borrowing capacity under the federal debt ceiling. However, there continues to be a perceived risk of a sovereign credit ratings downgrade of the U.S. government, including the ratings of U.S. Treasury securities. In July 2011, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (Moody’s) placed the U.S. government under review for a possible credit rating downgrade, and on August 2, 2011 it confirmed the U.S. government’s existing sovereign rating, but stated that the U.S. government’s rating outlook is negative. Also in July 2011 Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P) placed its sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government on CreditWatch with negative implications. On August 2, 2011 Fitch, Inc. (Fitch) affirmed its existing sovereign rating of the U.S. government, but stated that the rating is under review. A downgrade of U.S. sovereign credit ratings could correspondingly impact the credit ratings of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by institutions, agencies or instrumentalities directly linked to the U.S. government. We cannot predict if, when or how any changes to the credit ratings of these organizations will affect economic conditions or the resulting impact on the Corporation. Such ratings actions could result in a significant adverse impact to the Corporation. For additional information about the risks associated with the statutory debt limit and any resulting downgrade of the U.S. government, see Item 1A. Risk Factors on page 219.
     In addition, certain European nations continue to experience varying degrees of financial stress, and yields on government-issued bonds in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain have risen and remain volatile. Despite assistance packages to Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the creation of a joint EU-IMF European Financial Stability Facility in May 2010, and a recently announced plan to expand financial assistance to Greece, uncertainty over the outcome of the EU governments’ financial support programs and worries about sovereign finances persist. Market concerns over the direct and indirect exposure of European banks and insurers to these EU peripheral nations has resulted in a widening of credit spreads and increased costs of funding for some European financial institutions. For additional information about the risks associated with the financial stability of certain EU sovereigns, see Item 1A. Risk Factors on page 219.
Department of Justice / Attorney General Matters
     Law enforcement authorities in all 50 states and the DOJ and other federal agencies continue to investigate alleged irregularities in the foreclosure practices of residential mortgage servicers, including the Corporation. Authorities have publicly stated that the scope of the investigations extends beyond foreclosure documentation practices to mortgage loan modification and loss mitigation practices, including compliance with the HUD requirements related to Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured loans. We continue to cooperate with these investigations and are dedicating significant resources to address these issues. We and the other largest mortgage servicers continue to engage in ongoing negotiations regarding these matters with law enforcement authorities and federal agencies. The negotiations continue to focus on the amount of any settlement payment and settlement terms, including principal forgiveness, servicing standards, enforcement mechanisms and releases. Although we cannot be certain as to the ultimate outcome that may result from these negotiations or the timing of such outcome, the parties continue to make progress toward achieving a resolution of these matters. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement and Contractual Obligations – Other Mortgage-related Matters on page 60.

9


Table of Contents

Performance Overview
     Net income (loss) was $(8.8) billion and $(6.8) billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $3.1 billion and $6.3 billion for the same periods in 2010. The principal contributors to the net loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 were the following: $14.0 billion of representations and warranties provision in the second quarter largely related to the BNY Mellon Settlement as well as other mortgage-related costs, including a $2.6 billion non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge, higher mortgage-related litigation expense and increased mortgage assessments and waivers costs. The three- and six-month periods were positively affected by lower credit costs which decreased by $4.9 billion and $10.8 billion compared to the same periods in 2010, or approximately a 60 percent decrease for both periods.
                      
  Table 2
  Summary Income Statement
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Net interest income (1)
 $11,493  $13,197  $23,890  $27,267 
Noninterest income
  1,990   16,253   16,688   34,473 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense (1)
  13,483   29,450   40,578   61,740 
Provision for credit losses
  3,255   8,105   7,069   17,910 
Goodwill impairment
  2,603   -   2,603   - 
All other noninterest expense
  20,253   17,253   40,536   35,028 
 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (12,628)  4,092   (9,630)  8,802 
Income tax expense (benefit) (1)
  (3,802)  969   (2,853)  2,497 
 
Net income (loss)
  (8,826)  3,123   (6,777)  6,305 
Preferred stock dividends
  301   340   611   688 
 
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders
 $(9,127) $2,783  $(7,388) $5,617 
 
 
                
Per common share information
                
Earnings (loss)
 $(0.90) $0.28  $(0.73) $0.56 
Diluted earnings (loss)
  (0.90)  0.27   (0.73)  0.55 
 
(1) 
FTE basis is a non-GAAP measure. Other companies may define or calculate this measure differently. For additional information on this measure and for a corresponding reconciliation to GAAP financial measures, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 19.
     Net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent (FTE) basis decreased $1.7 billion and $3.4 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The decrease was mainly due to lower consumer loan balances and yields, partially offset by the benefits of reductions in long-term debt and lower rates paid on deposits. The net interest yield on a FTE basis was 2.50 percent and 2.58 percent for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011.
     Noninterest income decreased by $14.3 billion and $17.8 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010 as a result of the aforementioned increase in representations and warranties provision. For additional information about representations and warranties, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51. Other components of the period-over-period change in noninterest income included a decrease in service charges due to the impact of overdraft policy changes in conjunction with the implementation of Regulation E, a decrease in equity investment income as gains on sales of certain investments in the prior-year period outpaced those in 2011 and an increase in trading account profits for the three-month period due to a strong second quarter in 2011, and a decrease for the six month period due to very strong first quarter 2010 results.
     The provision for credit losses was lower than net charge-offs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 resulting in reserve reductions reflecting improving portfolio trends across most of the consumer and commercial businesses, particularly the U.S. credit card portfolio. The improvement was offset in part by additions to purchased credit-impaired (PCI) loan portfolio reserves, largely in the consumer portfolios.
     Noninterest expense increased $5.6 billion and $8.1 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 compared to the same periods in 2010. The increases were driven by the goodwill impairment charge and by increases in other general operating expense which includes mortgage-related assessments and waivers costs and litigation expense both of which increased significantly compared to the same periods in 2010. Additionally, an increase in personnel costs for the six months ended June 30, 2011 contributed to the increase as we continue the build-out of several businesses and increase default-related staffing levels in the mortgage servicing business.

10


Table of Contents

Segment Results
                                 
Table 3
Business Segment Results
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
  Total Revenue (1) Net Income (Loss) Total Revenue (1) Net Income (Loss)
(Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Deposits
 $3,301  $3,695  $430  $674  $6,490  $7,413  $785  $1,372 
Global Card Services
  5,536   6,948   2,035   826   11,223   13,838   3,770   1,794 
Consumer Real Estate Services
  (11,315)  2,704   (14,520)  (1,542)  (9,252)  6,237   (16,935)  (3,619)
Global Commercial Banking
  2,810   2,883   1,381   815   5,461   5,975   2,304   1,520 
Global Banking & Markets
  6,796   5,904   1,558   898   14,682   15,597   3,692   4,137 
Global Wealth & Investment Management
  4,490   4,189   506   329   8,982   8,230   1,039   768 
All Other
  1,865   3,127   (216)  1,123   2,992   4,450   (1,432)  333 
 
Total FTE basis
  13,483   29,450   (8,826)  3,123   40,578   61,740   (6,777)  6,305 
FTE adjustment
  (247)  (297)  -   -   (465)  (618)  -   - 
 
Total Consolidated
 $13,236  $29,153  $(8,826) $3,123  $40,113  $61,122  $(6,777) $6,305 
 
(1) 
Total revenue is net of interest expense and is on a FTE basis which is a non-GAAP measure. For more information on this measure and for a corresponding reconciliation to a GAAP financial measure, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 19.
     Deposits net income decreased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in the prior year due to a decline in revenue driven by lower noninterest income, partially offset by higher net interest income. Noninterest income decreased due to the impact of overdraft policy changes in conjunction with Regulation E, which became effective in the third quarter of 2010. Net interest income was up slightly due to a customer shift to more liquid products and continued pricing discipline.
     Global Card Services net income increased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in the prior year due primarily to a decrease in the provision for credit losses. Revenue decreased as a result of a decline in net interest income from lower average loans and yields as well as lower noninterest income. Provision for credit losses decreased reflecting improving economic conditions and continued expectations of improving delinquency, collection and bankruptcy trends.
     CRES net loss increased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in the prior year due to a decline in revenue and increased noninterest expense. This was partially offset by a decline in provision for credit losses. The decline in revenue was driven primarily by an increase in representations and warranties provision, higher expected servicing costs and lower core production income. Noninterest expense increased due to a non-cash goodwill impairment charge, higher litigation expenses and mortgage-related assessments and waivers costs.
     Global Commercial Banking net income increased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in the prior year largely due to a decrease in the provision for credit losses from improved asset quality, particularly in the commercial real estate portfolio. Revenue decreased primarily due to lower loan balances partially offset by earnings on higher deposits. Noninterest income increased largely due to a gain on the termination of a purchase contract.
     GBAM net income increased for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in the prior year reflecting higher investment banking fees and increased sales and trading revenue. Net income decreased for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in the prior year due to a less favorable trading environment compared to the first quarter of 2010 and higher noninterest expense driven by investments in infrastructure. This was partially offset by higher investment banking fees as noted above for the three months ended June 30, 2011.
     GWIM net income increased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in the prior year driven by higher revenue as well as lower credit costs, partially offset by higher noninterest expense. Net income for the three months ended June 30, 2010 included the gain and the tax-related charge from the sale of the Columbia Management long-term asset management business. Revenue increased driven by asset management fees as well as higher net interest income due to strong deposit balance growth. The provision for credit losses decreased driven by improving portfolio trends. Noninterest expense increased due to higher revenue-related expenses and personnel costs associated with the continued build-out of the business.

11


Table of Contents

     All Other reported a net loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to net income for the same periods in the prior year due to lower revenue and higher provision for credit losses. Revenue decreased due primarily to a decline in equity investment income, including an impairment write-down on our merchant services joint venture during the three months ended June 30, 2011, and lower fair value adjustments on structured liabilities. These items were partially offset by an increase in gains on sales of debt securities. The increase in the provision for credit losses was primarily attributable to reserve additions in the Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate and residential mortgage loan portfolios due to the impact of further declines in home prices. Also, merger and restructuring charges decreased as integration efforts with the Merrill Lynch acquisition continue to progress as planned.
Financial Highlights
Net Interest Income
     Net interest income on a FTE basis decreased $1.7 billion to $11.5 billion and $3.4 billion to $23.9 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The decrease was primarily due to lower consumer loan balances, a decrease in consumer loan and asset and liability management (ALM) portfolio yields, a drop in long-term interest rates negatively impacting hedge results and lower trading-related revenues. Partially offsetting these items were benefits associated with ongoing reductions in long-term debt and lower rates paid on deposits. The net interest yield on a FTE basis decreased 27 basis points (bps) to 2.50 percent and 27 bps to 2.58 percent for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010 due to these same factors.
Noninterest Income
                 
  Table 4
  Noninterest Income
  Three Months Ended
June 30
 Six Months Ended
June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Card income
 $1,967  $2,023  $3,795  $3,999 
Service charges
  2,012   2,576   4,044   5,142 
Investment and brokerage services
  3,009   2,994   6,110   6,019 
Investment banking income
  1,684   1,319   3,262   2,559 
Equity investment income
  1,212   2,766   2,687   3,391 
Trading account profits
  2,091   1,227   4,813   6,463 
Mortgage banking income (loss)
  (13,196)  898   (12,566)  2,398 
Insurance income
  400   678   1,013   1,393 
Gains on sales of debt securities
  899   37   1,445   771 
Other income
  1,957   1,861   2,218   3,065 
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings on AFS debt securities
  (45)  (126)  (133)  (727)
 
Total noninterest income
 $1,990  $16,253  $16,688  $34,473 
 
     Noninterest income decreased $14.3 billion to $2.0 billion and $17.8 billion to $16.7 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The following highlights the significant changes.
  
Service charges decreased $564 million and $1.1 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 largely due to the impact of overdraft policy changes in conjunction with Regulation E, which became effective in the third quarter of 2010.
 
  
Investment banking income increased $365 million and $703 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 reflecting strong performance in advisory services and debt and equity issuances.
 
  
Equity investment income decreased $1.6 billion and $704 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. The three months ended June 30, 2011 included an $837 million China Construction Bank (CCB) dividend, a $377 million pre-tax gain on the sale of our investment in BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock) and a $500 million impairment write-down on our merchant services joint venture. The three months ended June 30, 2010 included net gains of $751 million on sales of certain strategic investments and a $535 million dividend on CCB. The six months ended June 30, 2011 included a $1.1 billion pre-tax gain related to an initial public offering (IPO) of an equity investment which occurred in the first quarter of 2011.

12


Table of Contents

  
Trading account profits increased $864 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and decreased $1.7 billion for the six-month period. The six-month decline reflects a less favorable trading environment in the first quarter compared to record results in the first quarter of 2010.
 
  
Mortgage banking income decreased $14.1 billion and $15.0 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 due to a $12.8 billion and $13.3 billion increase in the representations and warranties provision and less favorable mortgage servicing rights (MSR) results, net of hedges, of $885 million and $1.1 billion as a result of higher servicing costs.
 
  
Other income increased $96 million and decreased $847 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, the decrease was primarily due to negative fair value adjustments on structured liabilities of $372 million compared to positive adjustments of $1.4 billion for the same period in 2010, partially offset by the gain of $771 million on the sale of the lender-placed insurance business of Balboa in the three months ended June 30, 2011.
Provision for Credit Losses
     The provision for credit losses decreased $4.9 billion to $3.3 billion and $10.8 billion to $7.1 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The provision for credit losses was $2.4 billion and $4.6 billion lower than net charge-offs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 which is after an addition to reserves for the PCI loan portfolio of $412 million and $2.0 billion. The reduction in the allowance for credit losses in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 was driven primarily by improving delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies across the Global Card Services portfolios.
     The provision for credit losses related to our consumer portfolio decreased $3.4 billion to $3.8 billion and $7.7 billion to $7.7 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The provision for credit losses related to our commercial portfolio including the provision for unfunded lending commitments decreased $1.5 billion to a benefit of $523 million and $3.1 billion to a benefit of $636 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010.
     Net charge-offs totaled $5.7 billion, or 2.44 percent and $11.7 billion, or 2.53 percent of average loans and leases for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared with $9.6 billion, or 3.98 percent and $20.4 billion, or 4.21 percent for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010. The decrease in net charge-offs was primarily driven by improvements in general economic conditions that resulted in fewer delinquencies, improved collection rates and lower bankruptcy filings across the Global Card Services U.S. loan portfolio. For more information on the provision for credit losses, see Provision for Credit Losses on page 107.

13


Table of Contents

Noninterest Expense
                 
  Table 5
  Noninterest Expense
  Three Months Ended
June 30
 Six Months Ended
June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Personnel
 $9,171  $8,789  $19,339  $17,947 
Occupancy
  1,245   1,182   2,434   2,354 
Equipment
  593   613   1,199   1,226 
Marketing
  560   495   1,124   982 
Professional fees
  766   644   1,412   1,161 
Amortization of intangibles
  382   439   767   885 
Data processing
  643   632   1,338   1,280 
Telecommunications
  391   359   762   689 
Other general operating
  6,343   3,592   11,800   7,475 
Goodwill impairment
  2,603   -   2,603   - 
Merger and restructuring charges
  159   508   361   1,029 
 
Total noninterest expense
 $22,856  $17,253  $43,139  $35,028 
 
     Noninterest expense increased $5.6 billion to $22.9 billion and $8.1 billion to $43.1 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The increases were driven by a $2.6 billion goodwill impairment charge in our mortgage business in the three months ended June 30, 2011 and by increases in general operating expense of $2.8 billion and $4.3 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in the prior year. Other general operating expense includes mortgage-related assessments and waivers costs of $716 million and $1.6 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. Litigation expenses within other general operating expense increased to $2.3 billion and $3.2 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, of which $2.0 billion and $2.8 billion were in our mortgage business. Additionally, an increase of $1.4 billion in personnel costs for the year-to-date period contributed to the increase in noninterest expense as we continue to add client-facing professionals in GWIM, expand our international capabilities in GBAM and increase default-related staffing levels in the mortgage business.
Income Tax Expense
     The income tax benefit was $4.0 billion on a pre-tax loss of $12.9 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to an income tax expense of $672 million on pre-tax income of $3.8 billion for the same period in 2010 and resulted in an effective tax rate of a 31.4 percent benefit on the loss compared to an effective tax rate of 17.7 percent in the prior year. The effective tax rates for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 excluding the $2.6 billion goodwill impairment charge from pre-tax income were 39.4 percent and 44.3 percent benefit rates. The income tax benefit was $3.3 billion on the pre-tax loss of $10.1 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to an income tax expense of $1.9 billion on pre-tax income of $8.2 billion for the same period in 2010 and resulted in an effective tax rate of a 32.9 percent benefit on the loss compared to an effective tax rate of 23.0 percent in the prior year.
     The effective tax benefit rates for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 were higher than the tax rates for the same periods in 2010 because the benefits for net tax preference items increased the income tax benefit recorded on the pre-tax loss while the impact of such benefits was a decrease in tax expense recorded on pre-tax income for the same periods in 2010.
     On July 19, 2011, the U.K. 2011 Finance Bill was enacted which reduced the corporate income tax rate to 26 percent beginning on April 1, 2011, and then to 25 percent effective April 1, 2012. These rate reductions will favorably affect income tax expense on future U.K. earnings but also will require us to remeasure our U.K. net deferred tax assets using the lower tax rates. We will record a charge to income tax expense of approximately $800 million for this revaluation in the three months ending September 30, 2011. If corporate income tax rates were to be reduced to 23 percent by 2014 as suggested in U.K. Treasury announcements and assuming no change in the deferred tax asset balance, a charge to income tax expense of approximately $400 million for each one percent reduction in the rate would result in each period of enactment.
     In addition, it is possible that valuation allowance releases may affect the effective income tax rate later this year.

14


Table of Contents

Balance Sheet Overview
                         
  Table 6
  Selected Balance Sheet Data
          Average Balance
  June 30 December 31 Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Assets
                        
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell
 $235,181  $209,616  $259,069  $263,564  $243,311  $264,810 
Trading account assets (1)
  196,939   194,671   186,760   213,927   203,806   214,233 
Debt securities
  331,052   338,054   335,269   314,299   335,556   312,727 
Loans and leases
  941,257   940,440   938,513   967,054   938,738   979,267 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  (37,312)  (41,885)  (38,755)  (46,740)  (39,752)  (47,413)
All other assets (1)
  594,202   624,013   658,254   782,328   657,167   781,835 
 
Total assets
 $2,261,319  $2,264,909  $2,339,110  $2,494,432  $2,338,826  $2,505,459 
 
Liabilities
                        
Deposits
 $1,038,408  $1,010,430  $1,035,944  $991,615  $1,029,578  $986,344 
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase
  239,521   245,359   276,673   383,558   291,461   399,729 
Trading account liabilities
  74,989   71,985   96,108   100,021   90,044   95,105 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  50,632   59,962   62,019   70,493   63,581   81,313 
Long-term debt
  426,659   448,431   435,144   497,469   437,812   505,507 
All other liabilities
  208,934   200,494   198,155   217,815   193,420   205,766 
 
Total liabilities
  2,039,143   2,036,661   2,104,043   2,260,971   2,105,896   2,273,764 
Shareholders’ equity
  222,176   228,248   235,067   233,461   232,930   231,695 
 
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity
 $2,261,319  $2,264,909  $2,339,110  $2,494,432  $2,338,826  $2,505,459 
 
(1) 
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, for average balance and yield calculation purposes, $40.4 billion and $20.3 billion of noninterest-earning equity trading securities were reclassified from trading account assets to all other assets. Prior period amounts are immaterial and have not been restated.
     Period-end balance sheet amounts may vary from average balance sheet amounts due to liquidity and balance sheet management activities, primarily involving our portfolios of highly liquid assets, that are designed to ensure the adequacy of capital while enhancing our ability to manage liquidity requirements for the Corporation and our customers, and to position the balance sheet in accordance with the Corporation’s risk appetite. The execution of these activities requires the use of balance sheet and capital-related limits including spot, average and risk-weighted asset limits, particularly in our trading businesses. One of our key metrics, Tier 1 leverage ratio, is calculated based on adjusted quarterly average total assets. Risk mitigation activities that contributed to the decrease in average assets during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 included reduction of exposure within various types of low quality and alternative investments, significant loan run-off and the exit of proprietary trading.
Assets
     At June 30, 2011, total assets were $2.3 trillion, a decrease of $3.6 billion, or less than one percent, from December 31, 2010.
     Average total assets decreased $155.3 billion and $166.6 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. Almost all line items decreased with the most significant decrease in all other assets largely due to the sale of certain strategic investments, reductions in MSR hedging activity and our goodwill balance as a result of impairment charges recorded in 2010.
     In the first half of 2011, we have taken certain actions to reduce risk-weighted assets, including reducing certain capital markets risk exposures, selling assets, reducing our loan run-off portfolio and exiting proprietary trading activities. For more information, see Capital Management – Regulatory Capital on page 64.
Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
     At June 30, 2011, total liabilities were $2.0 trillion, an increase of $2.5 billion, or less than one percent, from December 31, 2010.
     Average total liabilities decreased $156.9 billion and $167.9 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The decreases were primarily driven by reduced short-term borrowings and long-term debt, and the sale of First Republic Bank in 2010. These decreases were partially offset by deposit growth.

15


Table of Contents

     Shareholders’ equity decreased $6.1 billion to $222.2 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010. The decrease was driven primarily by the second quarter net loss.
     Average shareholders’ equity increased $1.6 billion and $1.2 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The increases were due to an increase in accumulated other comprehensive income (OCI) due in large part to net unrealized gains on available-for-sale (AFS) securities. The charges that drove the net loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 were recorded at period end and accordingly had minimal impact on average shareholders’ equity.

16


Table of Contents

                     
Table 7
Selected Quarterly Financial Data
  2011 Quarters 2010 Quarters
(In millions, except per share information) Second First Fourth Third Second
 
Income statement
                    
Net interest income
 $11,246  $12,179  $12,439  $12,435  $12,900 
Noninterest income
  1,990   14,698   9,959   14,265   16,253 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  13,236   26,877   22,398   26,700   29,153 
Provision for credit losses
  3,255   3,814   5,129   5,396   8,105 
Goodwill impairment
  2,603   -   2,000   10,400   - 
Merger and restructuring charges
  159   202   370   421   508 
All other noninterest expense (1)
  20,094   20,081   18,494   16,395   16,745 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (12,875)  2,780   (3,595)  (5,912)  3,795 
Income tax expense (benefit)
  (4,049)  731   (2,351)  1,387   672 
Net income (loss)
  (8,826)  2,049   (1,244)  (7,299)  3,123 
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders
  (9,127)  1,739   (1,565)  (7,647)  2,783 
Average common shares issued and outstanding
  10,095   10,076   10,037   9,976   9,957 
Average diluted common shares issued and outstanding
  10,095   10,181   10,037   9,976   10,030 
 
Performance ratios
                    
Return on average assets
  n/m   0.36 %  n/m   n/m   0.50 %
Four quarter trailing return on average assets (2)
  n/m   n/m   n/m   n/m   0.20 
Return on average common shareholders’ equity
  n/m   3.29   n/m   n/m   5.18 
Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity (3)
  n/m   5.28   n/m   n/m   9.19 
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity (3)
  n/m   5.54   n/m   n/m   8.98 
Total ending equity to total ending assets
  9.83 %  10.15   10.08 %  9.85 %  9.85 
Total average equity to total average assets
  10.05   9.87   9.94   9.83   9.36 
Dividend payout
  n/m   6.06   n/m   n/m   3.63 
 
Per common share data
                    
Earnings (loss)
 $(0.90) $0.17  $(0.16) $(0.77) $0.28 
Diluted earnings (loss)
  (0.90)  0.17   (0.16)  (0.77)  0.27 
Dividends paid
  0.01   0.01   0.01   0.01   0.01 
Book value
  20.29   21.15   20.99   21.17   21.45 
Tangible book value (3)
  12.65   13.21   12.98   12.91   12.14 
 
Market price per share of common stock
                    
Closing
 $10.96  $13.33  $13.34  $13.10  $14.37 
High closing
  13.72   15.25   13.56   15.67   19.48 
Low closing
  10.50   13.33   10.95   12.32   14.37 
 
Market capitalization
 $111,060  $135,057  $134,536  $131,442  $144,174 
 
Average balance sheet
                    
Total loans and leases
 $938,513  $938,966  $940,614  $934,860  $967,054 
Total assets
  2,339,110   2,338,538   2,370,258   2,379,397   2,494,432 
Total deposits
  1,035,944   1,023,140   1,007,738   973,846   991,615 
Long-term debt
  435,144   440,511   465,875   485,588   497,469 
Common shareholders’ equity
  218,505   214,206   218,728   215,911   215,468 
Total shareholders’ equity
  235,067   230,769   235,525   233,978   233,461 
 
Asset quality (4)
                    
Allowance for credit losses (5)
 $38,209  $40,804  $43,073  $44,875  $46,668 
Nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties (6)
  30,058   31,643   32,664   34,556   35,598 
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding (6)
  4.00 %  4.29 %  4.47 %  4.69 %  4.75 %
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases (6)
  135   135   136   135   137 
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases excluding the PCI loan portfolio (6)
  105   108   116   118   121 
Amounts included in allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans (7)
 $19,935  $22,110  $22,908  $23,661  $24,338 
Allowance as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases excluding the amounts included in the allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans (7)
  63 %  60 %  62 %  62 %  63 %
Net charge-offs
 $5,665  $6,028  $6,783  $7,197  $9,557 
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding (6)
  2.44 %  2.61 %  2.87 %  3.07 %  3.98 %
Nonperforming loans and leases as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding (6)
  2.96   3.19   3.27   3.47   3.48 
Nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties as a percentage of total loans, leases and foreclosed properties (6)
  3.22   3.40   3.48   3.71   3.73 
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at period end to annualized net charge-offs
  1.64   1.63   1.56   1.53   1.18 
 
Capital ratios (period end)
                    
Risk-based capital:
                    
Tier 1 common
  8.23 %  8.64 %  8.60 %  8.45 %  8.01 %
Tier 1
  11.00   11.32   11.24   11.16   10.67 
Total
  15.65   15.98   15.77   15.65   14.77 
Tier 1 leverage
  6.86   7.25   7.21   7.21   6.68 
Tangible equity (3)
  6.63   6.85   6.75   6.54   6.14 
Tangible common equity (3)
  5.87   6.10   5.99   5.74   5.35 
 
(1) 
Excludes merger and restructuring charges and goodwill impairment charges.
 
(2) 
Calculated as total net income for four consecutive quarters divided by average assets for the period.
 
(3) 
Tangible equity ratios and tangible book value per share of common stock are non-GAAP measures. Other companies may define or calculate these measures differently. For additional information on these ratios and corresponding reconciliations to GAAP financial measures, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 19 and Table 9 on pages 20 and 21.
 
(4) 
For more information on the impact of the PCI loan portfolio on asset quality, see Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 76 and Commercial Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 93.
 
(5) 
Includes the allowance for loan and lease losses and the reserve for unfunded lending commitments.
 
(6) 
Balances and ratios do not include loans accounted for under the fair value option. For additional exclusions from nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties, see Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 90 and corresponding Table 42, and Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 98 and corresponding Table 51.
 
(7) 
Amounts included in allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans primarily includes amounts allocated to Global Card Services portfolio and purchased credit-impaired loans.
 
n/m = not meaningful

17


Table of Contents

         
  Table 8
  Selected Year-to-Date Financial Data
  Six Months Ended June 30
  (In millions, except per share information) 2011 2010
 
Income statement
        
Net interest income
 $23,425  $26,649 
Noninterest income
  16,688   34,473 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  40,113   61,122 
Provision for credit losses
  7,069   17,910 
Goodwill impairment
  2,603   - 
Merger and restructuring charges
  361   1,029 
All other noninterest expense (1)
  40,175   33,999 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (10,095)  8,184 
Income tax expense (benefit)
  (3,318)  1,879 
Net income (loss)
  (6,777)  6,305 
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders
  (7,388)  5,617 
Average common shares issued and outstanding
  10,085   9,570 
Average diluted common shares issued and outstanding
  10,085   10,021 
 
Performance ratios
        
Return on average assets
  n/m   0.51 %
Return on average common shareholders’ equity
  n/m   5.45 
Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity (2)
  n/m   9.48 
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity (2)
  n/m   9.26 
Total ending equity to total ending assets
  9.83 %  9.85 
Total average equity to total average assets
  9.96   9.25 
Dividend payout
  n/m   3.60 
 
Per common share data
        
Earnings (loss)
 $(0.73) $0.56 
Diluted earnings (loss)
  (0.73)  0.55 
Dividends paid
  0.02   0.02 
Book value
  20.29   21.45 
Tangible book value (2)
  12.65   12.14 
 
Market price per share of common stock
        
Closing
 $10.96  $14.37 
High closing
  15.25   19.48 
Low closing
  10.50   14.37 
 
Market capitalization
 $111,060  $144,174 
 
Average balance sheet
        
Total loans and leases
 $938,738  $979,267 
Total assets
  2,338,826   2,505,459 
Total deposits
  1,029,578   986,344 
Long-term debt
  437,812   505,507 
Common shareholders’ equity
  216,367   207,975 
Total shareholders’ equity
  232,930   231,695 
 
Asset quality (3)
        
Allowance for credit losses (4)
 $38,209  $46,668 
Nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties (5)
  30,058   35,598 
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding (5)
  4.00 %  4.75 %
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases (5)
  135   137 
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases excluding the PCI loan portfolio (5)
  105   121 
Amounts included in allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans (6)
  19,935   24,338 
Allowance as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases excluding the amounts included in the allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans (6)
  63 %  63 %
Net charge-offs
 $11,693  $20,354 
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding (5)
  2.53 %  4.21 %
Nonperforming loans and leases as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding (5)
  2.96   3.48 
Nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties as a percentage of total loans, leases and foreclosed properties (5)
  3.22   3.73 
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at period end to annualized net charge-offs
  1.58   1.10 
 
(1) 
Excludes merger and restructuring charges and goodwill impairment charge.
 
(2) 
Tangible equity ratios and tangible book value per share of common stock are non-GAAP measures. Other companies may define or calculate these measures differently. For additional information on these ratios and corresponding reconciliations to GAAP financial measures, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 19 and Table 10 on page 22.
 
(3) 
For more information on the impact of the PCI loan portfolio on asset quality, see Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 76 and Commercial Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 93.
 
(4) 
Includes the allowance for loan and lease losses and the reserve for unfunded lending commitments.
 
(5) 
Balances and ratios do not include loans accounted for under the fair value option. For additional exclusions on nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties, see Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 90 and corresponding Table 42 and Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 98 and corresponding Table 51.
 
(6) 
Amounts included in allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans primarily includes amounts allocated to Global Card Services portfolio and purchased credit-impaired loans.
 
n/m = not meaningful

18


Table of Contents

Supplemental Financial Data
     We view net interest income and related ratios and analyses (i.e., efficiency ratio and net interest yield) on a FTE basis. Although these are non-GAAP measures, we believe managing the business with net interest income on a FTE basis provides a more accurate picture of the interest margin for comparative purposes. To derive the FTE basis, net interest income is adjusted to reflect tax-exempt income on an equivalent before-tax basis with a corresponding increase in income tax expense. For purposes of this calculation, we use the federal statutory tax rate of 35 percent. This measure ensures comparability of net interest income arising from taxable and tax-exempt sources.
     As mentioned above, certain performance measures including the efficiency ratio and net interest yield utilize net interest income (and thus total revenue) on a FTE basis. The efficiency ratio measures the costs expended to generate a dollar of revenue, and net interest yield evaluates the bps we earn over the cost of funds. During our annual planning process, we set efficiency targets for the Corporation and each line of business. We believe the use of these non-GAAP measures provides additional clarity in assessing our results. Targets vary by year and by business and are based on a variety of factors including maturity of the business, competitive environment, market factors and other items including our risk appetite.
     We also evaluate our business based on the following ratios that utilize tangible equity, a non-GAAP measure. Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity measures our earnings contribution as a percentage of common shareholders’ equity plus any Common Equivalent Securities (CES) less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities. Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity (ROTE) measures our earnings contribution as a percentage of average shareholders’ equity less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities. The tangible common equity ratio represents common shareholders’ equity plus any CES less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities divided by total assets less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities. The tangible equity ratio represents total shareholders’ equity less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities divided by total assets less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities. Tangible book value per common share represents ending common shareholders’ equity less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities divided by ending common shares outstanding. These measures are used to evaluate our use of equity (i.e., capital). In addition, profitability, relationship and investment models all use ROTE as key measures to support our overall growth goals.

19


Table of Contents

     The aforementioned supplemental data and performance measures are presented in Tables 7 and 8. In addition, in Tables 9 and 10 we excluded the impact of goodwill impairment charges of $2.6 billion recorded in the second quarter of 2011, and $10.4 billion and $2.0 billion recorded in the third and fourth quarters of 2010 when presenting earnings (loss) and diluted earnings (loss) per common share, the efficiency ratio, return on average assets, four quarter trailing return on average assets, return on average common shareholders’ equity, return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity and ROTE. Accordingly, these are non-GAAP measures. Tables 9 and 10 provide reconciliations of these non-GAAP measures with financial measures defined by GAAP. We believe the use of these non-GAAP measures provides additional clarity in assessing the results of the Corporation. Other companies may define or calculate these measures and ratios differently.
                     
  Table 9
  Quarterly Supplemental Financial Data and Reconciliations to GAAP Financial Measures
  2011 Quarters 2010 Quarters
  (Dollars in millions, except per share information) Second First Fourth Third Second
 
Fully taxable-equivalent basis data
                    
Net interest income
 $11,493  $12,397  $12,709  $12,717  $13,197 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  13,483   27,095   22,668   26,982   29,450 
Net interest yield
  2.50 %  2.67 %  2.69 %  2.72 %  2.77 %
Efficiency ratio
  n/m   74.86   92.04   100.87   58.58 
 
Performance ratios, excluding goodwill impairment charges(1)
                    
Per common share information
                    
Earnings (loss)
 $(0.65)     $0.04  $0.27     
Diluted earnings (loss)
  (0.65)      0.04   0.27     
Efficiency ratio
  n/m       83.22 %  62.33 %    
Return on average assets
  n/m       0.13   0.52     
Four quarter trailing return on average assets (2)
  n/m       0.43   0.39     
Return on average common shareholders’ equity
  n/m       0.79   5.06     
Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity
  n/m       1.27   8.67     
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity
  n/m       1.96   8.54     
 
(1) 
Performance ratios have been calculated excluding the impact of the goodwill impairment charges of $2.6 billion recorded during the second quarter of 2011, and $2.0 billion and $10.4 billion recorded during the fourth and third quarters of 2010, respectively.
 
(2) 
Calculated as total net income for four consecutive quarters divided by average assets for the period.
 
n/m = not meaningful

20


Table of Contents

                     
  Table 9
  Quarterly Supplemental Financial Data and Reconciliations to GAAP Financial Measures (continued)
  2011 Quarters 2010 Quarters
  (Dollars in millions) Second First Fourth Third Second
 
Reconciliation of net interest income to net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
                    
Net interest income
 $11,246  $12,179  $12,439  $12,435  $12,900 
FTE adjustment
  247   218   270   282   297 
 
Net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
 $11,493  $12,397  $12,709  $12,717  $13,197 
 
Reconciliation of total revenue, net of interest expense to total revenue, net of interest expense on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
                    
Total revenue, net of interest expense
 $13,236  $26,877  $22,398  $26,700  $29,153 
FTE adjustment
  247   218   270   282   297 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
 $13,483  $27,095  $22,668  $26,982  $29,450 
 
Reconciliation of total noninterest expense to total noninterest expense, excluding goodwill impairment charges
                    
Total noninterest expense
 $22,856  $20,283  $20,864  $27,216  $17,253 
Goodwill impairment charges
  (2,603)  -   (2,000)  (10,400)  - 
 
Total noninterest expense, excluding goodwill impairment charges
 $20,253  $20,283  $18,864  $16,816  $17,253 
 
Reconciliation of income tax expense (benefit) to income tax expense (benefit) on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
                    
Income tax expense (benefit)
 $(4,049) $731  $(2,351) $1,387  $672 
FTE adjustment
  247   218   270   282   297 
 
Income tax expense (benefit) on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
 $(3,802) $949  $(2,081) $1,669  $969 
 
Reconciliation of net income (loss) to net income (loss), excluding goodwill impairment charges
                    
Net income (loss)
 $(8,826) $2,049  $(1,244) $(7,299) $3,123 
Goodwill impairment charges
  2,603   -   2,000   10,400   - 
 
Net income (loss), excluding goodwill impairment charges
 $(6,223) $2,049  $756  $3,101  $3,123 
 
Reconciliation of net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders to net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders, excluding goodwill impairment charges
                    
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders
 $(9,127) $1,739  $(1,565) $(7,647) $2,783 
Goodwill impairment charges
  2,603   -   2,000   10,400   - 
 
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders, excluding goodwill impairment charges
 $(6,524) $1,739  $435  $2,753  $2,783 
 
Reconciliation of average common shareholders’ equity to average tangible common shareholders’ equity
                    
Common shareholders’ equity
 $218,505  $214,206  $218,728  $215,911  $215,468 
Goodwill
  (73,748)  (73,922)  (75,584)  (82,484)  (86,099)
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs)
  (9,394)  (9,769)  (10,211)  (10,629)  (11,216)
Related deferred tax liabilities
  2,932   3,035   3,121   3,214   3,395 
 
Tangible common shareholders’ equity
 $138,295  $133,550  $136,054  $126,012  $121,548 
 
Reconciliation of average shareholders’ equity to average tangible shareholders’ equity
                    
Shareholders’ equity
 $235,067  $230,769  $235,525  $233,978  $233,461 
Goodwill
  (73,748)  (73,922)  (75,584)  (82,484)  (86,099)
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs)
  (9,394)  (9,769)  (10,211)  (10,629)  (11,216)
Related deferred tax liabilities
  2,932   3,035   3,121   3,214   3,395 
 
Tangible shareholders’ equity
 $154,857  $150,113  $152,851  $144,079  $139,541 
 
Reconciliation of period end common shareholders’ equity to period end tangible common shareholders’ equity
                    
Common shareholders’ equity
 $205,614  $214,314  $211,686  $212,391  $215,181 
Goodwill
  (71,074)  (73,869)  (73,861)  (75,602)  (85,801)
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs)
  (9,176)  (9,560)  (9,923)  (10,402)  (10,796)
Related deferred tax liabilities
  2,853   2,933   3,036   3,123   3,215 
 
Tangible common shareholders’ equity
 $128,217  $133,818  $130,938  $129,510  $121,799 
 
Reconciliation of period end shareholders’ equity to period end tangible shareholders’ equity
                    
Shareholders’ equity
 $222,176  $230,876  $228,248  $230,495  $233,174 
Goodwill
  (71,074)  (73,869)  (73,861)  (75,602)  (85,801)
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs)
  (9,176)  (9,560)  (9,923)  (10,402)  (10,796)
Related deferred tax liabilities
  2,853   2,933   3,036   3,123   3,215 
 
Tangible shareholders’ equity
 $144,779  $150,380  $147,500  $147,614  $139,792 
 
Reconciliation of period end assets to period end tangible assets
                    
Assets
 $2,261,319  $2,274,532  $2,264,909  $2,339,660  $2,368,384 
Goodwill
  (71,074)  (73,869)  (73,861)  (75,602)  (85,801)
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs)
  (9,176)  (9,560)  (9,923)  (10,402)  (10,796)
Related deferred tax liabilities
  2,853   2,933   3,036   3,123   3,215 
 
Tangible assets
 $2,183,922  $2,194,036  $2,184,161  $2,256,779  $2,275,002 
 

21


Table of Contents

         
  Table 10
  Year-to-Date Supplemental Financial Data and Reconciliations to GAAP Financial Measures
  Six Months Ended June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010
 
Fully taxable-equivalent basis data
        
Net interest income
 $23,890  $27,267 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  40,578   61,740 
Net interest yield
  2.58 %  2.85 %
Efficiency ratio
  n/m   56.73 
 
Performance ratios, excluding goodwill impairment charge (1)
        
Per common share information
        
Loss
 $(0.48)    
Diluted loss
  (0.48)    
Efficiency ratio
  n/m     
Return on average assets
  n/m     
Return on average common shareholders’ equity
  n/m     
Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity
  n/m     
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity
  n/m     
 
Reconciliation of net interest income to net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
        
Net interest income
 $23,425  $26,649 
FTE adjustment
  465   618 
 
Net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
 $23,890  $27,267 
 
Reconciliation of total revenue, net of interest expense to total revenue, net of interest expense on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
        
Total revenue, net of interest expense
 $40,113  $61,122 
FTE adjustment
  465   618 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
 $40,578  $61,740 
 
Reconciliation of total noninterest expense to total noninterest expense, excluding goodwill impairment charge
        
Total noninterest expense
 $43,139  $35,028 
Goodwill impairment charge
  (2,603)  - 
 
Total noninterest expense, excluding goodwill impairment charge
 $40,536  $35,028 
 
Reconciliation of income tax expense (benefit) to income tax expense (benefit) on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
        
Income tax expense (benefit)
 $(3,318) $1,879 
FTE adjustment
  465   618 
 
Income tax expense (benefit) on a fully taxable-equivalent basis
 $(2,853) $2,497 
 
Reconciliation of net income (loss) to net income (loss), excluding goodwill impairment charge
        
Net income (loss)
 $(6,777) $6,305 
Goodwill impairment charge
  2,603   - 
 
Net income (loss), excluding goodwill impairment charge
 $(4,174) $6,305 
 
Reconciliation of net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders to net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders, excluding goodwill impairment charge
        
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders
 $(7,388) $5,617 
Goodwill impairment charge
  2,603   - 
 
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders, excluding goodwill impairment charge
 $(4,785) $5,617 
 
Reconciliation of average common shareholders’ equity to average tangible common shareholders’ equity
        
Common shareholders’ equity
 $216,367  $207,975 
Common Equivalent Securities
  -   5,848 
Goodwill
  (73,834)  (86,225)
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs)
  (9,580)  (11,559)
Related deferred tax liabilities
  2,983   3,446 
 
Tangible common shareholders’ equity
 $135,936  $119,485 
 
Reconciliation of average shareholders’ equity to average tangible shareholders’ equity
        
Shareholders’ equity
 $232,930  $231,695 
Goodwill
  (73,834)  (86,225)
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs)
  (9,580)  (11,559)
Related deferred tax liabilities
  2,983   3,446 
 
Tangible shareholders’ equity
 $152,499  $137,357 
 
(1) 
Performance ratios have been calculated excluding the impact of the goodwill impairment charge of $2.6 billion recorded during the second quarter of 2011.
 
n/m = not meaningful

22


Table of Contents

Core Net Interest Income
     We manage core net interest income which is reported net interest income on a FTE basis adjusted for the impact of market-based activities. As discussed in the GBAM business segment section on page 42, we evaluate our market-based results and strategies on a total market-based revenue approach by combining net interest income and noninterest income for GBAM. An analysis of core net interest income, core average earning assets and core net interest yield on earning assets, all of which adjust for the impact of market-based activities from reported net interest income on a FTE basis, is shown below. We believe the use of this non-GAAP presentation provides additional clarity in assessing our results.
                 
  Table 11
  Core Net Interest Income
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Net interest income (1)
                
As reported
 $11,493  $13,197  $23,890  $27,267 
Impact of market-based net interest income (2)
  (914)  (1,049)  (1,965)  (2,235)
 
Core net interest income
 $10,579  $12,148  $21,925  $25,032 
 
Average earning assets (3)
                
As reported
 $1,844,525  $1,910,790  $1,857,124  $1,921,864 
Impact of market-based earning assets (2)
  (461,775)  (530,785)  (465,617)  (533,180)
 
Core average earning assets
 $1,382,750  $1,380,005  $1,391,507  $1,388,684 
 
Net interest yield contribution (1, 4)
                
As reported (3)
  2.50 %  2.77 %  2.58 %  2.85 %
Impact of market-based activities (2)
  0.56   0.76   0.58   0.77 
 
Core net interest yield on earning assets
  3.06 %  3.53 %  3.16 %  3.62 %
 
(1) 
FTE basis
 
(2) 
Represents the impact of market-based amounts included in GBAM.
 
(3) 
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, for average balance and yield calculation purposes, $40.4 billion and $20.3 billion of noninterest-earning equity trading securities were reclassified from trading account assets to other non-earning assets. Prior period amounts are immaterial and have not been restated.
 
(4) 
Calculated on an annualized basis.
     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, core net interest income decreased $1.6 billion to $10.6 billion and $3.1 billion to $21.9 billion compared to the same periods in 2010. The decrease was primarily due to lower consumer and commercial loan balances and yields, partially offset by lower rates paid on deposits.
     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, core net interest yield decreased 47 bps to 3.06 percent and 46 bps to 3.16 percent compared to the same periods in 2010 due to the factors noted above.

23


Table of Contents

                         
Table 12
Quarterly Average Balances and Interest Rates – Fully Taxable-equivalent Basis
  Second Quarter 2011  First Quarter 2011 
      Interest         Interest  
  Average Income/ Yield/ Average Income/ Yield/
(Dollars in millions) Balance Expense Rate Balance Expense Rate
 
Earning assets
                        
Time deposits placed and other short-term investments (1)
 $27,298  $106   1.56 % $31,294  $88   1.14 %
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell
  259,069   597   0.92   227,379   517   0.92 
Trading account assets (2)
  186,760   1,576   3.38   221,041   1,669   3.05 
Debt securities (3)
  335,269   2,696   3.22   335,847   2,917   3.49 
Loans and leases (4):
                        
Residential mortgage (5)
  265,420   2,763   4.16   262,049   2,881   4.40 
Home equity
  131,786   1,261   3.83   136,089   1,335   3.96 
Discontinued real estate
  15,997   129   3.22   12,899   110   3.42 
U.S. credit card
  106,164   2,718   10.27   109,941   2,837   10.47 
Non-U.S. credit card
  27,259   760   11.18   27,633   779   11.43 
Direct/Indirect consumer (6)
  89,403   945   4.24   90,097   993   4.47 
Other consumer (7)
  2,745   47   6.87   2,753   45   6.58 
           
Total consumer
  638,774   8,623   5.41   641,461   8,980   5.65 
           
U.S. commercial
  190,479   1,827   3.85   191,353   1,926   4.08 
Commercial real estate (8)
  45,762   382   3.35   48,359   437   3.66 
Commercial lease financing
  21,284   235   4.41   21,634   322   5.95 
Non-U.S. commercial
  42,214   339   3.22   36,159   299   3.35 
           
Total commercial
  299,739   2,783   3.72   297,505   2,984   4.06 
           
Total loans and leases
  938,513   11,406   4.87   938,966   11,964   5.14 
           
Other earning assets
  97,616   866   3.56   115,336   922   3.24 
           
Total earning assets
  1,844,525   17,247   3.75   1,869,863   18,077   3.92 
     
Cash and cash equivalents (1)
  115,956   49       138,241   63     
Other assets, less allowance for loan and lease losses (2)
  378,629           330,434         
     
Total assets
 $2,339,110          $2,338,538         
 
(1) 
For this presentation, fees earned on overnight deposits placed with the Federal Reserve are included in the cash and cash equivalents line, consistent with the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet presentation of these deposits. Net interest income and net interest yield are calculated excluding these fees.
 
(2) 
For the second quarter of 2011, $40.4 billion of noninterest-earning equity trading securities were reclassified from trading account assets to other assets. Prior period amounts are immaterial and have not been restated.
 
(3) 
Yields on AFS debt securities are calculated based on fair value rather than the cost basis. The use of fair value does not have a material impact on net interest yield.
 
(4) 
Nonperforming loans are included in the respective average loan balances. Income on these nonperforming loans is recognized on a cash basis. PCI loans were recorded at fair value upon acquisition and accrete interest income over the remaining life of the loan.
 
(5) 
Includes non-U.S. residential mortgage loans of $94 million and $92 million in the second and first quarters of 2011, and $96 million, $502 million and $506 million in the fourth, third and second quarters of 2010, respectively.
 
(6) 
Includes non-U.S. consumer loans of $8.7 billion and $8.2 billion in the second and first quarters of 2011, and $7.9 billion, $7.7 billion and $7.7 billion in the fourth, third and second quarters of 2010, respectively.
 
(7) 
Includes consumer finance loans of $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion in the second and first quarters of 2011, and $2.0 billion, $2.0 billion and $2.1 billion in the fourth, third and second quarters of 2010, respectively; other non-U.S. consumer loans of $840 million and $777 million in the second and first quarters of 2011, and $791 million, $788 million and $679 million in the fourth, third and second quarters of 2010, respectively; and consumer overdrafts of $79 million and $76 million in the second and first quarters of 2011, and $34 million, $123 million and $155 million in the fourth, third and second quarters of 2010, respectively.
 
(8) 
Includes U.S. commercial real estate loans of $43.4 billion and $45.7 billion in the second and first quarters of 2011, and $49.0 billion, $53.1 billion and $61.6 billion in the fourth, third and second quarters of 2010, respectively; and non-U.S. commercial real estate loans of $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion in the second and first quarters of 2011, and $2.6 billion, $2.5 billion and $2.6 billion in the fourth, third and second quarters of 2010, respectively.

24


Table of Contents

                                     
 Quarterly Average Balances and Interest Rates – Fully Taxable-equivalent Basis (continued)
  Fourth Quarter 2010  Third Quarter 2010  Second Quarter 2010 
      Interest         Interest         Interest  
  Average Income/ Yield/ Average Income/ Yield/ Average Income/ Yield/
  (Dollars in millions) Balance Expense Rate Balance Expense Rate Balance Expense Rate
 
Earning assets
                                    
Time deposits placed and other short-term investments (1)
 $28,141  $75   1.07 % $23,233  $86   1.45 % $30,741  $70   0.93 %
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell
  243,589   486   0.79   254,820   441   0.69   263,564   457   0.70 
Trading account assets
  216,003   1,710   3.15   210,529   1,692   3.20   213,927   1,853   3.47 
Debt securities (3)
  341,867   3,065   3.58   328,097   2,646   3.22   314,299   2,966   3.78 
Loans and leases (4)
                                    
Residential mortgage (5)
  254,051   2,857   4.50   237,292   2,797   4.71   247,715   2,982   4.82 
Home equity
  139,772   1,410   4.01   143,083   1,457   4.05   148,219   1,537   4.15 
Discontinued real estate
  13,297   118   3.57   13,632   122   3.56   13,972   134   3.84 
U.S. credit card
  112,673   3,040   10.70   115,251   3,113   10.72   118,738   3,121   10.54 
Non-U.S. credit card
  27,457   815   11.77   27,047   875   12.84   27,706   854   12.37 
Direct/Indirect consumer (6)
  91,549   1,088   4.72   95,692   1,130   4.68   98,549   1,233   5.02 
Other consumer (7)
  2,796   45   6.32   2,955   47   6.35   2,958   46   6.32 
                 
Total consumer
  641,595   9,373   5.81   634,952   9,541   5.98   657,857   9,907   6.03 
                 
U.S. commercial
  193,608   1,894   3.88   192,306   2,040   4.21   195,144   2,005   4.12 
Commercial real estate (8)
  51,617   432   3.32   55,660   452   3.22   64,218   541   3.38 
Commercial lease financing
  21,363   250   4.69   21,402   255   4.78   21,271   261   4.90 
Non-U.S. commercial
  32,431   289   3.53   30,540   282   3.67   28,564   256   3.59 
                 
Total commercial
  299,019   2,865   3.81   299,908   3,029   4.01   309,197   3,063   3.97 
                 
Total loans and leases
  940,614   12,238   5.18   934,860   12,570   5.35   967,054   12,970   5.38 
                 
Other earning assets
  113,325   923   3.23   112,280   949   3.36   121,205   994   3.29 
                 
Total earning assets
  1,883,539   18,497   3.90   1,863,819   18,384   3.93   1,910,790   19,310   4.05 
        
Cash and cash equivalents (1)
  136,967   63       155,784   107       209,686   106     
Other assets, less allowance for loan and lease losses
  349,752           359,794           373,956         
        
Total assets
 $2,370,258          $2,379,397          $2,494,432         
 
  For footnotes see page 24.

25


Table of Contents

                         
  Quarterly Average Balances and Interest Rates – Fully Taxable-equivalent Basis (continued)
  Second Quarter 2011  First Quarter 2011 
      Interest         Interest  
  Average Income/ Yield/ Average Income/ Yield/
  (Dollars in millions) Balance Expense Rate Balance Expense Rate
 
Interest-bearing liabilities
                        
U.S. interest-bearing deposits:
                        
Savings
 $41,668  $31   0.30 % $38,905  $32   0.34 %
NOW and money market deposit accounts
  478,690   304   0.25   475,954   316   0.27 
Consumer CDs and IRAs
  113,728   281   0.99   118,306   300   1.03 
Negotiable CDs, public funds and other time deposits
  13,842   42   1.22   13,995   39   1.11 
           
Total U.S. interest-bearing deposits
  647,928   658   0.41   647,160   687   0.43 
           
Non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits:
                        
Banks located in non-U.S. countries
  19,234   37   0.77   21,534   38   0.72 
Governments and official institutions
  2,131   2   0.38   2,307   2   0.35 
Time, savings and other
  64,889   146   0.90   60,432   112   0.76 
           
Total non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits
  86,254   185   0.86   84,273   152   0.73 
           
Total interest-bearing deposits
  734,182   843   0.46   731,433   839   0.46 
           
Federal funds purchased, securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase and other short-term borrowings
  338,692   1,342   1.59   371,573   1,184   1.29 
Trading account liabilities
  96,108   627   2.62   83,914   627   3.03 
Long-term debt
  435,144   2,991   2.75   440,511   3,093   2.84 
           
Total interest-bearing liabilities
  1,604,126   5,803   1.45   1,627,431   5,743   1.43 
     
Noninterest-bearing sources:
                        
Noninterest-bearing deposits
  301,762           291,707         
Other liabilities
  198,155           188,631         
Shareholders’ equity
  235,067           230,769         
     
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity
 $2,339,110          $2,338,538         
     
Net interest spread
          2.30 %          2.49 %
Impact of noninterest-bearing sources
          0.19           0.17 
     
Net interest income/yield on earning assets (1)
     $11,444   2.49 %     $12,334   2.66 %
 
  For footnotes see page 24.

26


Table of Contents

                                     
Quarterly Average Balances and Interest Rates
– Fully Taxable-equivalent Basis (continued)
  Fourth Quarter 2010  Third Quarter 2010  Second Quarter 2010 
      Interest         Interest         Interest  
  Average Income/ Yield/ Average Income/ Yield/ Average Income/ Yield/
(Dollars in millions) Balance Expense Rate Balance Expense Rate Balance Expense Rate
 
Interest-bearing liabilities
                                    
U.S. interest-bearing deposits:
                                    
Savings
 $37,145  $35   0.36 % $37,008  $36   0.39 % $37,290  $43   0.46 %
NOW and money market deposit accounts
  464,531   333   0.28   442,906   359   0.32   442,262   372   0.34 
Consumer CDs and IRAs
  124,855   338   1.07   132,687   377   1.13   147,425   441   1.20 
Negotiable CDs, public funds and other time deposits
  16,334   47   1.16   17,326   57   1.30   17,355   59   1.36 
                 
Total U.S. interest-bearing deposits
  642,865   753   0.46   629,927   829   0.52   644,332   915   0.57 
                 
Non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits:
                                    
Banks located in non-U.S. countries
  16,827   38   0.91   17,431   38   0.86   19,751   36   0.72 
Governments and official institutions
  1,560   2   0.42   2,055   2   0.36   4,214   3   0.28 
Time, savings and other
  58,746   101   0.69   54,373   81   0.59   52,195   77   0.60 
                 
Total non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits
  77,133   141   0.73   73,859   121   0.65   76,160   116   0.61 
                 
Total interest-bearing deposits
  719,998   894   0.49   703,786   950   0.54   720,492   1,031   0.57 
                 
Federal funds purchased, securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase and other short-term borrowings
  369,738   1,142   1.23   391,148   848   0.86   454,051   891   0.79 
Trading account liabilities
  81,313   561   2.74   95,265   635   2.65   100,021   715   2.87 
Long-term debt
  465,875   3,254   2.78   485,588   3,341   2.74   497,469   3,582   2.88 
                 
Total interest-bearing liabilities
  1,636,924   5,851   1.42   1,675,787   5,774   1.37   1,772,033   6,219   1.41 
      
Noninterest-bearing sources:
                                    
Noninterest-bearing deposits
  287,740           270,060           271,123         
Other liabilities
  210,069           199,572           217,815         
Shareholders’ equity
  235,525           233,978           233,461         
      
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity
 $2,370,258          $2,379,397          $2,494,432         
      
Net interest spread
          2.48 %          2.56 %          2.64 %
Impact of noninterest-bearing sources
          0.18           0.13           0.10 
      
Net interest income/yield on earning assets (1)
     $12,646   2.66 %     $12,610   2.69 %     $13,091   2.74 %
 
  For footnotes see page 24.

27


Table of Contents

                         
Table 13
Year-to-Date Average Balances and Interest Rates – Fully Taxable-equivalent Basis
  Six Months Ended June 30 
  2011  2010 
      Interest         Interest  
  Average Income/ Yield/ Average Income/ Yield/
(Dollars in millions)
 Balance Expense Rate Balance Expense Rate
 
Earning assets
                        
Time deposits placed and other short-term investments (1)
 $29,285  $194   1.34% $29,179  $130   0.90%
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell
  243,311   1,114   0.92   264,810   905   0.69 
Trading account assets (2)
  203,806   3,245   3.21   214,233   3,648   3.42 
Debt securities (3)
  335,556   5,613   3.35   312,727   6,139   3.93 
Loans and leases (4):
                        
Residential mortgage (5)
  263,744   5,644   4.28   245,785   6,082   4.95 
Home equity
  133,926   2,596   3.90   150,365   3,123   4.18 
Discontinued real estate
  14,457   239   3.31   14,201   287   4.05 
U.S. Credit card
  108,042   5,555   10.37   122,027   6,491   10.73 
Non-U.S. credit card
  27,445   1,539   11.31   28,783   1,760   12.33 
Direct/Indirect consumer (6)
  89,748   1,938   4.36   99,728   2,535   5.13 
Other consumer (7)
  2,748   92   6.75   2,981   94   6.34 
           
Total consumer
  640,110   17,603   5.53   663,870   20,372   6.17 
           
U.S. commercial
  190,914   3,753   3.96   198,882   3,975   4.03 
Commercial real estate (8)
  47,053   819   3.51   66,361   1,116   3.39 
Commercial lease financing
  21,458   557   5.18   21,472   565   5.26 
Non-U.S. commercial
  39,203   638   3.28   28,682   520   3.65 
           
Total commercial
  298,628   5,767   3.89   315,397   6,176   3.94 
           
Total loans and leases
  938,738   23,370   5.01   979,267   26,548   5.45 
           
Other earning assets
  106,428   1,788   3.39   121,648   2,047   3.39 
           
Total earning assets
  1,857,124   35,324   3.84   1,921,864   39,417   4.14 
     
Cash and cash equivalents (1)
  127,037   112       203,334   198     
Other assets, less allowance for loan and lease losses (2)
  354,665           380,261         
     
Total assets
 $2,338,826          $2,505,459         
   
(1) 
Fees earned on overnight deposits placed with the Federal Reserve, which were included in the time deposits placed and other short-term investments line in prior periods, have been reclassified in this table to cash and cash equivalents, consistent with the balance sheet presentation of these deposits. Net interest income and net interest yield are calculated excluding these fees.
 
(2) 
For the six months ended June 30, 2011, $20.3 billion of noninterest-earning equity trading securities were reclassified from trading account assets to other assets. Prior period amounts are immaterial and have not been restated.
 
(3) 
Yields on AFS debt securities are calculated based on fair value rather than the cost basis. The use of fair value does not have a material impact on net interest yield.
 
(4) 
Nonperforming loans are included in the respective average loan balances. Income on these nonperforming loans is recognized on a cash basis. Purchased credit-impaired loans were recorded at fair value upon acquisition and accrete interest income over the remaining life of the loan.
 
(5) 
Includes non-U.S. residential mortgages of $93 million and $522 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
 
(6) 
Includes non-U.S. consumer loans of $8.4 billion and $7.9 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
 
(7) 
Includes consumer finance loans of $1.9 billion and $2.2 billion, and other non-U.S. consumer loans of $809 million and $671 million, and consumer overdrafts of $78 million and $144 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
 
(8) 
Includes U.S. commercial real estate loans of $44.5 billion and $63.6 billion, and non-U.S. commercial real estate loans of $2.5 billion and $2.8 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.

28


Table of Contents

                         
Year-to-Date Average Balances and Interest Rates – Fully Taxable-equivalent Basis (continued)
  Six Months Ended June 30 
  2011  2010 
      Interest         Interest  
  Average Income/ Yield/ Average Income/ Yield/
(Dollars in millions)
 Balance Expense Rate Balance Expense Rate
 
Interest-bearing liabilities
                        
U.S. interest-bearing deposits:
                        
Savings
 $40,294  $63   0.32% $36,214  $86   0.48%
NOW and money market deposit accounts
  477,330   620   0.26   429,258   713   0.33 
Consumer CDs and IRAs
  116,004   581   1.01   156,755   1,008   1.30 
Negotiable CDs, public funds and other time deposits
  13,918   81   1.17   18,552   122   1.33 
           
Total U.S. interest-bearing deposits
  647,546   1,345   0.42   640,779   1,929   0.61 
           
Non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits:
                        
Banks located in non-U.S. countries
  20,378   75   0.74   19,091   68   0.72 
Governments and official institutions
  2,219   4   0.36   4,916   6   0.25 
Time, savings and other
  62,673   258   0.83   53,534   150   0.57 
           
Total non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits
  85,270   337   0.80   77,541   224   0.58 
           
Total interest-bearing deposits
  732,816   1,682   0.46   718,320   2,153   0.60 
           
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase and other short-term borrowings
  355,042   2,526   1.43   481,041   1,709   0.72 
Trading account liabilities
  90,044   1,254   2.81   95,105   1,374   2.91 
Long-term debt
  437,812   6,084   2.80   505,507   7,112   2.82 
           
Total interest-bearing liabilities
  1,615,714   11,546   1.44   1,799,973   12,348   1.38 
     
Noninterest-bearing sources:
                        
Noninterest-bearing deposits
  296,762           268,024         
Other liabilities
  193,420           205,767         
Shareholders’ equity
  232,930           231,695         
        
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity
 $2,338,826          $2,505,459         
        
Net interest spread
          2.40%          2.76%
Impact of noninterest-bearing sources
          0.17           0.06 
     
Net interest income/yield on earning assets (1)
     $23,778   2.57%     $27,069   2.82%
   
For footnotes see page 28.

29


Table of Contents

Business Segment Operations
Segment Description and Basis of Presentation
     We report the results of our operations through six business segments: Deposits, Global Card Services, CRES, Global Commercial Banking, GBAM and GWIM, with the remaining operations recorded in All Other. Prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation.
     We prepare and evaluate segment results using certain non-GAAP methodologies and performance measures, many of which are discussed in Supplemental Financial Data on page 19. In addition, return on average economic capital for the segments is calculated as net income, excluding cost of funds and earnings credit on intangibles, divided by average economic capital. Economic capital represents allocated equity less goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets. We begin by evaluating the operating results of the segments which by definition exclude merger and restructuring charges.
     The management accounting and reporting process derives segment and business results by utilizing allocation methodologies for revenue and expense. The net income derived for the businesses is dependent upon revenue and cost allocations using an activity-based costing model, funds transfer pricing, and other methodologies and assumptions management believes are appropriate to reflect the results of the business.
     Total revenue, net of interest expense, includes net interest income on a FTE basis and noninterest income. The adjustment of net interest income to a FTE basis results in a corresponding increase in income tax expense. The segment results also reflect certain revenue and expense methodologies that are utilized to determine net income. The net interest income of the businesses includes the results of a funds transfer pricing process that matches assets and liabilities with similar interest rate sensitivity and maturity characteristics. For presentation purposes, in segments where the total of liabilities and equity exceeds assets, which are generally deposit-taking segments, we allocate assets to match liabilities. Net interest income of the business segments also includes an allocation of net interest income generated by our ALM activities.
     Our ALM activities include an overall interest rate risk management strategy that incorporates the use of interest rate contracts to manage fluctuations in earnings that are caused by interest rate volatility. Our goal is to manage interest rate sensitivity so that movements in interest rates do not significantly adversely affect net interest income. Our ALM activities are allocated to the business segments and fluctuate based on performance. ALM activities include external product pricing decisions including deposit pricing strategies, the effects of our internal funds transfer pricing process and the net effects of other ALM activities.
     Certain expenses not directly attributable to a specific business segment are allocated to the segments. The most significant of these expenses include data and item processing costs and certain centralized or shared functions. Data processing costs are allocated to the segments based on equipment usage. Item processing costs are allocated to the segments based on the volume of items processed for each segment. The costs of certain centralized or shared functions are allocated based on methodologies that reflect utilization.
     Equity is allocated to business segments and related businesses using a risk-adjusted methodology incorporating each segment’s credit, market, interest rate, strategic and operational risk components. The nature of these risks is discussed further on page 64. We benefit from the diversification of risk across these components which is reflected as a reduction to allocated equity for each segment. The total amount of average equity reflects both risk-based capital and the portion of goodwill and intangibles specifically assigned to the business segments. The risk-adjusted methodology is periodically refined and such refinements are reflected as changes to allocated equity in each segment.
     For more information on selected financial information for the business segments and reconciliations to consolidated total revenue, net income (loss) and period-end total assets, seeNote 20 – Business Segment Information to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

30


Table of Contents

Deposits
                         
  Three Months Ended June 30     Six Months Ended June 30  
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 % Change 2011 2010 % Change
 
Net interest income (1)
 $2,281  $2,144   6% $4,486  $4,319   4%
Noninterest income:
                        
Service charges
  965   1,494   (35)  1,888   2,973   (36)
All other income
  55   57   (4)  116   121   (4)
           
Total noninterest income
  1,020   1,551   (34)  2,004   3,094   (35)
           
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  3,301   3,695   (11)  6,490   7,413   (12)
 
                        
Provision for credit losses
  31   61   (49)  64   98   (35)
Noninterest expense
  2,599   2,572   1   5,191   5,139   1 
           
Income before income taxes
  671   1,062   (37)  1,235   2,176   (43)
Income tax expense (1)
  241   388   (38)  450   804   (44)
           
Net income
 $430  $674   (36) $785  $1,372   (43)
           
 
                        
Net interest yield (1)
  2.15%  2.06%      2.15%  2.09%    
Return on average equity
  7.30   11.16       6.70   11.45     
Return on average economic capital (2, 3)
  30.41   43.52       27.93   44.82     
Efficiency ratio (1)
  78.75   69.59       79.99   69.32     
Cost per dollar deposit (4)
  2.44   2.46       2.52   2.48     
 
                        
Balance Sheet
                        
 
                        
Average
                        
Total earning assets
 $425,363  $417,132   2  $421,313  $416,185   1 
Total assets
  451,554   443,520   2   447,530   442,691   1 
Total deposits
  426,684   418,480   2   422,514   417,665   1 
Allocated equity
  23,612   24,226   (3)  23,627   24,179   (2)
Economic capital (5)
  5,662   6,239   (9)  5,672   6,202   (9)
 
                   
              June 30 December 31    
Period end
             2011 2010    
                   
Total earning assets
             $422,646  $414,215   2 
Total assets
              449,123   440,954   2 
Total deposits
              424,579   415,189   2 
Client brokerage assets
              69,000   63,597   8 
 
(1) FTE basis
 
(2) 
Decreases in the ratios resulted from lower net income partially offset by a slight decrease in economic capital. Economic capital decreased due to improvements in interest rate risk related to changes in portfolio composition.
 
(3) 
Return on average economic capital is calculated as net income, excluding cost of funds and earnings credit on intangibles, divided by average economic capital.
 
(4) 
Cost per dollar deposit represents annualized noninterest expense, excluding certain expenses, as a percentage of average deposits.
 
(5) Economic capital represents allocated equity less goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets.
     Deposits includes the results of consumer deposit activities which consist of a comprehensive range of products provided to consumers and small businesses. Our deposit products include traditional savings accounts, money market savings accounts, CDs and IRAs, and noninterest- and interest-bearing checking accounts. Deposit products provide a relatively stable source of funding and liquidity for the Corporation. We earn net interest spread revenue from investing this liquidity in earning assets through client-facing lending and ALM activities. The revenue is allocated to the deposit products using our funds transfer pricing process which takes into account the interest rates and maturity characteristics of the deposits.
     Deposits also generates fees such as account service fees, non-sufficient funds fees, overdraft charges and ATM fees, as well as investment and brokerage fees from Merrill Edge accounts. Merrill Edge is an integrated investing and banking service targeted at clients with less than $250,000 in total assets. Merrill Edge provides team-based investment advice and guidance, brokerage services, a self-directed online investing platform and key banking capabilities including access to the Corporation’s network of banking centers and ATMs. Depositsincludes the net impact of migrating customers and their related deposit balances between Depositsand other client-managed businesses.

31


Table of Contents

Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income decreased $244 million, or 36 percent, to $430 million due to a decline in revenue driven by lower noninterest income, partially offset by higher net interest income. Noninterest income decreased $531 million, or 34 percent, to $1.0 billion due to the impact of overdraft policy changes in conjunction with Regulation E, which became effective in the third quarter of 2010. For more information on Regulation E, see Regulatory Matters of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K on page 56. Net interest income increased $137 million, or six percent, to $2.3 billion driven by a shift to more liquid products and continued pricing discipline in the low-rate environment resulting in a 16 bps decrease in the rate paid on deposits from a year ago.
     Average deposits increased $8.2 billion from a year ago driven by organic growth in liquid products, including Merrill Edge, partially offset by the impact of transfers with other client-managed businesses.
Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income decreased $587 million, or 43 percent, to $785 million due to a decrease in noninterest income of $1.1 billion, or 35 percent, to $2.0 billion. Net interest income increased $167 million, or four percent, to $4.5 billion. These period over period changes were driven by the same factors as described in the three-month discussion above.
     Average deposits increased $4.8 billion from a year ago driven by the same factors as described in the three-month discussion above.

32


Table of Contents

Global Card Services
                         
  Three Months Ended June 30     Six Months Ended June 30  
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 % Change 2011 2010 % Change
 
Net interest income (1)
 $3,611  $4,442   (19)% $7,358  $9,262   (21)%
Noninterest income:
                        
Card income
  1,833   1,901   (4)  3,562   3,784   (6)
All other income
  92   605   (85)  303   792   (62)
           
Total noninterest income
  1,925   2,506   (23)  3,865   4,576   (16)
           
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  5,536   6,948   (20)  11,223   13,838   (19)
 
                        
Provision for credit losses
  481   3,796   (87)  1,442   7,331   (80)
Noninterest expense
  1,882   1,852   2   3,851   3,664   5 
           
Income before income taxes
  3,173   1,300   144   5,930   2,843   109 
Income tax expense (1)
  1,138   474   140   2,160   1,049   106 
           
Net income
 $2,035  $826   146  $3,770  $1,794   110 
           
 
                        
Net interest yield (1)
  9.12%  9.97%      9.19%  10.13%    
Return on average equity
  32.66   8.14       29.73   8.61     
Return on average economic capital (2, 3)
  66.26   19.40       59.01   19.74     
Efficiency ratio (1)
  33.99   26.68       34.31   26.49     
 
                        
Balance Sheet
                        
 
                        
Average
                        
Total loans and leases
 $156,788  $177,076   (11) $159,591  $182,909   (13)
Total earning assets
  158,861   178,646   (11)  161,462   184,326   (12)
Total assets
  161,776   187,138   (14)  163,761   191,913   (15)
Allocated equity
  24,982   40,677   (39)  25,573   41,994   (39)
Economic capital (4)
  12,341   17,501   (29)  12,915   18,767   (31)
 
                   
              June 30 December 31    
Period end
             2011 2010    
                   
Total loans and leases
             $153,280  $166,899   (8)
Total earning assets
              156,058   168,706   (7)
Total assets
              161,756   170,311   (5)
 
(1) FTE basis
 
(2) 
Increases in the ratios resulted from higher net income and a decrease in economic capital. Economic capital decreased due to lower levels of credit risk as loan balances declined. Allocated equity decreased as a result of the $10.4 billion goodwill impairment charge recorded during the third quarter of 2010.
 
(3) 
Return on average economic capital is calculated as net income, excluding cost of funds and earnings credit on intangibles, divided by average economic capital.
 
(4) 
Economic capital represents allocated equity less goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets.
     Global Card Services provides a broad offering of products including U.S. consumer and business credit card, consumer lending, and international credit card and debit card to consumers and small businesses. We provide credit card products to customers in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Ireland. We offer a variety of co-branded and affinity credit and debit card products and are one of the leading issuers of credit cards through endorsed marketing in the U.S. and Europe. For an update on the PPI claims matter, see Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
     The majority of the provisions of the CARD Act became effective on February 22, 2010, while certain provisions became effective in the third quarter of 2010. The CARD Act has negatively impacted net interest income due to restrictions on our ability to reprice credit cards based on risk and card income due to restrictions imposed on certain fees. For more information on the CARD Act, see Regulatory Matters of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K on page 56.
     On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule, effective October 1, 2011, that established the maximum allowable interchange fees a bank can receive for a debit transaction, proposed fraud standards and established network routing requirements, effective April 1, 2012. For more information on the final interchange rules, see Regulatory Matters on page 62. The new interchange fee will result in a reduction of debit card revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011 of approximately $475 million.

33


Table of Contents

Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income increased $1.2 billion to $2.0 billion due to a $3.3 billion decrease in the provision for credit losses as a result of continued improvements in credit quality. This was partially offset by a decrease in revenue of $1.4 billion, or 20 percent, to $5.5 billion, primarily due to a decline in net interest income from lower average loans and yields.
     Net interest income decreased $831 million, or 19 percent, to $3.6 billion driven by lower average loans and yields. Net interest yield decreased 85 bps to 9.12 percent due to net charge-offs and paydowns of higher interest rate products.
     Noninterest income decreased $581 million, or 23 percent, to $1.9 billion compared to $2.5 billion primarily due to the absence of a $440 million pre-tax gain on the sale of our MasterCard position in the second quarter of 2010.
     The provision for credit losses improved by $3.3 billion, to $481 million compared to $3.8 billion reflecting improving economic conditions and continued expectations of improving delinquency, collection and bankruptcy trends. For more information on the improvement in the provision for credit losses, see Provision for Credit Losses on page 107.
     Average loans decreased $20.3 billion driven by higher payments, charge-offs and continued non-core portfolio run-off. In addition, Global Card Services exited $2.1 billion of loans at the end of the quarter with minimal income statement impact.
Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income increased $2.0 billion to $3.8 billion as the provision for credit losses improved $5.9 billion to $1.4 billion, partially offset by a $2.6 billion decline in revenue to $11.2 billion. Net interest income of $7.4 billion decreased $1.9 billion, noninterest income declined $711 million, including approximately $300 million related to the CARD Act, to $3.9 billion and noninterest expense increased $187 million to $3.9 billion. These period over period changes were driven by the same factors described in the three-month discussion above.

34


Table of Contents

Consumer Real Estate Services
                         
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2011        
              Total    
              Consumer    
      Legacy Asset     Real Estate Three Months Ended  
(Dollars in millions)
 Home Loans Servicing Other Services June 30, 2010 % Change
   
Net interest income (1)
 $481  $129  $(31) $579  $992   (42)%
Noninterest income:
                        
Mortgage banking income (loss)
  938   (13,083)  (873)  (13,018)  1,020   n/m 
Insurance income
  299   -   -   299   513   (42)
All other income
  795   30   -   825   179   n/m 
         
Total noninterest income (loss)
  2,032   (13,053)  (873)  (11,894)  1,712   n/m 
         
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  2,513   (12,924)  (904)  (11,315)  2,704   n/m 
 
                        
Provision for credit losses
  121   1,386   -   1,507   2,390   (37)
Goodwill impairment
  -   -   2,603   2,603   -   n/m 
Noninterest expense
  1,553   4,491   -   6,044   2,738   121 
         
Income (loss) before income taxes
  839   (18,801)  (3,507)  (21,469)  (2,424)  n/m 
Income tax expense (benefit) (1)
  308   (6,924)  (333)  (6,949)  (882)  n/m 
         
Net income (loss)
 $531  $(11,877) $(3,174) $(14,520) $(1,542)  n/m 
         
 
                        
Net interest yield (1)
  2.68%  0.76%  n/m   1.46%  2.13%    
Efficiency ratio (1)
  61.80   n/m   n/m   n/m   101.27     
 
                        
Balance Sheet
                        
 
                        
Average
                        
Total loans and leases
 $55,267  $66,416  $-  $121,683  $130,662   (7)
Total earning assets
  71,876   68,444   18,354   158,674   186,873   (15)
Total assets
  73,377   84,616   40,037   198,030   227,595   (13)
Allocated equity
  n/a   n/a   n/a   17,139   26,174   (35)
Economic capital (2, 3)
  n/a   n/a   n/a   14,437   21,371   (32)
 
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2011        
              Total    
              Consumer    
      Legacy Asset     Real Estate Six Months Ended  
  Home Loans Servicing Other Services June 30, 2010 % Change
   
Net interest income (1)
 $1,056  $460  $(41) $1,475  $2,199   (33)%
Noninterest income:
                        
Mortgage banking income (loss)
  1,696   (13,149)  (870)  (12,323)  2,661   n/m 
Insurance income
  730   -   -   730   1,051   (31)
All other income
  822   44   -   866   326   166 
        
Total noninterest income (loss)
  3,248   (13,105)  (870)  (10,727)  4,038   n/m 
        
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  4,304   (12,645)  (911)  (9,252)  6,237   n/m 
 
                        
Provision for credit losses
  121   2,484   -   2,605   5,990   (57)
Goodwill impairment
  -   -   2,603   2,603   -   n/m 
Noninterest expense
  3,221   7,624   -   10,845   5,985   81 
        
Income (loss) before income taxes
  962   (22,753)  (3,514)  (25,305)  (5,738)  n/m 
Income tax expense (benefit) (1)
  354   (8,388)  (336)  (8,370)  (2,119)  n/m 
        
Net income (loss)
 $608  $(14,365) $(3,178) $(16,935) $(3,619)  n/m 
        
 
                        
Net interest yield (1)
  2.81%  1.37%  (0.37)%  1.80%  2.36%    
Efficiency ratio (1)
  74.84   n/m   n/m   n/m   95.96     
 
                        
Balance Sheet
                        
 
                        
Average
                        
Total loans and leases
 $55,632  $65,493  $-  $121,125  $132,195   (8)
Total earning assets
  75,695   67,565   22,209   165,469   188,222   (12)
Total assets
  77,052   83,531   43,065   203,648   230,076   (11)
Allocated equity
  n/a   n/a   n/a   17,933   26,641   (33)
Economic capital (2, 3)
  n/a   n/a   n/a   15,211   21,837   (30)
 
         
Period end
 June 30, 2011 December 31, 2010    
Total loans and leases
 $55,454  $66,099  $-  $121,553  $122,933   (1)
Total earning assets
  69,822   68,114   11,972   149,908   172,082   (13)
Total assets
  71,723   83,411   30,264   185,398   212,413   (13)
 
(1) FTE basis
 
(2) 
Economic capital decreased due to improvements in credit risk as loan balances declined and due to a lower MSR balance. Allocated equity decreased due to the $2.0 billion goodwill impairment charge recorded during the fourth quarter of 2010 and was minimally impacted by the $2.6 billion goodwill impairment charge recorded late in the second quarter of 2011.
 
(3) 
Economic capital represents allocated equity less goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets (excluding MSRs).
 
n/m  = not meaningful
 
n/a  = not applicable

35


Table of Contents

     CRESwas realigned effective January 1, 2011 and its activities are now referred to as Home Loans, which includes ongoing loan production and servicing activities, Legacy Asset Servicing, which includes a separately managed legacy mortgage portfolio, and Other, which includes the results of certain MSR activities and other unallocated assets (e.g., goodwill). This realignment allows CRES management to lead the ongoing home loan business while also providing greater focus and transparency on legacy mortgage issues.
     CRES includes the impact of transferring customers and their related loan balances betweenGWIM and CRES based on client segmentation thresholds. For more information on the migration of customer balances, see GWIM on page 46.
     CRES generates revenue by providing an extensive line of consumer real estate products and services to customers nationwide. CRES products are available to our customers through our retail network of approximately 5,700 banking centers, mortgage loan officers in approximately 750 locations and a sales force offering our customers direct telephone and online access to our products. These products are also offered through our correspondent loan acquisition channels.
     CRES products include fixed and adjustable-rate first-lien mortgage loans for home purchase and refinancing needs, home equity lines of credit and home equity loans. First mortgage products are either sold into the secondary mortgage market to investors, while we retain MSRs and the Bank of America customer relationships, or are held on our balance sheet in All Other for ALM purposes. Home equity lines of credit and home equity loans are retained on the CRES balance sheet. CRESservices mortgage loans, including those loans it owns, loans owned by other business segments andAll Other, and loans owned by outside investors. On February 4, 2011, we announced that we were exiting the reverse mortgage origination business. In October 2010, we exited the first mortgage wholesale acquisition channel. These strategic changes were made to allow greater focus on our retail channels. The financial results of the on-balance sheet loans are reported in the business segment that owns the loans or All Other. CRES is not impacted by the Corporation’s first mortgage production retention decisions as CRES is compensated for loans held for ALM purposes on a management accounting basis, with a corresponding offset recorded in All Other, and for servicing loans owned by other business segments and All Other.
     Home Loans includes the ongoing loan production activities, certain servicing activities that are discussed below, and the CRES home equity portfolio not selected for inclusion in the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio. Home Loans also included insurance operations through June 30, 2011, when the ongoing insurance business was transferred to Global Card Services following the sale of Balboa’s lender-placed insurance business. Due to the realignment of CRES, the composition of the Home Loans loan portfolio does not currently reflect a normalized level of credit losses and noninterest expense which we expect will develop over time.
     Legacy Asset Servicing is responsible for servicing and managing the exposures related to selected residential mortgage, home equity and discontinued real estate loan portfolios. In addition, it is responsible for servicing all delinquent mortgage loans. These selected loan portfolios include owned loans and loans serviced for others, including loans held in other business segments and All Other (collectively, the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio). The Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio includes residential mortgage loans, home equity loans and discontinued real estate loans that would not have been originated under our underwriting standards at December 31, 2010. Countrywide loans that were impaired at the time of acquisition (the Countrywide PCI portfolio) as well as certain loans that met a pre-defined delinquency status or probability of default threshold as of January 1, 2011 are also included in the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio. Since determining the pool of loans that would be included in Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio as of January 1, 2011, the criteria have not changed for this portfolio. However, the criteria for inclusion of certain assets and liabilities in the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio will continue to be evaluated over time.
     The total owned loans in the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio were $169.5 billion at June 30, 2011, of which $66.1 billion are reflected on the balance sheet of Legacy Asset Servicing withinCRES. The remainder is held on the balance sheets of Global Commercial Banking, GWIM and All Other. For more information on the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio criteria, see Consumer Credit Portfolio on page 76.
     Legacy Asset Servicing results reflect the net cost of legacy exposures that is included in the results of CRES, including representations and warranties provision, litigation costs and financial results of the CRES home equity portfolio selected as part of the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio. In addition, certain revenue and expenses on loans serviced for others, including loans serviced for other business segments and All Other, are included in Legacy Asset Servicing results. The results of the Legacy Asset Servicing residential mortgage and discontinued real estate portfolios are recorded primarily in All Other.
     The Other component within CRES includes the results of certain MSR activities, including net hedge results, together with any related assets or liabilities used as economic hedges. The change in the value of the MSRs reflects the change in

36


Table of Contents

discount rates and prepayment speed assumptions, largely due to changes in interest rates, as well as the effect of changes in other assumptions, including the cost to service. These amounts are not allocated between Home Loans and Legacy Asset Servicing since the MSRs are managed as a single asset. Goodwill assigned to CRES is also included in Other; however, the remaining balance of $2.6 billion of goodwill was written off in its entirety during the three months ended June 30, 2011. For additional information on goodwill, seeNote 10 – Goodwill and Intangible Assets to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
     Servicing activities include collecting cash for principal, interest and escrow payments from borrowers, and disbursing customer draws for lines of credit and accounting for and remitting principal and interest payments to investors and escrow payments to third parties along with responding to non-default related customer inquiries. These activities are performed by Home Loans. Our home retention efforts are also part of our servicing activities, along with supervising foreclosures and property dispositions. These default-related activities are performed by Legacy Asset Servicing. In an effort to help our customers avoid foreclosure, Legacy Asset Servicing evaluates various workout options prior to foreclosure sale which, combined with our temporary halt of foreclosures announced in October 2010, has resulted in elongated default timelines. We have resumed foreclosure sales in all non-judicial states; however, while we have recently resumed foreclosure proceedings in nearly all judicial states, our progress on foreclosure sales in judicial states has been significantly slower than in non-judicial states. We have also not yet resumed foreclosure sales for certain types of customers, including those in bankruptcy and those with FHA-insured loans, although we have resumed foreclosure proceedings with respect to these types of customers. For additional information on our servicing activities, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Other Mortgage-related Matters on page 60.
     The sale of lender-placed and voluntary property and casualty insurance assets and liabilities of Balboa closed on June 1, 2011. In connection with the sale, CRES recognized a pre-tax gain of $752 million net of an inter-segment advisory fee and an allocation of $193 million of goodwill. The sale agreement included the fair value of certain earn-outs and clawback provisions which were reflected in the determination of the pre-tax gain. Under the earn-out provisions, the buyer will make payments to the Corporation if certain future revenue or profitability targets are met whereas under the clawback provision, the Corporation may be required to pay the buyer if certain loss projections or gross written premiums vary from targets established in the sale agreement after certain triggering events occur, including regulatory actions. The amount, if any, and timing of any clawback or earn-out payments could vary based upon these future performance metrics.
Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
     TheCRES net loss increased $13.0 billion to $14.5 billion. Revenue declined $14.0 billion to a loss of $11.3 billion due to $14.0 billion in representations and warranties provision which is included in mortgage banking income compared to a provision of $1.2 billion in 2010. The representations and warranties provision included $8.6 billion related to the BNY Mellon Settlement and $5.4 billion related to other non-GSE exposures, and to a lesser extent, GSE exposures. Other factors resulting in the revenue decline were the decreases in MSR results, net of hedges, of $885 million as a result of higher expected servicing costs, and core production income of $604 million due to a decline in new loan originations caused mainly by lower overall market demand and a drop in market share in both the retail and correspondent sales channels partially driven by pricing actions as well as the Corporation’s exit from wholesale lending. These declines were partially offset by a pre-tax gain on the sale of Balboa’s lender-placed insurance business of $752 million, net of an inter-segment advisory fee. For additional information on representations and warranties, see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51.
     Provision for credit losses decreased $883 million to $1.5 billion reflecting improved portfolio trends, including the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio.
     Noninterest expense increased $5.9 billion to $8.6 billion, primarily due to a non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $2.6 billion and $2.0 billion in litigation expense. Additionally, as a result of elongated default timelines, our servicing costs have increased driven by $716 million of mortgage-related assessments and waivers costs, which included $485 million for compensatory fees that we expect to be assessed by the GSEs as a result of foreclosure delays as our agreements and first mortgage seller/servicer guides with the GSEs provide timelines to complete the liquidation of delinquent loans. In instances where we fail to meet these timelines, our agreements provide the GSEs with the option to assess compensatory fees. The remainder of the $716 million of mortgage-related assessments and waivers costs are out-of-pocket costs that we do not expect to recover. We expect such costs will continue as additional loans are delayed in the foreclosure process and as the GSEs assert more aggressive criteria. Higher default-related and other loss mitigation expenses also contributed to increased expenses. Production expense was lower due to lower origination volumes and lower insurance expenses resulting from the sale of Balboa’s lender-placed insurance business.

37


Table of Contents

Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
     TheCRES net loss increased $13.3 billion to $16.9 billion. Revenue declined $15.5 billion to a loss of $9.3 billion due in large part to a decrease in mortgage banking income driven by an increase in representations and warranties provision of $13.3 billion, a decline in core production income of $1.2 billion and the decrease in MSR results, net of hedges, of $1.1 billion as a result of servicing costs. The decline in core production income was primarily due to lower production volume driven by the same factors noted in the three-month discussion. Net interest income also contributed to the decline in revenue driven primarily by lower average balances of loans held-for-sale (LHFS). Provision for credit losses decreased $3.4 billion to $2.6 billion and noninterest expense increased $7.5 billion to $13.4 billion due to the same factors noted in the three-month discussion.
Mortgage Banking Income
     CRES mortgage banking income is categorized into production and servicing income. Core production income is comprised of revenue from the fair value gains and losses recognized on our interest rate lock commitments (IRLCs) and LHFS, the related secondary market execution, and costs related to representations and warranties in the sales transactions along with other obligations incurred in the sales of mortgage loans. In addition, production income includes revenue, which is offset in All Other, for transfers of mortgage loans from CRES to the ALM portfolio related to the Corporation’s mortgage production retention decisions. Ongoing costs related to representations and warranties and other obligations that were incurred in the sales of mortgage loans in prior periods are also included in production income.
     Servicing income includes income earned in connection with servicing activities and MSR valuation adjustments, net of economic hedge activities. The costs associated with our servicing activities are included in noninterest expense.
     The table below summarizes the components of mortgage banking income.
                     
Mortgage Banking Income
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Production income (loss):
                
Core production revenue
 $824  $1,428  $1,492  $2,711 
Representations and warranties provision
  (14,037)  (1,248)  (15,050)  (1,774)
 
Total production income (loss)
  (13,213)  180   (13,558)  937 
 
Servicing income:
                
Servicing fees
  1,556   1,649   3,162   3,218 
Impact of customer payments (1)
  (639)  (981)  (1,345)  (2,037)
Fair value changes of MSRs, net of economic hedge results (2)
  (873)  12   (870)  209 
Other servicing-related revenue
  151   160   288   334 
 
Total net servicing income
  195   840   1,235   1,724 
 
Total CRES mortgage banking income (loss)
  (13,018)  1,020   (12,323)  2,661 
Eliminations (3)
  (178)  (122)  (243)  (263)
 
Total consolidated mortgage banking income (loss)
 $(13,196) $898  $(12,566) $2,398 
 
(1) Represents the change in the market value of the MSR asset due to the impact of customer payments received during the period.
 
(2) Includes sale of MSRs.
 
(3) Includes the effect of transfers of mortgage loans from CRES to the ALM portfolio in All Other.
Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Core production revenue of $824 million represented a decrease of $604 million, due to lower volumes partially offset by an increase in margins. Representations and warranties provision increased $12.8 billion to $14.0 billion. For additional information on representations and warranties, see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51.
     Net servicing income decreased $645 million as the lower impact of customer payments was more than offset by less favorable MSR results, net of hedges. MSRs results, net of hedges, were a loss of $873 million, driven primarily by a decline in the value of the MSRs of $1.5 billion resulting from the expectation of higher servicing costs. The increased servicing costs were primarily a result of higher costs in view of all the changes in servicing delinquent loans, costs associated with additional servicing obligations under the BNY Mellon Settlement and extending default workout timelines in judicial states. For additional information on MSRs and the related hedge instruments, see Mortgage Banking Risk Management on page 119.

38


Table of Contents

Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Core production revenue of $1.5 billion represented a decrease of $1.2 billion due to a decline in new loan originations caused mainly by lower overall market demand and a decline in market share. Representations and warranties provision increased $13.3 billion to $15.1 billion.
     Net servicing income decreased $489 million as the lower impact of customer payments was more than offset by less favorable MSR results, net of hedges. MSR results, net of hedges, were a loss of $870 million, driven by a decline in the value of the MSRs of $2.0 billion resulting from revised expectations of cash flows, primarily related to higher servicing costs.
                 
Key Statistics
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
(Dollars in millions, except as noted)
 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Loan production
                
CRES:
                
First mortgage
 $38,320  $69,141  $90,839  $136,106 
Home equity
  879   1,831   2,454   3,602 
Total Corporation (1):
                
First mortgage
 $40,370  $71,938  $97,104  $141,440 
Home equity
  1,054   2,137   2,782   4,164 
 
           
          June 30 December 31
Period end
         2011 2010
           
Mortgage servicing portfolio (in billions) (2, 3)
         $1,992  $2,057 
Mortgage loans serviced for investors (in billions) (3)
          1,578   1,628 
Mortgage servicing rights:
                
Balance
          12,372   14,900 
Capitalized mortgage servicing rights (% of loans serviced for investors)
     78bps  92bps
 
(1) 
In addition to loan production inCRES, the remaining first mortgage and home equity loan production is primarily in GWIM.
 
(2) 
Servicing of residential mortgage loans, home equity lines of credit, home equity loans and discontinued real estate mortgage loans.
 
(3) 
The total Corporation mortgage servicing portfolio consists of $1,079 billion in Home Loans and $913 billion in Legacy Asset Servicing at June 30, 2011. The total Corporation mortgage loans serviced for investors consisted of $870 billion in Home Loans and $708 billion in Legacy Asset Servicing at June 30, 2011.
     First mortgage production was $40.4 billion and $97.1 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $71.9 billion and $141.4 billion for the same periods in 2010. The decrease of $31.5 billion and $44.3 billion was primarily due to a decline in market share caused primarily by our exit from the wholesale origination channel in the fall of 2010 and a reduction in market share in both the retail and correspondent sales channels partially driven by pricing actions.
     Home equity production was $1.1 billion and $2.8 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $2.1 billion and $4.2 billion for the same periods in 2010 primarily due to a decline in reverse mortgage originations based on our decision to exit this business in February 2011.
     At June 30, 2011, the consumer MSR balance was $12.4 billion, which represented 78 bps of the related unpaid principal balance compared to $14.9 billion, or 92 bps of the related unpaid principal balance at December 31, 2010. The decline in the consumer MSR balance was primarily driven by the impact of elevated expected costs to service delinquent loans, which reduced expected cash flows and the value of the MSRs, the impact of lower mortgage rates and the decline in value due to customer payments. These declines were partially offset by the addition of new MSRs recorded in connection with sales of loans. For additional information on our servicing activities, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Other Mortgage-related Matters on page 60.

39


Table of Contents

                         
Global Commercial Banking
  Three Months Ended June 30     Six Months Ended June 30  
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 % Change 2011 2010 % Change
 
Net interest income (1)
 $1,827  $2,097   (13)% $3,677  $4,290   (14)%
Noninterest income:
                        
Service charges
  576   589   (2)  1,182   1,188   (1)
All other income
  407   197   107   602   497   21 
           
Total noninterest income
  983   786   25   1,784   1,685   6 
           
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  2,810   2,883   (3)  5,461   5,975   (9)
 
                        
Provision for credit losses
  (417)  623   n/m   (338)  1,559   n/m 
Noninterest expense
  1,068   974   10   2,174   2,005   8 
           
Income before income taxes
  2,159   1,286   68   3,625   2,411   50 
Income tax expense (1)
  778   471   65   1,321   891   48 
           
Net income
 $1,381  $815   69  $2,304  $1,520   52 
           
 
                        
Net interest yield (1)
  2.60%  3.13%      2.66%  3.26%    
Return on average equity
  13.67   7.46       11.33   6.93     
Return on average economic capital (2, 3)
  27.92   14.14       22.85   13.04     
Efficiency ratio (1)
  38.01   33.80       39.81   33.56     
 
                        
Balance Sheet
                        
 
                        
Average
                        
Total loans and leases
 $189,346  $206,603   (8) $190,883  $210,450   (9)
Total earning assets
  281,844   268,552   5   278,272   265,125   5 
Total assets
  320,428   305,788   5   316,521   301,925   5 
Total deposits
  166,481   145,499   14   163,366   144,572   13 
Allocated equity
  40,515   43,869   (8)  41,008   44,222   (7)
Economic capital (4)
  19,817   23,159   (14)  20,309   23,558   (14)
 
                   
              June 30 December 31    
Period end
             2011 2010    
                   
Total loans and leases
             $189,434  $194,038   (2)
Total earning assets
              242,272   274,637   (12)
Total assets
              280,289   312,802   (10)
Total deposits
              170,156   161,279   6 
 
(1) FTE basis
 
(2) 
Increases in the ratios resulted from higher net income and lower economic capital. Economic capital decreased due to improved credit quality, declining loan balances and improvements in counterparty credit exposure.
 
(3) 
Return on average economic capital is calculated as net income, excluding cost of funds and earnings credit on intangibles, divided by average economic capital.
 
(4) 
Economic capital represents allocated equity less goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets.
 
n/m  = not meaningful
     Global Commercial Banking provides a wide range of lending-related products and services, integrated working capital management and treasury solutions to clients through our network of offices and client relationship teams along with various product partners. Our clients include business banking and middle-market companies, commercial real estate firms and governments, and are generally defined as companies with annual sales up to $2 billion. Our lending products and services include commercial loans and commitment facilities, real estate lending, asset-based lending and indirect consumer loans. Our capital management and treasury solutions include treasury management, foreign exchange and short-term investing options. Effective in the first quarter of 2011, management responsibility for the merchant processing joint venture, Banc of America Merchant Services, LLC, was moved from GBAM to Global Commercial Banking where it more closely aligns with the business model. Prior periods have been restated to reflect this change. In the three months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded a $500 million impairment write-down on our investment in the joint venture. Because of the recent transfer of the joint venture to Global Commercial Banking, the impairment write-down was recorded in All Other for management accounting purposes. For additional information, see Note 5 – Securities to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

40


Table of Contents

Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income increased $566 million, or 69 percent, to $1.4 billion driven by lower credit costs from improved asset quality. Revenue decreased $73 million, primarily due to lower loan balances partially offset by earnings on higher deposit balances and a gain on the termination of a purchase contract.
     Net interest income decreased $270 million due to the decline in average loans and a lower net interest allocation related to ALM activities. Offsetting this decrease was an increase in average deposits of $21.0 billion, as clients continue to maintain high levels of liquidity. Noninterest income increased $197 million, or 25 percent, largely due to a gain on the termination of a purchase contract.
     The provision for credit losses decreased $1.0 billion to a benefit of $417 million driven by improved overall economic conditions and an accelerated rate of loan resolutions in the commercial real estate portfolio.
     Noninterest expense increased $94 million due to an increase in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) expense driven by growth in deposit balances, higher foreclosed property expense driven by lower gains on real estate owned sales, and higher other support costs.
Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income increased $784 million, or 52 percent, to $2.3 billion due to an improvement of $1.9 billion in the provision for credit losses partially offset by lower revenue. The decrease in net interest income of $613 million was due to a lower net interest allocation related to ALM activities and lower loan balances. The decrease in provision for credit losses and the increase in noninterest expense were driven by the same factors described in the three-month discussion above.
Global Commercial Banking Revenue
     Global Commercial Banking revenue can also be categorized into treasury services revenue primarily from capital and treasury management, and business lending revenue derived from credit-related products and services.
     Treasury services revenue for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 was $1.2 billion and $2.4 billion, essentially flat compared to the same periods in 2010. Net interest income increased from $727 million to $746 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 driven by the impact of an increase of $21.0 billion in average deposits. Noninterest income decreased from $521 million to $499 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 as the use of certain treasury services declined and clients continued to convert from paper to electronic services. These actions, combined with our clients leveraging compensating balances to offset fees, have negatively impacted treasury services revenue.
     Business lending revenue for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 was $1.6 billion and $3.0 billion, a decrease of $71 million and $448 million compared to the same periods in 2010. Net interest income declined from $1.4 billion to $1.1 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and from $2.8 billion to $2.2 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 driven by a lower net interest allocation related to ALM activities and lower loan balances compared to the same periods in 2010. Noninterest income increased from $265 million to $483 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and from $688 million to $825 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. This increase was due in part to a gain on the termination of a purchase contract. Average loan and lease balances decreased $17.3 billion and $19.6 billion, or eight percent and nine percent, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010 due to client deleveraging.

41


Table of Contents

Global Banking & Markets
                         
  Three Months Ended June 30     Six Months Ended June 30  
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 % Change 2011 2010 % Change
 
Net interest income (1)
 $1,791  $2,002   (11)% $3,828  $4,172   (8)%
Noninterest income:
                        
Service charges
  442   468   (6)  917   931   (2)
Investment and brokerage services
  587   676   (13)  1,264   1,299   (3)
Investment banking fees
  1,637   1,301   26   3,148   2,517   25 
Trading account profits
  2,071   1,202   72   4,691   6,273   (25)
All other income
  268   255   5   834   405   106 
           
Total noninterest income
  5,005   3,902   28   10,854   11,425   (5)
           
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  6,796   5,904   15   14,682   15,597   (6)
 
                        
Provision for credit losses
  (82)  (133)  38   (284)  103   n/m 
Noninterest expense
  4,713   4,735   -   9,435   9,024   5 
           
Income before income taxes
  2,165   1,302   66   5,531   6,470   (15)
Income tax expense (1)
  607   404   50   1,839   2,333   (21)
           
Net income
 $1,558  $898   73  $3,692  $4,137   (11)
           
 
                        
Return on average equity
  16.44%  7.03%      18.61%  15.99%    
Return on average economic capital (2, 3)
  23.40   9.06       25.86   20.28     
Efficiency ratio (1)
  69.35   80.19       64.26   57.86     
 
                        
Balance Sheet
                        
 
                        
Average
                        
Total trading-related assets (4, 5)
 $460,153  $522,304   (12) $459,278  $519,767   (12)
Total loans and leases
  109,473   95,839   14   106,604   97,427   9 
Total earning assets (4, 5)
  569,517   622,820   (9)  572,701   628,193   (9)
Total assets(4, 5)
  750,908   779,060   (4)  730,907   781,949   (7)
Total deposits
  118,133   112,565   5   115,097   108,124   6 
Allocated equity
  38,001   51,245   (26)  40,004   52,182   (23)
Economic capital (6)
  27,078   40,705   (33)  29,126   41,582   (30)
 
                   
              June 30 December 31    
Period end
             2011 2010    
                   
Total trading-related assets (4, 5)
             $445,220  $417,714   7 
Total loans and leases
              114,165   99,964   14 
Total earning assets (4, 5)
              557,327   514,462   8 
Total assets(4, 5)
              691,249   655,778   5 
Total deposits
              123,618   110,971   11 
 
(1) FTE basis
 
(2) 
Increases in the ratios resulted from higher net income for the three-month period and a decrease in economic capital for both the three- and six-month periods. Economic capital decreased due to lower credit risk and improvements in counterparty credit exposure.
 
(3) 
Return on average economic capital is calculated as net income, excluding cost of funds and earnings credit on intangibles, divided by average economic capital.
 
(4) Includes assets which are not considered earning assets (i.e., derivative assets).
 
(5) 
Total earning assets and total assets include asset allocations to match liabilities (i.e., deposits).
 
(6) 
Economic capital represents allocated equity less goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets.
 
n/m  = not meaningful
     GBAM provides financial products, advisory services, financing, securities clearing, settlement and custody services globally to our institutional investor clients in support of their investing and trading activities. We also work with our commercial and corporate clients to provide debt and equity underwriting and distribution capabilities, merger-related and other advisory services, and risk management products using interest rate, equity, credit, currency and commodity derivatives, foreign exchange, fixed-income and mortgage-related products. As a result of our market-making activities in these products, we may be required to manage positions in government securities, equity and equity-linked securities, high-grade and high-yield corporate debt securities, commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS). Underwriting debt and equity issuances, securities research and certain market-based activities are executed through our global broker/dealer affiliates which are our primary dealers in several countries. GBAM is a leader in the global distribution of fixed-income, currency and energy commodity products and derivatives. GBAM also has one of the largest equity trading operations in the world and is a leader in the origination and distribution of equity and equity-related products. Our corporate banking services provide a wide range of lending-related products and services, integrated working capital management and treasury solutions to clients through our network of offices and client relationship teams along with various product partners. Our corporate clients are generally defined as companies with annual sales greater than $2 billion.

42


Table of Contents

Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income increased $660 million to $1.6 billion driven by higher investment banking fees and increased sales and trading revenue, while noninterest expense remained relatively flat. Noninterest expense in the current-year period included higher revenue-related compensation and costs related to investments in infrastructure while the prior-year period included the U.K. employer bonus tax of $395 million. Provision benefit decreased $51 million due to lower reserve releases versus prior year.
Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income decreased $445 million to $3.7 billion due to a less favorable trading environment in the first quarter of 2011 compared to last year’s record first quarter and higher noninterest expense driven by increased costs related to investments in infrastructure. The provision for credit losses decreased $387 million to a provision benefit of $284 million driven by stabilization in borrower credit profiles and a legal settlement recovery.
Components of Global Banking & Markets
Sales and Trading Revenue
     Sales and trading revenue is segregated into fixed income including investment and non-investment grade corporate debt obligations, commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), swaps and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs); currencies including interest rate and foreign exchange contracts; commodities including primarily futures, forwards and options; and equity income from equity-linked derivatives and cash equity activity. For additional information on sales and trading revenue, see Note 4 — Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Sales and trading revenue (1)
                
Fixed income, currencies and commodities
 $2,697  $2,230  $6,343  $7,717 
Equity income
  1,081   882   2,330   2,396 
 
Total sales and trading revenue
 $3,778  $3,112  $8,673  $10,113 
 
(1) Includes $43 million and $98 million of net interest income on a FTE basis for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 as compared to $76 million and $148 million for the same periods in 2010.
     Sales and trading revenue increased $666 million, or 21 percent, to $3.8 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in 2010. Fixed income, currencies and commodities (FICC) revenue increased $467 million to $2.7 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 driven by credit and commodities. Equity income was $1.1 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $882 million for the same period in 2010 with the increase due to favorable market conditions, primarily in the equity derivatives business. Sales and trading revenue includes total commissions and brokerage fee revenue of $583 million ($547 million from equities and $36 million from FICC) for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $657 million ($600 million from equities and $57 million from FICC) for the same period in 2010. We recorded DVA gains during the three months ended June 30, 2011 of $121 million compared to gains of $77 million in the same period in 2010.
     Sales and trading revenue decreased $1.4 billion, or 14 percent, to $8.7 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 due to a less favorable trading environment in the first quarter of 2011. FICC revenue decreased $1.4 billion to $6.3 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 primarily due to our rates and currencies business and the wind down of our proprietary trading business. Equity income was $2.3 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $2.4 billion for the same period in the prior year with the decrease driven primarily by lower equity derivative trading volumes partially offset by an increase in commission revenue. Sales and trading revenue includes total commissions and brokerage fee revenue of $1.3 billion ($1.2 billion from equities and $75 million from FICC) for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $1.3 billion ($1.2 billion from equities, and $101 million from FICC) for the same period in 2010. We recorded DVA losses during the six months ended June 30, 2011 of $236 million compared to gains of $246 million in the same period in 2010.

43


Table of Contents

     In conjunction with regulatory reform measures and our initiative to optimize our balance sheet, we have exited our proprietary trading business as of June 30, 2011, which involved trading activities in a variety of products, including stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities. Proprietary trading revenue was $231 million and $434 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $432 million and $888 million in the same periods in 2010. For additional information, see Financial Reform Act – Limitations on Certain Activities on page 62.
Investment Banking Fees
     Product specialists within GBAM provide advisory services, and underwrite and distribute debt and equity issuances and certain other loan products. The table below presents total investment banking fees for GBAM which represents 97 percent of the Corporation’s total investment banking income for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 99 percent and 98 percent for the same periods in 2010, with the remainder comprised of investment banking income reported in GWIMand Global Commercial Banking.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Investment banking fees
                
Advisory (1)
 $381  $242  $700  $409 
Debt issuance
  880   773   1,679   1,509 
Equity issuance
  376   286   769   599 
 
Total investment banking fees
 $1,637  $1,301  $3,148  $2,517 
 
(1) Advisory includes fees on debt and equity advisory services and mergers and acquisitions.
     Investment banking fees increased $336 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period in the prior year reflecting strong performance across all categories, particularly advisory, equity issuance, leveraged finance and investment-grade. Investment banking fees increased $631 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the prior-year period reflecting strong performance across advisory services and debt and equity issuances.
Global Corporate Banking
     Client relationship teams along with product partners work with our customers to provide a wide range of lending-related products and services, integrated working capital management and treasury solutions through the Corporation’s global network of offices. Global Corporate Banking revenues of $1.4 billion and $2.9 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 remained in line with the same periods in the prior year. Global treasury services revenues of $624 million and $1.2 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 were consistent with the same periods in the prior year as growth in deposit volumes across all the regions was offset by a challenging rate environment. Global Corporate Banking average deposits increased six percent and eight percent to $110.6 billion and $108.0 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in the prior year resulting from clients continuing to hold excess liquidity due to restrained spending. Global Corporate Banking lending activities continued to show strength as average loan balances increased 17 percent and 12 percent to $92.8 billion and $90.2 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in prior year, primarily from increases in non-U.S. commercial loan and trade finance portfolios.
Collateralized Debt Obligation Exposure
     CDO vehicles hold diversified pools of fixed-income securities and issue multiple tranches of debt securities including commercial paper, and mezzanine and equity securities. Our CDO-related exposure can be divided into funded and unfunded super senior liquidity commitment exposure and other super senior exposure (i.e., cash positions and derivative contracts). For more information on our CDO positions, see Note 8 – Securitizations and Other Variable Interest Entities to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Super senior exposure represents the most senior class of notes that are issued by the CDO vehicles. These financial instruments benefit from the subordination of all other securities issued by the CDO vehicles. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded $3 million of gains and $2 million of losses from our CDO-related exposure compared to $313 million and $605 million of losses for the same periods in 2010.

44


Table of Contents

     At June 30, 2011, our super senior CDO exposure before consideration of insurance, net of write-downs, was $1.1 billion, comprised of $805 million in trading account assets and $283 million in AFS debt securities, compared to $2.0 billion, comprised of $1.3 billion in trading account assets and $675 million in AFS debt securities at December 31, 2010. Of our super senior CDO exposure at June 30, 2011, $569 million was hedged and $518 million was unhedged compared to $772 million hedged and $1.2 billion unhedged at December 31, 2010. Unrealized losses recorded in accumulated OCI on super senior cash positions and retained positions from liquidated CDOs in aggregate decreased $14 million and $365 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 to $101 million primarily due to tightening of RMBS and CMBS spreads and the sale of two ABS CDOs.
     The table below presents our original total notional, mark-to-market receivable and credit valuation adjustment for credit default swaps and other positions with monolines. The receivable for super senior CDOs reflects hedge gains recorded from inception of the contracts in connection with write-downs on super senior CDOs.
                         
Credit Default Swaps with Monoline Financial Guarantors
  June 30, 2011 December 31, 2010
      Other         Other  
  Super Guaranteed     Super Guaranteed  
(Dollars in millions)
 Senior CDOs Positions Total Senior CDOs Positions Total
 
Notional
 $2,968  $32,656  $35,624  $3,241  $35,183  $38,424 
Mark-to-market or guarantor receivable
 $2,578  $6,150  $8,728  $2,834  $6,367  $9,201 
Credit valuation adjustment
  (2,363)  (3,314)  (5,677)  (2,168)  (3,107)  (5,275)
 
Total
 $215  $2,836  $3,051  $666  $3,260  $3,926 
 
Credit valuation adjustment %
  92%  54 %  65%  77%  49%  57%
(Write-downs) gains
 $(314) $(354) $(668) $(386) $362  $(24)
 
     Total monoline exposure, net of credit valuation adjustments decreased $875 million driven by terminated monoline contracts when compared to December 31, 2010. The increase in the credit valuation adjustment as a percent of total super senior CDO exposure was driven by reductions in recovery expectations for a monoline counterparty. Total write-downs for the six months ended June 30, 2011 were $668 million which included changes in credit valuation adjustments as well as hedge losses due to breakdowns in correlations.
     With the Merrill Lynch acquisition, we acquired a loan with a carrying value of $3.8 billion as of June 30, 2011 that is collateralized by U.S. super senior ABS CDOs. Merrill Lynch originally provided financing to the borrower for an amount equal to approximately 75 percent of the fair value of the collateral. The loan is recorded in All Other and all scheduled payments on the loan have been received to date. Events of default under the loan are customary events of default, including failure to pay interest when due and failure to pay principal at maturity. Collateral for the loan is excluded from our CDO exposure. The loan matures in September 2023.

45


Table of Contents

Global Wealth & Investment Management
                         
  Three Months Ended June 30     Six Months Ended June 30  
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 % Change 2011 2010 % Change
 
Net interest income (1)
 $1,571  $1,443   9% $3,140  $2,907   8%
Noninterest income:
                        
Investment and brokerage services
  2,378   2,195   8   4,756   4,303   11 
All other income
  541   551   (2)  1,086   1,020   6 
           
Total noninterest income
  2,919   2,746   6   5,842   5,323   10 
           
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  4,490   4,189   7   8,982   8,230   9 
 
                        
Provision for credit losses
  72   122   (41)  118   363   (67)
Noninterest expense
  3,631   3,269   11   7,230   6,368   14 
           
Income before income taxes
  787   798   (1)  1,634   1,499   9 
Income tax expense (1)
  281   469   (40)  595   731   (19)
           
Net income
 $506  $329   54  $1,039  $768   35 
           
 
                        
Net interest yield (1)
  2.34%  2.42%      2.32%  2.49%    
Return on average equity
  11.54   7.27       11.80   8.61     
Return on average economic capital (2, 3)
  29.97   19.10       30.21   22.76     
Efficiency ratio (1)
  80.88   78.05       80.50   77.37     
 
                        
Balance Sheet
                        
 
                        
Average
                        
Total loans and leases
 $102,200  $98,811   3  $101,529  $98,826   3 
Total earning assets
  268,968   239,186   12   272,958   235,284   16 
Total assets
  289,050   259,801   11   293,170   256,510   14 
Total deposits
  255,219   226,276   13   256,859   223,956   15 
Allocated equity
  17,574   18,179   (3)  17,755   18,002   (1)
Economic capital (4)
  6,868   7,380   (7)  7,038   7,209   (2)
                         
                   
              June 30 December 31    
Period end
             2011 2010    
                   
Total loans and leases
             $102,878  $100,724   2 
Total earning assets
              263,867   275,260   (4)
Total assets
              284,294   296,251   (4)
Total deposits
              255,580   257,982   (1)
 
(1) FTE basis
 
(2) 
Increases in ratios resulted from higher net income and a decrease in economic capital. Economic capital decreased modestly due to improvements in interest rate risk due to changes in portfolio composition.
 
(3) 
Return on average economic capital is calculated as net income, excluding cost of funds and earnings credit on intangibles, divided by average economic capital.
 
(4) 
Economic capital represents allocated equity less goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets.
     GWIM consists of three primary businesses: Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management (MLGWM); U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management (U.S. Trust); and Retirement Services.
     MLGWM’s advisory business provides a high-touch client experience through a network of more than 16,000 financial advisors focused on clients with over $250,000 in total investable assets.MLGWM provides tailored solutions to meet our clients’ needs through a full set of brokerage, banking and retirement products in both domestic and international locations.
     U.S. Trust, together with MLGWM’s Private Banking & Investments Group, provides comprehensive wealth management solutions targeted at wealthy and ultra-wealthy clients with investable assets of more than $5 million, as well as customized solutions to meet clients’ wealth structuring, investment management, trust and banking needs, including specialty asset management services.
     Retirement Services partners with financial advisors to provide institutional and personal retirement solutions including investment management, administration, recordkeeping and custodial services for 401(k), pension, profit-sharing, equity award and non-qualified deferred compensation plans. Retirement Services also provides comprehensive investment advisory services to individuals, small to large corporations and pension plans.

46


Table of Contents

     GWIM results also include the BofA Global Capital Management (BACM) business, which is comprised primarily of the cash and liquidity asset management business that was retained following the sale of Columbia Management long-term asset management business in May 2010.
     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, revenue from MLGWM was $3.5 billion and $7.0 billion, up 11 percent and 15 percent compared to the same periods in 2010 driven by higher net interest income and higher asset management fees due to market and long-term assets under management (AUM) flows. Revenue from U.S. Trust was $711 million and $1.4 billion, up four percent and six percent compared to the same periods in the prior year driven by higher net interest income and higher asset management fees. Revenue from Retirement Services was $273 million and $545 million, up 12 percent and 13 percent compared to the same periods in the prior year primarily driven by higher investment and brokerage services due to higher market valuations and long-term flows.
     GWIM results include the impact of migrating clients and their related deposit and loan balances to or from Deposits, CRES and the ALM portfolio, as presented in the table below. Current year’s migration includes the additional movement of balances to Merrill Edge, which is inDeposits. Subsequent to the date of the migration, the associated net interest income, noninterest income and noninterest expense are recorded in the business to which the clients migrated.
                       
Migration Summary
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Average
                
Total deposits — GWIM from / (to) Deposits
 $(2,087) $2,016  $(1,704) $1,472 
Total loans — GWIM to CRES and the ALM portfolio
  (184)  (1,437)  (93)  (1,254)
 
                
Period end
                
Total deposits — GWIM from / (to) Deposits
 $1,310  $(652) $(2,053) $2,031 
Total loans — GWIM to CRES and the ALM portfolio
  (189)  (75)  (189)  (1,430)
 
Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income increased $177 million, or 54 percent, to $506 million driven by higher net interest income and noninterest income as well as lower credit costs, partially offset by higher noninterest expense. The prior-year period net income included a tax-related charge from the sale of the Columbia Management long-term asset management business. Net interest income increased $128 million, or nine percent, to $1.6 billion driven by a $28.9 billion increase in average deposits and the related effect on interest expense. Noninterest income increased $173 million, or six percent, to $2.9 billion primarily due to higher asset management fees from improved equity market levels and flows into long-term AUM. Brokerage revenue was essentially flat due to slow market activity. Provision for credit losses decreased $50 million to $72 million driven by improving portfolio trends within the home equity portfolio, partially offset by the impact of declines in home prices on the residential mortgage portfolio. Noninterest expense increased $362 million, or 11 percent, to $3.6 billion driven by higher revenue-related expenses, support costs and personnel costs associated with the continued build-out of the business.
Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
     Net income increased $271 million, or 35 percent, to $1.0 billion driven by the same factors discussed above. Net interest income increased $233 million, or eight percent, to $3.1 billion driven by the $32.9 billion increase in average deposits partially offset by a lower allocation of income related to ALM activities. Noninterest income increased $519 million, or 10 percent, to $5.8 billion due to higher asset management fees from improved equity market levels and flows into long-term AUM as well as higher brokerage income. The provision for credit losses decreased $245 million to $118 million driven by improving portfolio trends in the home equity and commercial portfolios. The increase in noninterest expense of $862 million was driven by the same factors as described in the three-month discussion above.

47


Table of Contents

Client Balances
     The table below presents client balances which consist of AUM, client brokerage assets, assets in custody, client deposits, and loans and leases. The increase in client balances was driven by inflows into long-term AUM and fee-based brokerage assets as well as higher market levels offset by liquidity outflows from BACM and declines in other brokerage assets.
         
Client Balances by Type
  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010 
 
Assets under management
 $660,928  $630,498 
Brokerage assets
  1,066,078   1,077,049 
Assets in custody
  116,499   115,033 
Deposits
  255,580   257,982 
Loans and leases
  102,878   100,724 
 
Total client balances
 $2,201,963  $2,181,286 
 

48


Table of Contents

All Other
                         
  Three Months Ended June 30     Six Months Ended June 30  
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 % Change 2011 2010 % Change
 
Net interest income (1)
 $(167) $77   n/m  $(74) $118   n/m 
Noninterest income:
                        
Equity investment income
  1,139   2,253   (49)%  2,547   2,765   (8)%
Gains on sales of debt securities
  831   14   n/m   1,299   662   96 
All other income (loss)
  62   783   (92)  (780)  905   n/m 
           
Total noninterest income
  2,032   3,050   (33)  3,066   4,332   (29)
           
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  1,865   3,127   (40)  2,992   4,450   (33)
 
                        
Provision for credit losses
  1,663   1,246   33   3,462   2,466   40 
Merger and restructuring charges
  159   508   (69)  361   1,029   (65)
All other noninterest expense
  157   605   (74)  1,449   1,814   (20)
           
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (114)  768   n/m   (2,280)  (859)  (165)
Income tax expense (benefit) (1)
  102   (355)  n/m   (848)  (1,192)  29 
           
Net income (loss)
 $(216) $1,123   n/m  $(1,432) $333   n/m 
           
 
                        
Balance Sheet
                        
 
                        
Average
                        
Total loans and leases
 $258,397  $257,322   -  $258,374  $256,742   1 
Total assets (2)
  167,364   291,530   (43)  183,289   300,395   (39)
Total deposits
  46,684   64,709   (28)  47,642   67,770   (30)
Allocated equity (3)
  73,244   29,091   152   67,030   24,475   174 
                         
                   
              June 30 December 31    
Period end
             2011 2010    
                   
Total loans and leases
             $259,285  $254,516   2 
Total assets (2)
              209,210   243,099   (14)
Total deposits
              42,355   57,424   (26)
 
(1) FTE basis
 
(2) 
Includes elimination of segments’ excess asset allocations to match liabilities (i.e., deposits) of $676.7 billion and $672.3 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $611.2 billion and $600.1 billion for the same periods in 2010, and $629.6 billion and $647.3 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(3) 
Represents the risk-based capital assigned to All Otheras well as the remaining portion of equity not specifically allocated to the segments. Allocated equity increased due to excess capital not being assigned to the business segments.
     All Other consists of two broad groupings, Equity Investments and Other. Equity Investments includes Global Principal Investments (GPI), Strategic and other investments, and Corporate Investments. In the second quarter of 2011, we sold our investment in BlackRock, previously included in Strategic and other investments. During 2010, we sold the equity investments in Corporate Investments. Other includes liquidating businesses, merger and restructuring charges, ALM functions (i.e., residential mortgage portfolio and investment securities) and related activities (i.e., economic hedges and fair value option on structured liabilities), the impact of certain allocation methodologies and any accounting hedge ineffectiveness. Other includes certain residential mortgage and discontinued real estate loans that are managed by Legacy Asset Servicing within CRES. For additional information on the other activities included in All Other, see Note 26 – Business Segment Information to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
     All Other reported a net loss of $216 million compared to net income of $1.1 billion due to lower revenue and higher provision for credit losses. The decrease in revenue was driven by a $1.1 billion decrease in equity investment income (see Equity Investment Activity on page 50) and lower positive fair value adjustments of $214 million on structured liabilities compared to $1.2 billion. Additionally, a $500 million impairment write-down on our merchant services joint venture during the three months ended June 30, 2011 contributed to the decrease in revenue. These were partially offset by an $817 million increase in gains on sales of debt securities. Also, merger and restructuring charges decreased $349 million as integration efforts with the Merrill Lynch acquisition continue to progress as planned.
     Provision for credit losses increased $417 million to $1.7 billion driven primarily by reserve additions to the Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate and residential mortgage portfolios due to the impact of further declines in the home price outlook and higher credit costs related to the non-PCI residential mortgage portfolio driven by the impact of refreshed valuations of underlying collateral.

49


Table of Contents

     Income tax expense was $102 million compared to a benefit of $355 million for the same period in 2010. The current-period expense reflects the residual tax expense after allocation of tax benefits to the segments.
Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
     All Other reported a net loss of $1.4 billion compared to net income of $333 million due to lower revenue and higher provision for credit losses. The decrease in revenue was driven by negative fair value adjustments of $372 million on structured liabilities compared to positive fair value adjustments of $1.4 billion, and a $218 million decrease in equity investment income (see Equity Investment Activity below). These were partially offset by a $637 million increase in gains on sales of debt securities. Also, merger and restructuring charges decreased $668 million.
     Provision for credit losses increased $996 million to $3.5 billion driven by reserve additions to the Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate and residential mortgage portfolios. These increases were partially offset by lower provision for credit losses related to the non-PCI residential mortgage portfolio due to improving delinquencies in early 2011.
     The income tax benefit was $848 million compared to $1.2 billion for the same period in 2010 driven by the factors described above.
Equity Investment Activity
     The tables below present the components of the equity investments in All Other at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and also a reconciliation to the total consolidated equity investment income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
         
Equity Investments
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010
 
Global Principal Investments
 $10,805  $11,656 
Strategic and other investments
  20,190   22,545 
 
Total equity investments included in All Other
 $30,995  $34,201 
 
                 
Equity Investment Income
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Global Principal Investments
 $399  $814  $1,764  $1,391 
Strategic and other investments
  740   1,433   783   1,679 
Corporate Investments
     6      (305)
 
Total equity investment income included in All Other
  1,139   2,253   2,547   2,765 
Total equity investment income included in the business segments
  73   513   140   626 
 
Total consolidated equity investment income
 $1,212  $2,766  $2,687  $3,391 
 
     GPI is comprised of a diversified portfolio of investments in private equity, real estate and other alternative investments. These investments are made either directly in a company or held through a fund with related income recorded in equity investment income. GPI had unfunded equity commitments of $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 related to certain of these investments. During the six months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded a $1.1 billion gain related to an IPO of an equity investment, which occurred in the first quarter of 2011.
     Strategic and other investments is primarily comprised of our investment in CCB of $19.6 billion, which decreased by $176 million from December 31, 2010 due to a decline in the CCB share price. At June 30, 2011, we owned approximately 10 percent, or 25.6 billion common shares of CCB. In the three months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded an $837 million dividend on our investment in CCB compared to a $535 million dividend in the same period in 2010. Also in the three months ended June 30, 2011, we sold our investment in BlackRock, resulting in a $377 million gain and recorded an impairment write-down of $500 million on our merchant services joint venture, Banc of America Merchant Services, LLC. After the recent transfer of the merchant services joint venture to Global Commercial Banking during the first quarter of 2011, the write-down was taken in All Other for management accounting purposes. In the three months ended March 31, 2010, the $2.7 billion Corporate Investments equity securities portfolio, which consisted of highly liquid publicly-traded equity securities, was sold resulting in a loss of $331 million. In the three months ended June 30, 2010, we sold certain strategic investments, resulting in a net gain of $751 million. For additional information on certain Corporate and Strategic Investments, see Note 5 – Securities to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

50


Table of Contents

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations
     We have contractual obligations to make future payments on debt and lease agreements. Additionally, in the normal course of business, we enter into a number of off-balance sheet commitments including commitments to extend credit such as loan commitments, standby letters of credit (SBLCs) and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of our customers. For additional information on our obligations and commitments, seeNote 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements, page 51 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as Note 13 – Long-term Debt and Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Representations and Warranties
     We securitize first-lien residential mortgage loans generally in the form of MBS guaranteed by the GSEs or by Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) in the case of the FHA-insured and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs-guaranteed mortgage loans. In addition, in prior years, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries sold pools of first-lien residential mortgage loans and home equity loans as private-label securitizations (in certain of these securitizations, monolines or financial guarantee providers insured all or some of the securities), or in the form of whole loans. In connection with these transactions, we or our subsidiaries or legacy companies make or have made various representations and warranties. Breaches of these representations and warranties may result in the requirement to repurchase mortgage loans or to otherwise make whole or provide other remedies to the GSEs, GNMA, whole-loan buyers, securitization trusts, monoline insurers or other financial guarantors (collectively, repurchases). In such cases, we would be exposed to any credit loss on the repurchased mortgage loans.
     Subject to the requirements and limitations of the applicable sales and securitization agreements, these representations and warranties can be enforced by the GSEs, GNMA, the whole-loan buyer, the securitization trustee, or others as governed by the applicable agreement or, in certain first-lien and home equity securitizations where monoline insurers or other financial guarantee providers have insured all or some of the securities issued, by the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor at any time. In the case of loans sold to parties other than the GSEs or GNMA, the contractual liability to repurchase typically arises only if there is a breach of the representations and warranties that materially and adversely affects the interest of the investor, or investors, in the loan, or of the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor (as applicable). Contracts with the GSEs and GNMA do not contain an equivalent requirement.
     For additional information about accounting for representations and warranties and our representations and warranties claims and exposures, see Recent Events – Private-label Securitization Settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon, Complex Accounting Estimates – Representations and Warranties, Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees and Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Item 1A. Risk Factors on page 219 and Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Representations and Warranties Bulk Settlement Actions
     Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2010, we have settled, or entered into agreements to settle, certain bulk representations and warranties claims, and in certain settlements bulk servicing claims, with a trustee, a monoline insurer and with the GSEs. We have contested, and will continue to vigorously contest any request for repurchase when we conclude that a valid basis for repurchase does not exist. However, in an effort to resolve these legacy mortgage-related issues, we have reached bulk settlements, or agreements for bulk settlements, including settlement amounts which have been material, with certain of the above referenced counterparties in lieu of a loan-by-loan review process. We may reach other settlements in the future if opportunities arise on terms determined to be advantageous to us. The following discussion is a summary of the significant settlement actions we have taken beginning in the fourth quarter of 2010 and the related impact on the representations and warranties provision and liability.
Settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee
     On June 28, 2011, we, BAC HLS and certain legacy Countrywide affiliates entered into the BNY Mellon Settlement. The Covered Trusts referenced in the BNY Mellon Settlement had an original principal balance of approximately $424 billion, of which $409 billion was originated between 2004 and 2008, and a total current unpaid principal balance of approximately $220 billion at June 28, 2011, of which $217 billion was originated between 2004 and 2008.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement is supported by the Investor Group. As previously disclosed, in October 2010, BAC HLS received a letter from a law firm on behalf of certain members of the Investor Group alleging a servicer event of default and asserting breaches of certain loan servicing obligations, including an alleged failure to provide notice to the

51


Table of Contents

Trustee and other parties to the pooling and servicing agreements of breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the mortgage loans included in certain of the Covered Trusts. In connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, we entered into an agreement with the Investor Group, which provides that, among other things, the Investor Group will use reasonable best efforts and cooperate in good faith to effectuate the BNY Mellon Settlement, including obtaining final court approval.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement provides for the Settlement Payment of $8.5 billion to the Trustee for distribution to the Covered Trusts after final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement. In addition to the Settlement Payment, we are obligated to pay attorneys’ fees and costs to the Investor Group’s counsel as well as all fees and expenses incurred by the Trustee in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, which are currently estimated at $100 million. We are also obligated to pay the Investor Group’s counsel and the Trustees’ fees and expenses related to obtaining final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement and certain tax rulings.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement also includes provisions related to specific mortgage servicing standards and other servicing matters, including the transfer of servicing related to certain high-risk loans to qualified subservicers and the benchmarking of loan servicing against defined industry standards regarding default-servicing timelines. For additional information about the servicing matters, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Other Mortgage-related Matters on page 60.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement does not cover a small number of legacy Countrywide-issued first-lien non-GSE RMBS transactions with loans originated principally between 2004 and 2008, including for example, six legacy Countrywide-issued first-lien non-GSE RMBS transactions in which BNY Mellon is not the trustee. The BNY Mellon Settlement also does not cover legacy Countrywide-issued second-lien securitization transactions in which a monoline insurer or other financial guarantor provides financial guaranty insurance. In addition, because the BNY Mellon Settlement is with the Trustee on behalf of the Covered Trusts and releases rights under the governing agreements for the Covered Trusts, the BNY Mellon Settlement does not release investors’ securities law or fraud claims based upon disclosures made in connection with their decision to purchase, sell, or hold securities issued by the Covered Trusts. To date, various investors, including certain members of the Investor Group, are pursuing securities law or fraud claims related to one or more of the Covered Trusts. We are not able to determine whether any additional securities law or fraud claims will be made by investors in the Covered Trusts. For those Covered Trusts where a monoline insurer or other financial guarantor has an independent right to assert repurchase claims directly, the BNY Mellon Settlement does not release such insurer’s or guarantor’s repurchase claims.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement is subject to final court approval and other conditions. The Trustee has determined that the BNY Mellon Settlement is in the best interests of the Covered Trusts and is seeking the necessary court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement by commencing a judicial proceeding in New York State court requesting that the court approve the BNY Mellon Settlement as to all the Covered Trusts (the Article 77 Proceeding). The court has signed an order providing that notice of the settlement terms be provided to certificateholders and noteholders in the Covered Trusts. Under the court’s order, certificateholders and noteholders in the Covered Trusts have the opportunity to file objections until August 30, 2011 and responses to those objections and statements in support of the BNY Mellon Settlement until October 31, 2011. The Investor Group has filed, and the court has granted, a petition to intervene as a party in the Article 77 Proceeding so that it may support the BNY Mellon Settlement. The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the Trustee’s request for entry of an order approving the BNY Mellon Settlement on November 17, 2011.
     Given the number of Covered Trusts, the number of investors in those Covered Trusts and the complexity of the BNY Mellon Settlement, it is not possible to predict how many investors will seek to intervene in the court proceeding, how many of those and other investors may ultimately object to the BNY Mellon Settlement, or the timing or ultimate outcome of the court approval process, which can include appeals and could take a substantial period of time. Several alleged investors outside the Investor Group have filed, and the court has granted, petitions to intervene as parties in the pending court proceeding. Certain of these intervenors have stated that they intend to object to the BNY Mellon Settlement, while others have said that they need more information in order to determine whether to object, and indicated that they therefore intend to seek discovery. In addition, it is possible that a substantial number of additional investors outside the Investor Group will also seek to intervene as parties, and some intervenors and other investors may object to the BNY Mellon Settlement. The resolutions of the objections of intervenors and/or other investors who object may delay or ultimately prevent receipt of final court approval. If final court approval is not obtained by December 31, 2015, we and legacy Countrywide may withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement, if the Trustee consents. The BNY Mellon Settlement also provides that if Covered Trusts representing unpaid principal balance exceeding a specified amount are excluded from the final BNY Mellon Settlement, based on investor objections or otherwise, we and legacy Countrywide have the option to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement pursuant to the terms of the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement.

52


Table of Contents

     In addition to final court approval, the BNY Mellon Settlement is conditioned on receipt of private letter rulings from the IRS as well as receipt of legal opinions under California and New York state tax laws and regulations. While there can be no assurance that such rulings or opinions will be obtained, we currently anticipate that the process related to these conditions will be completed during the period prior to final court approval.
     There can be no assurance that final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement will be obtained, that all conditions will be satisfied or, if certain conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement permitting withdrawal are met, that we and legacy Countrywide will not determine to withdraw from the settlement. If final court approval is not obtained or if we and legacy Countrywide determine to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement in accordance with its terms, our future representations and warranties losses could be substantially different than existing accruals and the estimated range of possible loss over existing accruals described under Experience with Investors Other than Government-sponsored Enterprises on page 57. For more information about the risks associated with the BNY Mellon Settlement, see Item 1A. Risk Factors on page 219.
Settlement with Assured Guaranty
     On April 14, 2011, we, including certain legacy Countrywide affiliates, entered into an agreement with Assured Guaranty, to resolve all of this monoline insurer’s outstanding and potential repurchase claims related to alleged representations and warranties breaches involving 29 first- and second-lien RMBS trusts where Assured Guaranty provided financial guarantee insurance (the Assured Guaranty Settlement). The agreement also resolves historical loan servicing issues and other potential liabilities with respect to these trusts. The agreement covers 21 first-lien RMBS trusts and eight second-lien RMBS trusts, which had an original principal balance of approximately $35.8 billion and total unpaid principal balance of approximately $20.2 billion as of April 14, 2011. The agreement includes cash payments totaling approximately $1.1 billion to Assured Guaranty, as well as a loss-sharing reinsurance arrangement that has an expected value of approximately $470 million, and other terms, including termination of certain derivative contracts. The cash payments consist of $850 million paid on April 14, 2011, $57 million paid on June 30, 2011 and the remainder payable in three equal installments at the end of each quarter through March 31, 2012. The total cost recognized for the Assured Guaranty Settlement as of June 30, 2011 was approximately $1.6 billion. As a result of this agreement, we consolidated $5.2 billion in consumer loans and the related trust debt on our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2011 due to the establishment of reinsurance contracts at the time of the Assured Guaranty Settlement. For additional information, see Consumer Credit Risk – Consumer Loans Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option on page 90.
Government-sponsored Enterprises Agreements
     On December 31, 2010, we reached separate agreements with each of the GSEs under which we paid $2.8 billion to resolve repurchase claims involving certain first-lien residential mortgage loans sold to the GSEs by entities related to legacy Countrywide (the GSE Agreements). The agreement with FHLMC extinguished all outstanding and potential mortgage repurchase and make-whole claims arising out of any alleged breaches of selling representations and warranties related to loans sold directly by legacy Countrywide to FHLMC through 2008, subject to certain exceptions. The agreement with FNMA substantially resolved the existing pipeline of repurchase and make-whole claims outstanding as of September 20, 2010 arising out of alleged breaches of selling representations and warranties related to loans sold directly by legacy Countrywide to FNMA. For additional information about these agreements, see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees and Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements, and Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Unresolved Claims Status
     At June 30, 2011, our total unresolved repurchase claims were approximately $11.6 billion compared to $10.7 billion at December 31, 2010. These repurchase claims include $1.7 billion in demands from investors in the Covered Trusts received in the third quarter of 2010 but otherwise do not include any repurchase claims related to the Covered Trusts. The increase in unresolved claims is primarily attributable to an increase in new claims submitted by the GSEs for both legacy Countrywide originations not covered by the GSE Agreements and legacy Bank of America originations, in addition to an increase in the volume of claims appealed by us and awaiting review and response from one GSE. This increase in unresolved claims was partially offset by resolution of certain monoline claims through the Assured Guaranty Settlement discussed above.

53


Table of Contents

Representations and Warranties Liability
     The liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and the related provision is included in mortgage banking income (loss). The methodology used to estimate the liability for representations and warranties is a function of the representations and warranties given and considers a variety of factors, which include depending on the counterparty, actual defaults, estimated future defaults, historical loss experience, estimated home prices, other economic conditions, estimated probability that a repurchase claim will be received, consideration of whether presentation thresholds will be met, number of payments made by the borrower prior to default and estimated probability that a loan will be required to be repurchased as well as other relevant facts and circumstances, such as bulk settlements and identity of the counterparty or type of counterparty, as we believe appropriate. The estimate of the liability for representations and warranties is based on currently available information, significant judgment and a number of factors, including those set forth above, that are subject to change. Changes to any one of these factors could significantly impact the estimate of the liability and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations for any particular period.
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the liability was $17.8 billion and $5.4 billion. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the provision for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees was $14.0 billion and $15.1 billion compared to $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion for the same periods in 2010. Of the $14.0 billion provision recorded in the three months ended June 30, 2011, $8.6 billion was attributable to the BNY Mellon Settlement and $5.4 billion was attributable to other non-GSE exposures, and to a lesser extent, GSE exposures. The BNY Mellon Settlement led to the determination that we now have sufficient experience to record a liability related to our exposure on certain other private-label securitizations. This determination, combined with changes in our experience with the behavior of certain counterparties, including the GSEs, in the first six months of 2011, was the driver of this additional provision. A significant factor in the estimate of the liability for losses is the repurchase rate, which increased in both the three and six months ended June 30, 2011.
     Our liability at June 30, 2011 for obligations under representations and warranties given to the GSEs considers, among other things, higher estimated repurchase rates based on recent higher than expected claims, including claims on loans that defaulted more than 18 months ago and on loans where the borrower has made a significant number of payments (e.g., at least 25 payments), in each case in numbers that were not expected based on historical claims during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. It also considers the GSE Agreements and their expected impact on the repurchase rates on future repurchase claims we might receive on loans that have defaulted or that we estimate will default.
Estimated Range of Possible Loss
Government-sponsored Enterprises
     Our estimated liability for obligations under representations and warranties with respect to the GSEs is necessarily dependent on, and limited by, our historical claims experience with the GSEs and may materially change in the future based on factors outside our control. We believe our predictive repurchase models, utilizing our historical repurchase experience with the GSEs while considering current developments, including the GSE Agreements and recent GSE behavior, projections of future defaults as well as certain other assumptions regarding economic conditions, home prices and other matters, allow us to reasonably estimate the liability for obligations under representations and warranties on loans sold to the GSEs and our estimate of the liability for these obligations has been accounted for in the recorded liability for representations and warranties for these loans. However, future provisions associated with obligations under representations and warranties made to the GSEs may be materially impacted if actual results are different from our assumptions regarding economic conditions, home prices and other matters, including the repurchase behavior of the GSEs and the estimated repurchase rates. While we have an established history of working with the GSEs on repurchase claims, our experience with them continues to evolve and impact our estimated repurchase rates and liability. In addition, the recent FNMA announcement regarding mortgage insurance rescissions, cancellations and claim denials could result in increased repurchase requests from FNMA that exceed the repurchase requests contemplated by our estimated liability.
     We are not able to anticipate changes in the behavior of the GSEs from our past experiences. Therefore, it is not possible to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss with respect to any such potential impact in excess of current accruals on future GSE provisions if the behavior of the GSEs changes from past experience. See Complex Accounting Estimates – Representations and Warranties on page 123 for information related to the sensitivity of the assumptions used to estimate our liability for obligations under representations and warranties.

54


Table of Contents

Non-Government-sponsored Enterprises
     As discussed on page 51, the population of private-label securitizations included in the BNY Mellon Settlement encompasses almost all legacy Countrywide first-lien private-label securitizations including loans originated principally in the 2004 through 2008 vintage. For the remainder of the population of private-label securitizations, although we believe it is probable that other claimants may come forward with claims that meet the requirements of the terms of the securitizations, we have experienced limited activity that has met the standards required. We believe that the provisions recorded in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement and the additional non-GSE representations and warranties provisions recorded in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, have provided for a substantial portion of our non-GSE repurchase claims. However, it is reasonably possible that future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of the amounts recorded for these exposures. In addition, as discussed below, we have not recorded any representations and warranties liability for certain potential monoline exposures and certain potential whole loan and other private-label securitization exposures. We currently estimate that the range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of June 30, 2011 could be up to $5 billion over existing accruals. This estimate of the range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties does not represent a probable loss, is based on currently available information, significant judgment, and a number of assumptions, including the assumption that the conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement are satisfied and those set forth below, that are subject to change.
     The methodology used to estimate the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss considers a variety of factors including our experience related to actual defaults, estimated future defaults and historical loss experience. Among the factors that impact the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss are: (1) contractual loss causation requirements, (2) the representations and warranties provided, and (3) the requirement to meet certain presentation thresholds. The first factor is based on our belief that a non-GSE contractual liability to repurchase a loan generally arises only if the counterparties prove there is a breach of representations and warranties that materially and adversely affects the interest of the investor or all investors, or the monoline insurer (as applicable), in a securitization trust and, accordingly, we believe that the repurchase claimants must prove that the alleged representations and warranties breach was the cause of the loss. The second factor is related to the fact that non-GSE securitizations include different types of representations and warranties than those provided to the GSEs. We believe the non-GSE securitizations’ representations and warranties are less rigorous and actionable than the comparable agreements with the GSEs. The third factor is related to the fact that certain presentation thresholds need to be met in order for any repurchase claim to be asserted under the non-GSE agreements. A securitization trustee may investigate or demand repurchase on its own action, and most agreements contain a threshold, for example 25 percent of the voting rights per trust, that allows investors to declare a servicing event of default under certain circumstances or to request certain action, such as requesting loan files, that the trustee may choose to accept and follow, exempt from liability, provided the trustee is acting in good faith. If there is an uncured servicing event of default, and the trustee fails to bring suit during a 60-day period, then, under most agreements, investors may file suit. In addition to this, most agreements also allow investors to direct the securitization trustee to investigate loan files or demand the repurchase of loans, if security holders hold a specified percentage, for example, 25 percent, of the voting rights of each tranche of the outstanding securities.
     The methodology used to estimate the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss was updated in the second quarter of 2011 to consider the implied repurchase experience based on the BNY Mellon Settlement and assumes that the conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement are satisfied. It also considers our assumptions regarding economic conditions, including estimated second quarter 2011 home prices. Since the non-GSE transactions that were included in the BNY Mellon Settlement differ from those that were not included in the BNY Mellon Settlement, we adjusted the experience implied in the settlement in order to determine the estimated non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss. The judgmental adjustments made include consideration of the differences in the mix of products in the securitizations, loan originator, likelihood of claims differences, the differences in the number of payments that the borrower has made prior to default, and the sponsor of the securitization. Although we continue to believe that presentation thresholds, as described above, are a factor in the determination of probable loss, given the BNY Mellon Settlement, the upper end of the estimated range of possible loss assumes that the presentation threshold can be met for all of the non-GSE securitization transactions.
     Future provisions and/or ranges of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties may be significantly impacted if actual results are different from our assumptions in our predictive models, including, without limitation, those regarding ultimate resolution of the BNY Mellon Settlement, estimated repurchase rates, economic conditions, home prices, consumer and counterparty behavior, and a variety of judgmental factors. Adverse developments with respect to one or more of the assumptions underlying the liability for representations and warranties and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss could result in significant increases to future provisions and this estimated range of possible loss. For example, if courts were to disagree with our interpretation that the underlying agreements require a claimant to prove that the representations and warranties breach was the cause of the loss, it could

55


Table of Contents

significantly impact this estimated range of possible loss. Additionally, if recent court rulings related to monoline litigation, including one related to us, that have allowed sampling of loan files instead of a loan-by-loan review to determine if a representations and warranties breach has occurred are followed generally by the courts, private-label securitization investors may view litigation as a more attractive alternative as compared to a loan-by-loan review. Finally, although we believe that the representations and warranties typically given in non-GSE transactions are less rigorous and actionable than those given in GSE transactions, we do not have significant loan-level experience to measure the impact of these differences on the probability that a loan will be required to be repurchased.
     The liability for obligations under representations and warranties with respect to GSE and non-GSE exposures and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties exposures do not include any losses related to litigation matters disclosed inNote 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements, nor do they include any separate foreclosure costs and related costs and assessments or any possible losses related to potential claims for breaches of performance of servicing obligations, potential securities law or fraud claims or potential indemnity or other claims against us. We are not able to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss with respect to any such servicing, securities law (except to the extent reflected in the aggregate range of possible loss for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed in Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements), fraud or other claims against us; however, such loss could be material.
Government-sponsored Enterprises Experience
     Our current repurchase claims experience with the GSEs is predominantly concentrated in the 2004 through 2008 origination vintages where we believe that our exposure to representations and warranties liability is most significant. Our repurchase claims experience related to loans originated prior to 2004 has not been significant and we believe that the changes made to our operations and underwriting policies have reduced our exposure related to loans originated after 2008. The cumulative repurchase claims for 2007 originations exceed all other vintages as the volume of loans originated in 2007 was significantly higher than any other vintage which, together with the high delinquency level in this vintage, contributes to the high level of repurchase claims compared to the other vintages.
     Bank of America and legacy Countrywide sold approximately $1.1 trillion of loans originated from 2004 through 2008 to the GSEs. As of June 30, 2011, 11 percent of the loans in these vintages have defaulted or are 180 days or more past due (severely delinquent). At least 25 payments have been made on approximately 61 percent of severely delinquent or defaulted loans. Through June 30, 2011, we have received $27.7 billion in repurchase claims associated with these vintages, representing approximately two percent of the loans sold to the GSEs in these vintages. Including the agreement reached with FNMA on December 31, 2010, we have resolved $22.0 billion of these claims with a net loss experience of approximately 30 percent. The claims resolved and the loss rate do not include $839 million in claims extinguished as a result of the agreement with FHLMC due to the global nature of the agreement and, specifically, the absence of a formal apportionment of the agreement amount between current and future claims. Our collateral loss severity rate on approved repurchases has averaged approximately 45 to 55 percent.

56


Table of Contents

     Table 14 highlights our experience with the GSEs related to loans originated from 2004 through 2008.
  Table 14
                 
Overview of GSE Balances – 2004-2008 Originations
  Legacy Originator
              Percent of
(Dollars in billions)
 Countrywide Other Total total
 
Original funded balance
 $846  $272  $1,118     
Principal payments
  (431)  (144)  (575)    
Defaults
  (43)  (6)  (49)    
 
Total outstanding balance at June 30, 2011
 $372  $122  $494     
 
Outstanding principal balance 180 days or more past due (severely delinquent)
 $58  $13  $71     
Defaults plus severely delinquent
  101   19   120     
 
Payments made by borrower:
                
Less than 13
         $15   13%
13-24
          31   26 
25-36
          35   29 
More than 36
          39   32 
 
Total payments made by borrower
         $120   100%
 
Outstanding GSE pipeline of representations and warranties claims (all vintages)
                
As of December 31, 2010
         $2.8     
As of June 30, 2011
          5.1     
Cumulative GSE representations and warranties losses (2004-2008 vintages)
         $7.8     
 
     We have an established history of working with the GSEs on repurchase claims. However, the behavior of the GSEs continues to evolve. Notably in recent periods, we have been experiencing elevated levels of new claims, including claims on default vintages and loans in which borrowers have made a significant number of payments (e.g., at least 25 payments), in each case, in numbers that were not expected based on historical experience. Additionally, the criteria by which the GSEs are ultimately willing to resolve claims have become more rigid over time.
     FNMA recently issued an announcement requiring servicers to report, effective October 1, 2011, all mortgage insurance rescissions, cancellations and claim denials with respect to loans sold to FNMA. The announcement also confirmed FNMA’s position that a mortgage insurance company’s issuance of a rescission, cancellation notice or claim denial constitutes a breach of the lender’s representations and warranties and permits FNMA to require the lender to repurchase the mortgage loan or promptly remit a make-whole payment covering FNMA’s loss even if the lender is contesting the mortgage insurer’s rescission cancellation or claim denial. Through June 30, 2012, lenders have 90 days to appeal FNMA’s repurchase request and 30 days (or such other time frame specified by FNMA) to appeal after that date. To be successful in its appeal, a lender must provide documentation confirming reinstatement or continuation of coverage according to the FNMA announcement. This announcement could result in more repurchase requests from FNMA than the assumptions in our estimated liability contemplate. We also expect that in many cases (particularly in the context of litigation), we will not be able to resolve rescissions, cancellations or claim denials with the mortgage insurance companies before the expiration of the appeal period allowed by FNMA and, as a result, our representations and warranties liability may increase.
Experience with Investors Other than Government-sponsored Enterprises
     In prior years, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries have sold pools of first-lien mortgage loans and home equity loans as private-label securitizations or in the form of whole loans. As detailed in Table 15, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries sold loans originated from 2004 through 2008 with an original principal balance of $963 billion to investors other than GSEs, of which approximately $495 billion in principal has been paid and $229 billion has defaulted or are severely delinquent at June 30, 2011.
     As it relates to private-label securitizations, a contractual liability to repurchase mortgage loans generally arises only if counterparties prove there is a breach of the representations and warranties that materially and adversely affects the interest of the investor or all investors in a securitization trust or of the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor (as applicable). We believe that the longer a loan performs, the less likely it is that an alleged representations and warranties breach had a material impact on the loan’s performance or that a breach even exists. Because the majority of the borrowers in this population would have made a significant number of payments if they are not yet 180 days or more past due, we believe that the principal balance at the greatest risk for repurchase claims in this population of private-label securitization investors is a combination of loans that have already defaulted and those that are currently severely delinquent. Additionally, the obligation to repurchase loans also requires that counterparties have the contractual right to demand repurchase of the loans (presentation thresholds). While we believe the agreements for private-label securitizations generally contain less rigorous representations and warranties and place higher burdens on investors seeking repurchases than the comparable agreements with the GSEs and GNMA, the agreements generally include a representation that underwriting practices were prudent and customary.

57


Table of Contents

     Any amounts paid related to repurchase claims from a monoline insurer are paid to the securitization trust and are applied in accordance with the terms of the governing securitization documents, which may include use by the securitization trust to repay any outstanding monoline advances or reduce future advances from the monolines. To the extent that a monoline has not advanced funds or does not anticipate that it will be required to advance funds to the securitization trust, the likelihood of receiving a repurchase claim from a monoline may be reduced as the monoline would receive limited or no benefit from the payment of repurchase claims. Moreover, some monolines are not currently performing their obligations under the financial guaranty policies they issued which may, in certain circumstances, impact their ability to present repurchase claims.
     Table 15 details the population of loans originated between 2004 and 2008 and the population of loans sold as whole loans or in non-agency securitizations by entity and product together with the defaulted and severely delinquent loans stratified by the number of payments the borrower made prior to default or becoming severely delinquent at June 30, 2011. As shown in Table 15, at least 25 payments have been made on approximately 61 percent of the defaulted and severely delinquent loans. We believe many of the defaults observed in these securitizations have been, and continue to be, driven by external factors like the substantial depreciation in home prices, persistently high unemployment and other negative economic trends, diminishing the likelihood that any loan defect (assuming one exists at all) was the cause of a loan’s default. As of June 30, 2011, approximately 24 percent of the loans sold to non-GSEs that were originated between 2004 and 2008 have defaulted or are severely delinquent. Of the original principal balance for Countrywide, $409 billion is included in the BNY Mellon Settlement.
                                     
Table 15
 
Overview of Non-Agency Securitization and Whole Loan Balances
 
(Dollars in billions)
 Principal Balance              Defaulted or Severely Delinquent 
          Outstanding                    
      Outstanding  Principal      Defaulted  Borrower Made  Borrower Made  Borrower Made  Borrower Made 
  Original  Principal Balance  Balance 180 Days  Defaulted  or Severely  less than 13  13 to 24  25 to 36  more than 36 
By Entity
 Principal Balance  June 30, 2011  or More Past Due  Principal Balance  Delinquent  Payments  Payments  Payments  Payments 
 
Bank of America
 $100  $31  $5  $3  $8  $1  $2  $2  $3 
Countrywide (1)
  716   271   87   90   177   24   45   47   61 
Merrill Lynch
  65   20   6   11   17   3   4   3   7 
First Franklin
  82   22   7   20   27   4   6   5   12 
 
Total (2, 3, 4)
 $963  $344  $105  $124  $229  $32  $57  $57  $83 
 
 
                                    
By Product
                                    
 
Prime
 $302  $111  $17  $13  $30  $2  $6  $8  $14 
Alt-A
  172   76   21   25   46   7   12   12   15 
Pay option
  150   61   30   24   54   5   14   16   19 
Subprime
  245   78   36   46   82   16   19   17   30 
Home equity
  88   16   -   16   16   2   5   4   5 
Other
  6   2   1   -   1   -   1   -   - 
 
Total
 $963  $344  $105  $124  $229  $32  $57  $57  $83 
 
(1) $409 billion of original principal balance is included in the BNY Mellon Settlement.
 
(2) Includes $185 billion of original principal balance related to transactions with monoline participation.
 
(3) Excludes transactions sponsored by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch where no representation or warranties were made.
 
(4) Includes exposures on third-party sponsored transactions related to legacy entity originations.
Monoline Insurers
     Legacy companies have sold $184.5 billion of loans originated between 2004 and 2008 into monoline-insured securitizations, which are included in Table 15, including $103.9 billion of first-lien mortgages and $80.6 billion of second-lien mortgages. Of these balances, $46.0 billion of the first-lien mortgages and $49.5 billion of the second-lien mortgages have been paid in full and $33.2 billion of the first-lien mortgages and $16.2 billion of the second-lien mortgages have defaulted or are severely delinquent at June 30, 2011. At least 25 payments have been made on approximately 57 percent of the defaulted and severely delinquent loans. Of the first-lien mortgages sold, $39.1 billion, or 38 percent, were sold as whole loans to other institutions which subsequently included these loans with those of other originators in private-label securitization transactions in which the monolines typically insured one or more securities. Through June 30, 2011, we have received $6.5 billion of representations and warranties claims related to the monoline-insured transactions. Of these repurchase claims, $2.0 billion were resolved through the Assured Guaranty Settlement, $829 million were resolved through repurchase or indemnification with losses of $727 million and $125 million were rescinded by the investor or paid in full. The majority of these resolved claims related to second-lien mortgages.

58


Table of Contents

Unresolved Monoline Repurchase Claims
     At June 30, 2011, for loans originated between 2004 and 2008, the unpaid principal balance of loans related to unresolved monoline repurchase claims was $3.5 billion, including $3.0 billion that have been reviewed where it is believed a valid defect has not been identified which would constitute an actionable breach of representations and warranties and $547 million that are in the process of review. At June 30, 2011, the unpaid principal balance of loans for which the monolines had requested loan files for review but for which no repurchase claim had been received was $6.1 billion, excluding loans that had been paid in full and file requests for loans included in the trusts settled with Assured Guaranty. There will likely be additional requests for loan files in the future leading to repurchase claims.
     We have had limited experience with the monoline insurers, other than Assured Guaranty, in the repurchase process as each of these monoline insurers has instituted litigation against legacy Countrywide and/or Bank of America, which limits our ability to enter into constructive dialogue with these monolines to resolve the open claims. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate probable future repurchase obligations with respect to those monolines with whom we have limited repurchase experience and, therefore, no representations and warranties liability has been recorded in connection with these monolines, other than a liability for repurchase claims where we have determined that there are valid loan defects. Our estimated range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of June 30, 2011 includes possible losses related to these monoline insurers.
Whole Loans and Private-label Securitizations
     Legacy entities, and to a lesser extent Bank of America, sold whole loans to investors, and the majority of the sales were executed through private-label securitizations, including third-party sponsored transactions. The loans sold with total principal balance of $778.2 billion, included in Table 15, were originated between 2004 and 2008, of which $399.2 billion have been paid in full and $179.7 billion are defaulted or severely delinquent at June 30, 2011. In connection with these transactions, we provided representations and warranties, and the whole-loan investors may retain those rights even when the whole loans were aggregated with other collateral into private-label securitizations sponsored by the whole-loan investors. At least 25 payments have been made on approximately 62 percent of the defaulted and severely delinquent loans. We have received approximately $8.4 billion of representations and warranties claims from whole-loan investors and private-label securitization investors related to these vintages, including $5.9 billion from whole-loan investors, $819 million from one private-label securitization counterparty which were submitted prior to 2008 and $1.7 billion in claims from private-label securitization investors in the Covered Trusts received in the third quarter of 2010.
     We have resolved $5.6 billion of the claims received from whole-loan investors and private-label securitization investors with losses of $1.2 billion. Approximately $2.4 billion of these claims were resolved through repurchase or indemnification and $3.2 billion were rescinded by the investor. Claims outstanding related to these vintages totaled $2.8 billion at June 30, 2011, substantially all of which we have reviewed and declined to repurchase based on an assessment of whether a material breach exists.
     The majority of the claims that we have received outside of the GSEs and monolines are from third-party whole-loan investors. Certain whole-loan investors have engaged with us in a consistent repurchase process and we have used that experience to record a liability related to existing and future claims from such counterparties. The BNY Mellon Settlement led to the determination that we have sufficient experience to record a liability related to our exposure on certain other private-label securitizations as of June 30, 2011. However, the BNY Mellon Settlement did not provide sufficient experience related to certain private-label securitizations sponsored by third-party whole-loan investors. As it relates to certain private-label securitizations sponsored by third parties whole-loan investors and certain other whole loan sales, it is not possible to determine whether a loss has occurred or is probable and, therefore, no representations and warranties liability has been recorded in connection with these transactions. Our estimated range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of June 30, 2011 includes possible losses related to these whole loan sales and private-label securitizations sponsored by third-party whole-loan investors.
     Private-label securitization investors generally do not have the contractual right to demand repurchase of loans directly or the right to access loan files. The inclusion of the $1.7 billion in outstanding claims does not mean that we believe these claims have satisfied the contractual thresholds required for these investors to direct the securitization trustee to take action or that these claims are otherwise procedurally or substantively valid. One of these claimants has filed litigation against us relating to certain of these claims; the claims in this litigation would be extinguished if there is final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement. Additionally, certain private-label securitizations are insured by the monoline insurers, which are not reflected in these amounts regarding whole loan sales and private-label securitizations.

59


Table of Contents

Other Mortgage-related Matters
Servicing Matters and Foreclosure Processes
     We service a large portion of the loans we or our subsidiaries have securitized and also service loans on behalf of third-party securitization vehicles and other investors. Servicing agreements with the GSEs generally provide the GSEs with broader rights relative to the servicer than are found in servicing agreements with private investors. For example, each GSE typically has the right to demand that the servicer repurchase loans that breach the seller’s representations and warranties made in connection with the initial sale of the loans even if the servicer was not the seller. The GSEs also reserve the contractual right to demand indemnification or loan repurchase for certain servicing breaches. In addition, our agreements with the GSEs and their first mortgage seller/servicer guides provide for timelines to resolve delinquent loans through workout efforts or liquidation, if necessary. In addition, many non-agency RMBS and whole-loan servicing agreements require the servicer to indemnify the trustee or other investor for or against failures by the servicer to perform its servicing obligations or acts or omissions that involve willful malfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence in the performance of, or reckless disregard of, the servicer’s duties.
     In October 2010, we voluntarily stopped taking residential mortgage foreclosure proceedings to judgment in states where foreclosure requires a court order following a legal proceeding (judicial states) and stopped foreclosure sales in all states in order to complete an assessment of related business processes. We have resumed foreclosure sales in all non-judicial states; however, while we have recently resumed foreclosure proceedings in nearly all judicial states, our progress on foreclosure sales in judicial states has been significantly slower than in non-judicial states. We have also not yet resumed foreclosure sales for certain types of customers, including those in bankruptcy and those with FHA-insured loans, although we have resumed foreclosure proceedings with respect to these types of customers. The implementation of changes in procedures and controls, including loss mitigation procedures related to our ability to recover on FHA insurance-related claims, as well as governmental, regulatory and judicial actions, may result in continuing delays in foreclosure proceedings and foreclosure sales, as well as creating obstacles to the collection of certain fees and expenses, in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures.
     On April 13, 2011, we entered into a consent order with the Federal Reserve and BANA entered into a consent order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to address the regulators’ concerns about residential mortgage servicing practices and foreclosure processes. Also, on this date, the other 13 largest mortgage servicers in the U.S. separately entered into consent orders with their respective federal bank regulators related to residential mortgage servicing practices and foreclosure processes. The orders resulted from an interagency horizontal review conducted by federal bank regulators of major residential mortgage servicers. While federal bank regulators found that loans foreclosed upon had been generally considered for other alternatives (such as loan modifications), were seriously delinquent, and that servicers could support their standing to foreclose, several areas for process improvement requiring timely and comprehensive remediation across the industry were also identified. We identified most of these areas for process improvement after our own review in late 2010 and continue to make significant progress in these areas. The federal bank regulator consent orders with the mortgage servicers do not assess civil monetary penalties. However, the consent orders do not preclude the assertion of civil monetary penalties and a federal bank regulator has stated publicly that it believes monetary penalties are appropriate.
     The consent order with the OCC requires servicers to make several enhancements to their servicing operations, including implementation of a single point of contact model for borrowers throughout the loss mitigation and foreclosure processes, adoption of measures designed to ensure that foreclosure activity is halted once a borrower has been approved for a modification unless the borrower fails to make payments under the modified loan and implementation of enhanced controls over third-party vendors that provide default servicing support services. In addition, the consent order required that servicers retain an independent consultant, approved by the OCC, in order to conduct a review of all foreclosure actions pending, or foreclosure sales that occurred, between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 and submit a plan to the OCC to remediate all financial injury to borrowers caused by any deficiencies identified through the review. The OCC accepted the independent consultant that we retained to conduct the foreclosure review. Additionally, we have submitted an action plan to the OCC which will undergo a period of review by the OCC. The OCC may require changes to the action plan, and may consider the ongoing negotiations with the DOJ and other federal and state authorities regarding foreclosure and servicing practices discussed below in its review of our action plan.
     In addition, law enforcement authorities in all 50 states and the DOJ and other federal agencies continue to investigate alleged irregularities in the foreclosure practices of residential mortgage servicers, including us. Authorities have publicly stated that the scope of the investigations extends beyond foreclosure documentation practices to mortgage loan modification and loss mitigation practices, including compliance with HUD requirements related to FHA-insured loans. We continue to cooperate with these investigations and are dedicating significant resources to address these issues. We and the

60


Table of Contents

other largest mortgage servicers continue to engage in ongoing negotiations regarding these matters with law enforcement authorities and federal agencies. The negotiations continue to focus on the amount of any settlement payment and settlement terms, including principal forgiveness, servicing standards, enforcement mechanisms and releases. Although we cannot be certain as to the ultimate outcome that may result from these negotiations or the timing of such outcome, the parties continue to make progress toward achieving a resolution of these matters.
     We continue to be subject to additional borrower and non-borrower litigation and governmental and regulatory scrutiny related to our past and current servicing and foreclosure activities. This scrutiny may extend beyond our pending foreclosure matters to issues arising out of alleged irregularities with respect to previously completed foreclosure activities. The current environment of heightened regulatory scrutiny has the potential to subject us to inquiries or investigations that could significantly adversely affect our reputation. Such investigations by state and federal authorities, as well as any other governmental or regulatory scrutiny of our foreclosure processes, could result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies, additional default servicing requirements and process changes, or other enforcement actions, and could result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations and additional litigation.
     In the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we incurred $716 million and $1.6 billion of mortgage-related assessments and waivers costs which included $485 million and $1.0 billion for compensatory fees that we expect to be assessed by the GSEs as a result of foreclosure delays with the remainder being out-of-pocket costs that we do not expect to recover because of foreclosure delays. We incurred $230 million in the fourth quarter of 2010. We expect that these costs will remain elevated as additional loans are delayed in the foreclosure process and as the GSEs assert more aggressive criteria. We also expect that additional costs related to resources necessary to perform the foreclosure process assessment, to revise affidavit filings and to implement other operational changes will continue for at least the remainder of 2011. This will likely result in continued higher noninterest expense, including higher default servicing costs and legal expenses, in CRES and has impacted and may continue to impact the value of our MSRs related to these serviced loans. It is also possible that the delays in foreclosure sales may result in additional costs and expenses, including costs associated with the maintenance of properties or possible home price declines while foreclosures are delayed. In addition, required process changes, including those required under the consent orders with federal bank regulators, are likely to result in further increases in our default servicing costs over the longer term. Finally, the time to complete foreclosure sales may continue to be protracted, which may result in a greater number of nonperforming loans and increased servicing advances and may impact the collectability of such advances and the value of our MSR asset, MBS and real estate owned properties.
     An increase in the time to complete foreclosure sales also may increase the number of severely delinquent loans in our mortgage servicing portfolio, result in increasing levels of consumer nonperforming loans and could have a dampening effect on net interest margin as nonperforming assets increase. Accordingly, delays in foreclosure sales, including any delays beyond those currently anticipated, our continued process enhancements, including those required under the OCC and federal bank regulator consent orders and any issues that may arise out of alleged irregularities in our foreclosure process could significantly increase the costs associated with our mortgage operations.
Private-label Securitization Settlement – Servicing Matters
     In connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, BAC HLS has agreed to implement certain servicing changes. On a schedule that began with the signing of the BNY Mellon Settlement, BAC HLS agreed to transfer the servicing related to certain high-risk loans to qualified subservicers. In addition, upon final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement, BAC HLS has agreed to the benchmarking of loans not in subservicing arrangements against defined industry standards regarding default-servicing timelines. The transfer of loans to subservicers will reduce the servicing fees payable to BAC HLS in the future. Upon final court approval, failure to meet the established benchmarking standards for loans not in subservicing arrangements can trigger the payment of agreed-upon fees. BAC HLS’s obligations with respect to these servicing changes will terminate if final court approval is not obtained.
     The Trustee and BAC HLS have also agreed to clarify and conform certain servicing standards related to loss mitigation. In particular, the BNY Mellon Settlement would clarify that it is permissible to apply the same loss-mitigation strategies to the Covered Trusts as are applied to BAC HLS affiliates’ held-for-investment (HFI) portfolios. This provision of the agreement is effective immediately and is not conditioned on final court approval.
     We and legacy Countrywide also have agreed to work to resolve with the Trustee certain note and mortgage documentation issues related to the enforceability of mortgages in foreclosure (e.g., title policy and mortgage recordation issues). If certain documentation issues remain outstanding when a loan reaches foreclosure, we and/or legacy Countrywide is obligated to reimburse the related Covered Trust for any loss if BAC HLS is unable to foreclose on the mortgage and the Covered Trust is not made whole by a title policy because of documentation exceptions. This agreement will terminate if final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement is not obtained, although we could still have exposure under the pooling and servicing agreements related to the mortgages in the Covered Trusts for such documentation issues.

61


Table of Contents

     Certain servicing and documentation obligations began upon signing of the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement, while others, including potential payment of servicing-related fees, are conditioned on final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement. We estimate that the costs associated with additional servicing obligations under the BNY Mellon Settlement contributed $400 million to the second quarter 2011 valuation charge related to the MSR asset. The additional servicing actions are consistent with the consent orders with the OCC and the Federal Reserve.
Regulatory Matters
     For additional information regarding significant regulatory matters including Regulation E and the CARD Act, refer to Item 1A. Risk Factors, as well as Regulatory Matters on page 56 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Financial Reform Act
     The Financial Reform Act, which was signed into law on July 21, 2010, enacts sweeping financial regulatory reform and has altered and will continue to alter the way in which we conduct certain businesses, increase our costs and reduce our revenues. Many aspects of the Financial Reform Act remain subject to final rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the precise impact on the Corporation, our customers or the financial services industry.
Debit Interchange Fees
     On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule with respect to the Durbin Amendment effective on October 1, 2011 which, among other things, establishes a regulatory cap for many types of debit interchange transactions to equal no more than 21 cents plus five bps of the value of the transaction. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve adopted an interim rule to allow a debit card issuer to recover an additional one cent per transaction for fraud prevention purposes if the issuer complies with certain fraud-related requirements promulgated by the Federal Reserve, with which we intend to comply. The Federal Reserve also approved rules governing routing and exclusivity, requiring issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing debit transactions on each debit or prepaid product, which are effective April 1, 2012. For additional information, see Global Card Services on page 33.
Limitations on Certain Activities
     We anticipate that the final regulations associated with the Financial Reform Act will include limitations on proprietary trading as well as the sponsorship or investment in hedge funds and private equity funds (the Volcker Rule), as will be defined by various regulators. The implementing regulations for the Volcker Rule will include clarifications to the definition of proprietary trading and distinctions between permitted and prohibited activities which have not yet been finalized. The final regulations are required to be in place by October 21, 2011, and the Volcker Rule becomes effective twelve months after such rules are final or on July 21, 2012, whichever is earlier. The Volcker Rule then gives certain financial institutions two years from the effective date, with opportunities for additional extensions, to bring activities and investments into conformance. In response to these developments, GBAM has exited its proprietary trading business as of June 30, 2011.
     The ultimate impact of the Volcker Rule’s prohibition on proprietary trading and the sponsorship or investment in hedge funds and private equity funds continues to remain uncertain, including any additional significant operational and compliance costs we may incur. For additional information about our proprietary trading business, see GBAM on page 42.
Derivatives
     The Financial Reform Act includes measures to broaden the scope of derivative instruments subject to regulation by requiring clearing and exchange trading of certain derivatives; imposing new capital margins, reporting, registration and business conduct requirements for certain market participants; and imposing position limits on certain over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. Although the Financial Reform Act required regulators to promulgate the rulemakings necessary to implement these regulations by July 16, 2011, the regulators have indicated that the rulemaking process will continue through at least the end of 2011. Further, the regulators have granted temporary relief from certain requirements that would have taken effect on July 16, 2011 absent any rulemaking. This temporary relief is effective until final rules relevant to each requirement become effective, or in the case of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), until the earlier of the effective date of relevant final rules or December 31, 2011. The ultimate impact of these derivatives regulations and the

62


Table of Contents

time it will take to comply continues to remain uncertain. The final regulations will impose additional operational and compliance costs on us and may require us to restructure certain businesses, thereby negatively impacting our revenues and results of operations.
FDIC Deposit Insurance Assessments
     On February 7, 2011, the FDIC issued a new regulation implementing revisions to the assessment system mandated by the Financial Reform Act, which became effective on April 1, 2011. The new regulation was reflected in the June 30, 2011 FDIC fund balance and will be reflected in the invoices for payments due September 30, 2011. Among other things, the final rule changed the assessment base for insured depository institutions from adjusted domestic deposits to average consolidated total assets during an assessment period, less average tangible equity capital during that assessment period. Additionally, the FDIC has broad discretionary authority to increase assessments on large and highly complex institutions on a case by case basis. Any future increases in required deposit insurance premiums or other bank industry fees could have an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.
Credit Risk Retention
     On March 29, 2011, numerous federal regulators jointly issued a proposed rule regarding credit risk retention that would, among other things, require retention by sponsors of at least five percent of the credit risk of the assets underlying certain ABS and MBS securitizations and would limit the ability to transfer or hedge that credit risk. The proposed rule as currently written would likely have an adverse impact on our ability to engage in many types of the MBS and ABS securitizations conducted in CRES, GBAM and other business segments, impose additional operational and compliance costs on us, and negatively influence the value, liquidity and transferability of ABS or MBS, loans and other assets. However, it remains unclear what requirements will be included in the final rule and what the ultimate impact of the final rule will be on our CRES, GBAM and other business segments or on our consolidated results of operations.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
     The activities of the Corporation, as a consumer lender, are subject to regulation under various U.S. federal laws, including the Truth-in-Lending, Equal Credit Opportunity, Fair Credit Reporting, Fair Debt Collection Practice, Electronic Funds Transfer and CARD acts, as well as various state laws. These statutes impose requirements on consumer loan origination and collection practices. The Financial Reform Act created the CFPB to supervise, enforce and write all federal consumer financial protection rules. On July 21, 2011, the CFPB assumed its authorities to supervise and enforce existing consumer financial protection rules. Once a Director of the CFPB assumes that position, the full authority to write new consumer financial protection rules will be vested in the CFPB.
Certain Other Provisions
     The Financial Reform Act also provides for a new resolution process administered by the FDIC to unwind large systemically important financial companies; expands the role of state regulators in enforcing consumer protection requirements over banks; includes new minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements for large financial institutions; and disqualifies trust preferred securities and other hybrid capital securities from Tier 1 capital. Many of the provisions under the Financial Reform Act have begun to be phased in or will be phased in over the next several months or years and will be subject both to further rulemaking and the discretion of applicable regulatory bodies.
     The Financial Reform Act will continue to have a significant and negative impact on our earnings through fee reductions, higher costs and new restrictions, as well as reductions to available capital. The Financial Reform Act may also continue to have a material adverse impact on the value of certain assets and liabilities held on our balance sheet. The ultimate impact of the Financial Reform Act on our businesses and results of operations will depend on regulatory interpretation and rulemaking, as well as the success of any of our actions to mitigate the negative earnings impact of certain provisions. For information on the impact of the Financial Reform Act on our credit ratings, see Liquidity Risk on page 69.
U.K. Bank Levy
     The U.K. government bank levy legislation was enacted on July 19, 2011. The rate on banks operating in the U.K. has been set at 7.5 bps for short-term liabilities and 3.75 bps for long-term liabilities for 2011 and will increase to 7.8 bps for short-term liabilities and 3.9 bps for long-term liabilities beginning in 2012. Based on current estimates, the cost of the bank levy is expected to be approximately $95 million annually beginning this year, and is non-deductible for U.K. tax purposes.

63


Table of Contents

Managing Risk
Overview
     Risk is inherent in every activity that we undertake. Our business exposes us to strategic, credit, market, liquidity, compliance, operational and reputational risk. We must manage these risks to maximize our long-term results by ensuring the integrity of our assets and the quality of our earnings. Our risk management infrastructure is continually evolving to meet the heightened challenges posed by the increased complexity of the financial services industry and markets, by our increased size and global footprint, and by the 2008 financial crisis. We have a defined risk framework and risk appetite which is approved annually by the Corporation’s Board of Directors (the Board).
     We take a comprehensive approach to risk management. Risk management planning is fully integrated with strategic, financial and customer/client planning so that goals and responsibilities are aligned across the organization. Risk is managed in a systematic manner by focusing on the Corporation as a whole as well as managing risk across the enterprise and within individual business units, products, services and transactions, and across all geographic locations. We maintain a governance structure that delineates the responsibilities for risk management activities, as well as governance and oversight of those activities, by executive management and the Board. For a more detailed discussion of our risk management activities, see pages 59 through 107 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Strategic Risk Management
     Strategic risk is embedded in every line of business and is one of the major risk categories along with credit, market, liquidity, compliance and operational risks. It is the risk that results from adverse business decisions, ineffective or inappropriate business plans, or failure to respond to changes in the competitive environment, business cycles, customer preferences, product obsolescence, regulatory environment, business strategy execution and/or other inherent risks of the business including reputational and operational risk. In the financial services industry, strategic risk is elevated due to changing customer, competitive and regulatory environments. Our appetite for strategic risk is assessed within the context of the strategic plan, with strategic risks selectively and carefully considered in the context of the evolving marketplace. Strategic risk is managed in the context of our overall financial condition and assessed, managed and acted on by the Chief Executive Officer and executive management team. Significant strategic actions, such as material acquisitions or capital actions, are reviewed and approved by the Board.
     For more information on our Strategic Risk Management activities, refer to pages 62 and 63 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Capital Management
     Bank of America manages its capital position to maintain a strong and flexible financial condition in order to perform through changing economic cycles, take advantage of organic growth opportunities, maintain ready access to financial markets, remain a source of financial strength for our subsidiaries, and return capital to our shareholders as appropriate.
     To determine the appropriate level of capital, we assess the results of our Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP), the current economic and market environment, and feedback from investors, ratings agencies and regulators. For additional information regarding the ICAAP, see page 63 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
     Capital management is integrated into the risk and governance processes, as capital is a key consideration in development of the strategic plan, risk appetite and risk limits. Economic capital is allocated to each business unit and used to perform risk-adjusted return analysis at the business unit, client relationship and transaction level.
Regulatory Capital
     As a financial services holding company, we are subject to the risk-based capital guidelines (Basel I) issued by the banking agencies. At June 30, 2011, we operated banking activities primarily under two charters: BANA and FIA Card Services, N.A. Under these guidelines, the Corporation and its affiliated banking entities measure capital adequacy based on Tier 1 common capital, Tier 1 capital and Total capital (Tier 1 plus Tier 2 capital). Capital ratios are calculated by

64


Table of Contents

dividing each capital amount by risk-weighted assets. Additionally, Tier 1 capital is divided by adjusted quarterly average total assets to derive the Tier 1 leverage ratio.
     Certain corporate-sponsored trust companies which issue trust preferred capital debt securities (Trust Securities) are not consolidated. In accordance with Federal Reserve guidance, Trust Securities continue to qualify as Tier 1 capital with revised quantitative limits. As a result, the Corporation includes Trust Securities in Tier 1 capital. The Financial Reform Act includes a provision under which the Corporation’s previously issued and outstanding Trust Securities in the aggregate amount of $20.0 billion (approximately 143 bps of Tier 1 capital) at June 30, 2011 will no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital effective January 1, 2013. This amount excludes $1.6 billion of hybrid Trust Securities that are expected to be converted to preferred stock prior to the date of implementation. The exclusion of Trust Securities from Tier 1 capital will be phased in incrementally over a three-year phase-in period. The treatment of Trust Securities during the phase-in period remains unclear and is subject to future rulemaking.
     For additional information on these and other regulatory requirements, see Note 18 – Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Capital Composition and Ratios
     Tier 1 common capital decreased $10.5 billion to $114.7 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010. The decrease was driven by the second quarter losses and an increase in deferred tax assets disallowed for regulatory capital reporting purposes. The $7.9 billion increase in the deferred tax asset disallowance was due to the expiration of the longer look-forward period granted by the regulators at the time of the Merrill Lynch acquisition and the second quarter pre-tax loss. Tier 1 capital and Total capital decreased by $10.5 billion and $11.6 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010.
     Risk-weighted assets declined by $63.2 billion to $1,393 billion at June 30, 2011. The risk-weighted asset reduction is consistent with our continued efforts to reduce non-core assets and legacy loan portfolios. The Tier 1 common capital ratio decreased 37 bps to 8.23 percent, the Tier 1 capital ratio decreased 24 bps to 11.00 percent and the Total capital ratio decreased 12 bps to 15.65 percent driven by the same factors noted above. The Tier 1 leverage ratio decreased 35 bps to 6.86 percent reflecting the decrease in Tier 1 capital and the lower risk-weighted assets mentioned above.
     Table 16 presents the Corporation’s capital ratios and related information at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                         
Table 16
Regulatory Capital
  June 30, 2011 December 31, 2010
  Actual Minimum Actual Minimum
(Dollars in millions)
 Ratio Amount Required (1) Ratio Amount Required (1)
 
Tier 1 common equity ratio
  8.23% $114,684   n/a   8.60% $125,139   n/a 
Tier 1 capital ratio
  11.00   153,134  $55,710   11.24   163,626  $58,238 
Total capital ratio
  15.65   217,986   111,420   15.77   229,594   116,476 
Tier 1 leverage ratio
  6.86   153,134   89,337   7.21   163,626   90,811 
         
   
  June 30 December 31
  2011 2010
   
Risk-weighted assets (in billions)
 $1,393  $1,456 
Adjusted quarterly average total assets (in billions) (2)
  2,233   2,270 
 
(1) Dollar amount required to meet guidelines for adequately capitalized institutions.
 
(2) Reflects adjusted average total assets for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
n/a  = not applicable

65


Table of Contents

     Table 17 presents the capital composition at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
         
Table 17
Capital Composition
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010
 
Total common shareholders’ equity
 $205,614  $211,686 
Goodwill
  (71,074)  (73,861)
Nonqualifying intangible assets (includes core deposit intangibles, affinity relationships, customer relationships and other intangibles)
  (6,369)  (6,846)
Net unrealized gains on AFS debt and marketable equity securities and net losses on derivatives recorded in accumulated OCI, net-of-tax
  (4,825)  (4,137)
Unamortized net periodic benefit costs recorded in accumulated OCI, net-of-tax
  3,809   3,947 
Exclusion of fair value adjustment related to structured notes (1)
  3,219   2,984 
Disallowed deferred tax asset
  (16,572)  (8,663)
Other
  882   29 
 
Total Tier 1 common capital
  114,684   125,139 
 
Preferred stock
  16,562   16,562 
Trust preferred securities
  21,513   21,451 
Noncontrolling interest
  375   474 
 
Total Tier 1 capital
  153,134   163,626 
 
Long-term debt qualifying as Tier 2 capital
  41,077   41,270 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  37,312   41,885 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments
  897   1,188 
Allowance for loan and lease losses exceeding 1.25 percent of risk-weighted assets
  (20,565)  (24,690)
45 percent of the pre-tax net unrealized gains on AFS marketable equity securities
  4,692   4,777 
Other
  1,439   1,538 
 
Total capital
 $217,986  $229,594 
 
(1) Represents loss on structured notes, net-of-tax, that is excluded from Tier 1 common capital, Tier 1 capital and Total capital for regulatory capital purposes.
Regulatory Capital Changes
     The regulatory capital rules as written by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the Basel Committee) continue to evolve. We manage regulatory capital to adhere to regulatory standards of capital adequacy based on our current understanding of the rules and the application of such rules to our business as currently conducted.
     U.S. banking regulators published a final Basel II rule (Basel II rules) in December 2007, which requires us to implement Basel II at the holding company level as well as at certain U.S. bank subsidiaries. We are currently in the Basel II qualification period and expect to be in compliance with all relevant Basel II requirements within the regulatory timelines.
     On December 16, 2010, U.S. regulators issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Risk-based Capital Guidelines for Market Risk (the Market Risk Rules) reflecting partial adoption of the Basel Committee’s July 2009 consultative document on the topic. We anticipate that these rules will become effective in early 2012 and expect to be in full compliance with these standards within the regulatory timelines.
     In addition to the Basel II rules, the Basel Committee issued “Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems,” together with the liquidity standards discussed below (Basel III) in December 2010. We expect to be in full compliance with the Basel III capital standards within the regulatory timelines, including when fully effective on January 1, 2019. We will continue to monitor our capital position in conjunction with our understanding of the rules as they evolve.
     If implemented by U.S. regulators as proposed, Basel III could significantly increase our capital requirements. Basel III and the Financial Reform Act propose the disqualification of Trust Securities from Tier 1 capital, with the Financial Reform Act proposing that the disqualification be phased in from 2013 to 2015. Basel III also proposes the deduction of certain assets from capital (deferred tax assets, MSRs, investments in financial firms and pension assets, among others, within prescribed limitations), the inclusion of accumulated OCI in capital, increased capital for counterparty credit risk,

66


Table of Contents

and new minimum capital and buffer requirements. The phase-in period for the capital deductions is proposed to occur in 20 percent increments from 2014 through 2018 with full implementation by December 31, 2018. An increase in capital requirements for counterparty credit is proposed to be effective January 2013. The phase-in period for the new minimum capital requirements and related buffers is proposed to occur between 2013 and 2019. U.S. regulators have indicated a goal to adopt final rules by year-end 2011 or early 2012. We have made the implementation and migration of the new capital rules our primary capital related priority. We intend to continue to build capital through retaining earnings, actively reducing legacy asset portfolios and implementing other non-dilutive capital related initiatives including focusing on the reduction of higher risk-weighted assets. As the new rules come into effect, we currently anticipate that we will be in excess of the minimum required ratios without needing to raise new equity capital. For additional information on MSRs, refer to Note 19 – Mortgage Servicing Rights to the Consolidated Financial Statements and for additional information on deferred tax assets, refer to Note 21 – Income Taxes to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
     On July 19, 2011, the Basel Committee published the consultative document “Globally systemic important banks: Assessment methodology and the additional loss absorbency requirement” which sets out measures for global, systemically important financial institutions including the methodology for measuring systemic importance, the additional capital required (the SIFI buffer), and the arrangements by which they will be phased in. As proposed, the SIFI buffer would be met with additional Tier 1 common equity ranging from one percent to 3.5 percent and will be phased in from 2016 through 2018. U.S. banking regulators have not yet provided similar rules or guidance for U.S. implementation of a SIFI buffer.
     We also note that there remains significant uncertainty regarding the final Basel III requirements as the U.S. has only issued final rules for Basel II at this time. Impacts may change as the U.S. finalizes rules under Basel III and the regulatory agencies interpret the final rules during the implementation process. For additional information regarding Basel II, Basel III, Market Risk Rules and other proposed regulatory capital changes, see Regulatory Capital on page 63 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Bank of America, N.A. and FIA Card Services, N.A. Regulatory Capital
     Table 18 presents regulatory capital information for BANA and FIA Card Services, N.A. at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The goodwill impairment charges recognized in 2011 and 2010 did not impact the regulatory capital ratios.
                         
Table 18
Bank of America, N.A. and FIA Card Services, N.A. Regulatory Capital
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
  Actual  Minimum  Actual  Minimum 
(Dollars in millions) Ratio  Amount  Required (1)  Ratio  Amount  Required (1) 
 
Tier 1
                        
Bank of America, N.A.
  11.24% $118,886  $42,307   10.78% $114,345  $42,416 
FIA Card Services, N.A.
  19.17   29,224   6,097   15.30   25,589   6,691 
Total
                        
Bank of America, N.A.
  14.65   154,987   84,614   14.26   151,255   84,831 
FIA Card Services, N.A.
  20.70   31,545   12,193   16.94   28,343   13,383 
Tier 1 leverage
                        
Bank of America, N.A.
  8.46   118,886   56,208   7.83   114,345   58,391 
FIA Card Services, N.A.
  15.56   29,224   7,511   13.21   25,589   7,748 
 
(1) 
Dollar amount required to meet guidelines for adequately capitalized institutions.
     The BANA Tier 1 and Total capital ratios increased 46 bps to 11.24 percent and 39 bps to 14.65 percent at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010. The increase in the ratios was driven by $1.5 billion and $4.0 billion in earnings generated during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. The Tier 1 leverage ratio increased 63 bps to 8.46 percent, benefiting from the improvement in Tier 1 capital combined with a $54.6 billion decrease in adjusted quarterly average total assets resulting from our continued efforts to reduce non-core assets and legacy loan portfolios.
     The FIA Card Services, N.A. Tier 1 capital ratio increased 387 bps to 19.17 percent and the Total capital ratio increased 376 bps to 20.70 percent at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010. The Tier 1 leverage ratio increased 235 bps to 15.56 percent at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010. The increase in ratios was driven by $1.9 billion and $3.5 billion in earnings generated during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011.

67


Table of Contents

Broker/Dealer Regulatory Capital
     Bank of America’s principal U.S. broker/dealer subsidiaries are Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (MLPF&S) and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp (MLPCC). MLPCC is a fully-guaranteed subsidiary of MLPF&S and provides clearing and settlement services. Both entities are subject to the net capital requirements of SEC Rule 15c3-1. Both entities are also registered as futures commission merchants and are subject to the CFTC Regulation 1.17.
     MLPF&S has elected to compute the minimum capital requirement in accordance with the Alternative Net Capital Requirement as permitted by SEC Rule 15c3-1. At June 30, 2011, MLPF&S’s regulatory net capital as defined by Rule 15c3-1 was $10.1 billion and exceeded the minimum requirement of $807 million by $9.3 billion. MLPCC’s net capital of $1.9 billion exceeded the minimum requirement of $252 million by approximately $1.7 billion.
     In accordance with the Alternative Net Capital Requirements, MLPF&S is required to maintain tentative net capital in excess of $1 billion, net capital in excess of $500 million and notify the SEC in the event its tentative net capital is less than $5 billion. At June 30, 2011, MLPF&S had tentative net capital and net capital in excess of the minimum and notification requirements.
Economic Capital
     Our economic capital measurement process provides a risk-based measurement of the capital required for unexpected credit, market and operational losses over a one-year time horizon at a 99.97 percent confidence level, consistent with a “AA” credit rating. Economic capital is allocated to each business unit based upon its risk positions and contribution to enterprise risk, and is used for capital adequacy, performance measurement and risk management purposes. The strategic planning process utilizes economic capital with the goal of allocating risk appropriately and measuring returns consistently across all businesses and activities. Economic capital allocation plans are incorporated into the Corporation’s operating plan which is approved by the Board on an annual basis. For additional information regarding economic capital, credit risk capital, market risk capital and operational risk capital, see page 66 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Common Stock Dividends
     Table 19 is a summary of our declared quarterly cash dividends on common stock for 2011 as of August 4, 2011.
         
Table 19 
Common Stock Cash Dividend Summary
Declaration Date Record Date Payment Date Dividend Per Share 
 
May 11, 2011
 June 3, 2011 June 24, 2011 $0.01 
January 26, 2011
 March 4, 2011 March 25, 2011  0.01 
 

68


Table of Contents

Preferred Stock Dividends
     Table 20 is a summary of our most recent cash dividend declarations on preferred stock as of August 4, 2011. For additional information on preferred stock, see Note 15 – Shareholders’ Equity to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
                         
Table 20 
Preferred Stock Cash Dividend Summary
  Outstanding                   
  Notional                   
  Amount              Per Annum  Dividend Per 
Preferred Stock (in millions)  Declaration Date  Record Date  Payment Date  Dividend Rate  Share 
 
Series B (1)
 $1  May 11, 2011 July 11, 2011 July 25, 2011  7.00% $1.75 
 
Series D (2)
 $661  July 5, 2011 August 31, 2011 September 14, 2011  6.204% $0.38775 
 
Series E (2)
 $487  July 5, 2011 July 29, 2011 August 15, 2011 Floating  $0.25556 
 
Series H (2)
 $2,862  July 5, 2011 July 15, 2011 August 1, 2011  8.20% $0.51250 
 
Series I (2)
 $365  July 5, 2011 September 15, 2011 October 3, 2011  6.625% $0.41406 
 
Series J (2)
 $978  July 5, 2011 July 15, 2011 August 1, 2011  7.25% $0.45313 
 
Series K (3, 4)
 $1,668  July 5, 2011 July 15, 2011 August 1, 2011 Fixed-to-floating  $40.00 
 
Series L
 $3,349  June 17, 2011 July 1, 2011 August 1, 2011  7.25% $18.125 
 
Series M (3, 4)
 $1,434  April 4, 2011 April 30, 2011 May 16, 2011 Fixed-to-floating  $40.625 
 
Series 1 (5)
 $146  July 5, 2011 August 15, 2011 August 30, 2011 Floating  $0.19167 
 
Series 2 (5)
 $526  July 5, 2011 August 15, 2011 August 30, 2011 Floating  $0.19167 
 
Series 3 (5)
 $670  July 5, 2011 August 15, 2011 August 29, 2011  6.375% $0.39843 
 
Series 4 (5)
 $389  July 5, 2011 August 15, 2011 August 30, 2011 Floating  $0.25556 
 
Series 5 (5)
 $606  July 5, 2011 August 1, 2011 August 22, 2011 Floating  $0.25556 
 
Series 6 (6)
 $65  July 5, 2011 September 15, 2011 September 30, 2011  6.70% $0.41875 
 
Series 7 (6)
 $17  July 5, 2011 September 15, 2011 September 30, 2011  6.25% $0.39062 
 
Series 8 (5)
 $2,673  July 5, 2011 August 15, 2011 August 29, 2011  8.625% $0.53906 
 
(1) 
Dividends are cumulative.
 
(2) 
Dividends per depositary share, each representing a 1/1,000th interest in a share of preferred stock.
 
(3) 
Initially pays dividends semi-annually.
 
(4) 
Dividends per depositary share, each representing a 1/25th interest in a share of preferred stock.
 
(5) 
Dividends per depositary share, each representing a 1/1,200th interest in a share of preferred stock.
 
(6) 
Dividends per depositary share, each representing a 1/40th interest in a share of preferred stock.
Enterprise-wide Stress Testing
     As a part of our core risk management practices, we conduct enterprise-wide stress tests on a periodic basis to better understand earnings, capital and liquidity sensitivities to certain economic and business scenarios, including economic and market conditions that are more severe than anticipated. These enterprise-wide stress tests provide an understanding of the potential impacts from our risk profile on earnings, capital and liquidity, and serve as a key component of our capital management practices. Scenarios are selected by a group comprised of senior line of business, risk and finance executives. Impacts to each line of business from each scenario are then determined and analyzed, primarily leveraging the models and processes utilized in everyday management routines. Impacts are assessed along with potential mitigating actions that may be taken. Analysis from such stress scenarios is compiled for and reviewed through our Risk Oversight Committee, Asset Liability Market Risk Committee (ALMRC) and the Board’s Enterprise Risk Committee, and serves to inform and be incorporated, along with other core business processes, into decision making by management and the Board. We have made substantial investments to establish stress testing capabilities as a core business process.
Liquidity Risk
Funding and Liquidity Risk Management
     We define liquidity risk as the potential inability to meet our contractual and contingent financial obligations, on- or off-balance sheet, as they come due. Our primary liquidity objective is to ensure adequate funding for our businesses throughout market cycles, including periods of financial stress. To achieve that objective, we analyze and monitor our

69


Table of Contents

liquidity risk, maintain excess liquidity and access diverse funding sources including our stable deposit base. We define excess liquidity as readily available assets, limited to cash and high-quality, liquid, unencumbered securities that we can use to meet our funding requirements as those obligations arise.
     Global funding and liquidity risk management activities are centralized within Corporate Treasury. We believe that a centralized approach to funding and liquidity risk management enhances our ability to monitor liquidity requirements, maximizes access to funding sources, minimizes borrowing costs and facilitates timely responses to liquidity events. For additional information regarding global funding and liquidity risk management, see Funding and Liquidity Risk Management on page 67 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Global Excess Liquidity Sources and Other Unencumbered Assets
     We maintain excess liquidity available to the parent company and selected subsidiaries in the form of cash and high-quality, liquid, unencumbered securities. These assets, which we call our Global Excess Liquidity Sources, serve as our primary means of liquidity risk mitigation. Our cash is primarily on deposit with central banks, such as the Federal Reserve. We limit the composition of high-quality, liquid, unencumbered securities to U.S. government securities, U.S. agency securities, U.S. agency MBS and a select group of non-U.S. government securities. We believe we can quickly obtain cash for these securities, even in stressed market conditions, through repurchase agreements or outright sales. We hold our Global Excess Liquidity Sources in entities that allow us to meet the liquidity requirements of our global businesses, and we consider the impact of potential regulatory, tax, legal and other restrictions that could limit the transferability of funds among entities.
     Our Global Excess Liquidity Sources increased $66 billion to $402 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 and were maintained as presented in Table 21. This increase was due primarily to liquidity generated by our bank subsidiaries through deposit growth, reductions in LHFS and other factors.
             
Table 21 
Global Excess Liquidity Sources
          Average for 
          Three Months Ended 
  June 30  December 31  June 30 
(Dollars in billions) 2011  2010  2011 
    
Parent company
 $119  $121  $121 
Bank subsidiaries
  243   180   236 
Broker/dealers
  40   35   45 
    
Total Global Excess Liquidity Sources
 $402  $336  $402 
 
     As noted in Table 21, the Global Excess Liquidity Sources available to the parent company totaled $119 billion and $121 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Typically, parent company cash is deposited overnight with BANA.
     Table 22 presents the composition of Global Excess Liquidity Sources at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
         
Table 22 
Global Excess Liquidity Sources Composition
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in billions) 2011 2010
 
Cash on deposit
 $85  $80 
U.S. treasuries
  63   65 
U.S. agency securities and mortgage-backed securities
  231   174 
Non-U.S. government securities
  23   17 
 
Total Global Excess Liquidity Sources
 $402  $336 
 
     Global Excess Liquidity Sources available to our bank subsidiaries at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 totaled $243 billion and $180 billion. These amounts are distinct from the cash deposited by the parent company, as described in Table 22. In addition to their Global Excess Liquidity Sources, our bank subsidiaries hold significant amounts of other unencumbered securities that we believe could also be used to generate liquidity, primarily investment-grade MBS. Our bank subsidiaries can also generate incremental liquidity by pledging a range of other unencumbered loans and securities to certain FHLBs and the Federal Reserve Discount Window. The cash we could have obtained by borrowing against this pool of specifically-identified eligible assets was approximately $197 billion and $170 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. We have established operational procedures to enable us to borrow against these assets, including regularly monitoring our total pool of eligible loans and securities collateral. Due to regulatory restrictions, liquidity generated by the bank subsidiaries can only be used to fund obligations within the bank subsidiaries and cannot be transferred to the parent company or nonbank subsidiaries.

70


Table of Contents

     Our broker/dealer subsidiaries’ excess liquidity sources at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 consisted of $40 billion and $35 billion in cash and high-quality, liquid, unencumbered securities. Our broker/dealers also held significant amounts of other unencumbered securities we believe could also be used to generate additional liquidity, including investment-grade corporate securities and equities. Liquidity held in a broker/dealer subsidiary is only available to meet the obligations of that entity and cannot be transferred to the parent company or to any other subsidiary due to regulatory restrictions and minimum requirements.
Time to Required Funding and Stress Modeling
     We use a variety of metrics to determine the appropriate amounts of excess liquidity to maintain at the parent company and our bank and broker/dealer subsidiaries. One metric we use to evaluate the appropriate level of excess liquidity at the parent company is “Time to Required Funding.” This debt coverage measure indicates the number of months that the parent company can continue to meet its unsecured contractual obligations as they come due using only its Global Excess Liquidity Sources without issuing any new debt or accessing any additional liquidity sources. We define unsecured contractual obligations for purposes of this metric as maturities of senior or subordinated debt issued or guaranteed by Bank of America Corporation or Merrill Lynch. These include certain unsecured debt instruments, primarily structured notes, which we may be required to settle for cash prior to maturity and issuances under the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP), all of which will mature by June 30, 2012. The ALMRC has established a target for Time to Required Funding of 21 months. Our Time to Required Funding at June 30, 2011 was 22 months. For purposes of calculating Time to Required Funding for June 30, 2011, we have also included in the amount of unsecured contractual obligations the $8.6 billion liability, including estimated costs, related to the BNY Mellon Settlement. This settlement is subject to final court approval and certain other conditions, and the timing of the payment is not certain.
     We utilize liquidity stress models to assist us in determining the appropriate amounts of excess liquidity to maintain at the parent company and our bank and broker/dealer subsidiaries. These risk sensitive models have become increasingly important in analyzing our potential contractual and contingent cash outflows beyond those outflows considered in the Time to Required Funding analysis. For additional information on Time to Required Funding and liquidity stress modeling, see page 68 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Basel III Liquidity Standards
     In December 2010, the Basel Committee issued “International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring,” which includes two proposed measures of liquidity risk. These two minimum liquidity measures were initially introduced in guidance in December 2009 and are considered part of Basel III.
     The first proposed liquidity measure is the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), which is calculated as the amount of a financial institution’s unencumbered, high-quality, liquid assets relative to the net cash outflows the institution could encounter under an acute 30-day stress scenario. The second proposed liquidity measure is the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), which measures the amount of longer-term, stable sources of funding employed by a financial institution relative to the liquidity profiles of the assets funded and the potential for contingent calls on funding liquidity arising from off-balance sheet commitments and obligations over a one-year period. The Basel Committee expects the LCR requirement to be implemented in January 2015 and the NSFR requirement to be implemented in January 2018, following an observation period that began in 2011. We continue to monitor the development and the potential impact of these evolving proposals and expect to meet the final requirements within the regulatory timelines.
Diversified Funding Sources
     We fund our assets primarily with a mix of deposits and secured and unsecured liabilities through a globally coordinated funding strategy. We diversify our funding globally across products, programs, markets, currencies and investor groups.
     We fund a substantial portion of our lending activities through our deposit base, which was $1,038 billion and $1,010 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Deposits are primarily generated by our Deposits, Global Commercial Banking, GWIM and GBAM segments. These deposits are diversified by clients, product type and geography. Certain of our U.S. deposits are insured by the FDIC. We consider a substantial portion of our deposits to be a stable, low-cost and consistent source of funding. We believe this deposit funding is generally less sensitive to interest rate changes, market

71


Table of Contents

volatility or changes in our credit ratings than wholesale funding sources. Our lending activities may also be financed through secured borrowings, including securitizations and FHLB loans.
     Our trading activities in broker/dealer subsidiaries are primarily funded on a secured basis through securities lending and repurchase agreements and these amounts will vary based on customer activity and market conditions. We believe funding these activities in the secured financing markets is more cost efficient and less sensitive to changes in our credit ratings than unsecured financing. Repurchase agreements are generally short-term and often overnight. Disruptions in secured financing markets for financial institutions have occurred in prior market cycles which resulted in adverse changes in terms or significant reductions in the availability of such financing. We manage the liquidity risks arising from secured funding by sourcing funding globally from a diverse group of counterparties, providing a range of securities collateral and pursuing longer durations, when appropriate.
     In addition, our parent company and bank and broker-dealer subsidiaries regularly access short-term secured and unsecured markets through federal funds purchased, commercial paper and other short-term borrowings to support customer activities, short-term financing requirements and cash management objectives. We continue to reduce our use of commercial paper for short-term borrowing purposes and expect that commercial paper levels will decrease further in the third quarter of 2011.
     Our mortgage business accesses a liquid market for the sale of newly originated mortgages through contracts with the GSEs and FHA. Contracts with the GSEs are subject to the Seller/Servicer guides issued by those GSEs.
     Table 23 presents information on short-term borrowings.
                                 
Table 23 
Short-term Borrowings
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
  Amount  Rate  Amount  Rate 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Average during period
                                
Federal funds purchased
 $1,798  $6,585   0.06%  0.14% $2,365  $5,508   0.09%  0.12%
Securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase
  274,875   376,973   1.52   0.66   289,096   394,221   1.34   0.61 
Commercial paper
  14,166   26,641   0.76   0.58   16,305   30,351   0.74   0.50 
Other short-term borrowings
  47,853   43,852   2.30   2.09   47,276   50,961   2.34   1.75 
                   
Total
 $338,692  $454,051   1.59   0.79  $355,042  $481,041   1.43   0.72 
                   
Maximum month-end balance during period
                                
Federal funds purchased
 $1,622  $7,636          $4,133  $8,320         
Securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase
  284,944   433,135           293,519   458,532         
Commercial paper
  17,423   28,052           21,212   36,236         
Other short-term borrowings
  47,087   56,742           47,087   63,081         
 
                                 
  June 30, 2011          December 31, 2010         
  Amount  Rate          Amount  Rate         
Period-end balance
                                
Federal funds purchased
 $1,414   0.05%         $1,458   0.14%        
Securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase
  238,107   1.33           243,901   1.15         
Commercial paper
  6,177   1.73           15,093   0.65         
Other short-term borrowings
  44,455   2.53           44,869   2.02         
                             
Total
 $290,153   1.68          $305,321   1.27         
 
     For average and period-end balance discussions, see Balance Sheet Overview on page 15. For more information, see Note 12 Federal Funds Sold, Securities Borrowed or Purchased Under Agreements to Resell and Short-term Borrowings to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
     We issue the majority of our long-term unsecured debt at the parent company. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the parent company issued $5.3 billion and $11.5 billion of long-term unsecured debt. We may also issue long-term unsecured debt at BANA, although there were no new issuances during the three or six months ended June 30, 2011.
     We issue long-term unsecured debt in a variety of maturities and currencies to achieve cost-efficient funding and to maintain an appropriate maturity profile. While the cost and availability of unsecured funding may be negatively impacted by general market conditions or by matters specific to the financial services industry or the Corporation, we seek to mitigate refinancing risk by actively managing the amount of our borrowings that we anticipate will mature within any month or quarter.

72


Table of Contents

     The primary benefits of our centralized funding strategy include greater control, reduced funding costs, wider name recognition by investors and greater flexibility to meet the variable funding requirements of subsidiaries. Where regulations, time zone differences or other business considerations make parent company funding impractical, certain other subsidiaries may issue their own debt.
     We use derivative transactions to manage the duration, interest rate and currency risks of our borrowings, considering the characteristics of the assets they are funding. For further details on our ALM activities, refer to Interest Rate Risk Management for Nontrading Activities on page 114.
     We also diversify our funding sources by issuing various types of debt instruments including structured notes, which are debt obligations that pay investors with returns linked to other debt or equity securities, indices, currencies or commodities. We typically hedge the returns we are obligated to pay on these notes with derivative positions and/or investments in the underlying instruments, so that from a funding perspective, the cost is similar to our other unsecured long-term debt. We could be required to settle certain structured note obligations for cash or other securities immediately under certain circumstances, which we consider for liquidity planning purposes. We believe, however, that a portion of such borrowings will remain outstanding beyond the earliest put or redemption date. We had outstanding structured notes of $63.4 billion and $61.1 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
     Substantially all of our senior and subordinated debt obligations contain no provisions that could trigger a requirement for an early repayment, require additional collateral support, result in changes to terms, accelerate maturity or create additional financial obligations upon an adverse change in our credit ratings, financial ratios, earnings, cash flows or stock price.
     Prior to 2010, we participated in the TLGP, which allowed us to issue senior unsecured debt that the FDIC guaranteed in return for a fee based on the amount and maturity of the debt. At June 30, 2011, we had $27.5 billion outstanding under the program. We no longer issue debt under this program and all of our debt issued under TLGP will mature by June 30, 2012. TLGP issuances are included in the unsecured contractual obligations for the Time to Required Funding metric, and all of the outstanding debt issued under the program will mature within 22 months at June 30, 2011. Under this program, our debt received the highest long-term ratings from the major credit ratings agencies which resulted in a lower total cost of issuance than if we had issued non-FDIC guaranteed long-term debt.
     Table 24 represents the book value for aggregate annual maturities of long-term debt at June 30, 2011.
                             
Table 24 
Long-term Debt By Maturity
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  Thereafter  Total 
 
Bank of America Corporation
 $8,519  $43,760  $9,538  $19,668  $13,814  $96,020  $191,319 
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and subsidiaries
  17,514   21,484   18,502   19,251   4,804   43,331   124,886 
Bank of America, N.A. and other subsidiaries
  26   4,777   -   35   690   8,556   14,084 
Other debt
  8,271   13,960   4,967   1,754   422   2,251   31,625 
 
Total long-term debt excluding consolidated VIEs
  34,330   83,981   33,007   40,708   19,730   150,158   361,914 
Long-term debt of consolidated VIEs
  8,812   11,377   16,524   10,476   1,219   16,337   64,745 
 
Total long-term debt
 $43,142  $95,358  $49,531  $51,184  $20,949  $166,495  $426,659 
 
     Table 25 presents our long-term debt in the following currencies at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
         
Table 25
Long-term Debt By Major Currency
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions) 2011 2010
 
U.S. Dollar
 $283,594  $302,487 
Euros
  86,252   87,482 
Japanese Yen
  19,807   19,901 
British Pound
  15,312   16,505 
Canadian Dollar
  6,647   6,628 
Australian Dollar
  5,617   6,924 
Swiss Franc
  4,363   3,069 
Other
  5,067   5,435 
 
Total long-term debt
 $426,659  $448,431 
 

73


Table of Contents

     For additional information on long-term debt funding, see Note 13 – Long-term Debt to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. For additional information regarding funding and liquidity risk management, refer to pages 67 through 70 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Contingency Planning
     We maintain contingency funding plans that outline our potential responses to liquidity stress events at various levels of severity. These policies and plans are based on stress scenarios and include potential funding strategies and communication and notification procedures that we would implement in the event we experienced stressed liquidity conditions. We periodically review and test the contingency funding plans to validate efficacy and assess readiness.
     Our U.S. bank subsidiaries can access contingency funding through the Federal Reserve Discount Window. Certain non-U.S. subsidiaries have access to central bank facilities in the jurisdictions in which they operate. While we do not rely on these sources in our liquidity modeling, we maintain the policies, procedures and governance processes that would enable us to access these sources if necessary.
     A downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government or the credit ratings of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by related institutions, agencies or instrumentalities could impact our ability to obtain funding that is collateralized by affected instruments, as well as affecting the pricing of that funding when it is available. Such a downgrade may also affect the market value of such instruments.
Credit Ratings
     Our borrowing costs and ability to raise funds are directly impacted by our credit ratings. In addition, credit ratings may be important to customers or counterparties when we compete in certain markets and when we seek to engage in certain transactions, including OTC derivatives. Thus, it is our objective to maintain high-quality credit ratings.
     Credit ratings and outlooks are opinions on our creditworthiness and that of our obligations or securities, including long-term debt, short-term borrowings, preferred stock and other securities, including asset securitizations. Our credit ratings are subject to ongoing review by the ratings agencies and thus may change from time to time based on a number of factors, including our own financial strength, performance, prospects and operations as well as factors not under our control. In light of the recent difficulties in the financial services industry and financial markets, there can be no assurance that we will maintain our current ratings.
     During 2010, the three major ratings agencies made negative adjustments to the outlooks for our long-term credit ratings. For a description of these rating adjustments, refer to Credit Ratings on page 70 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Currently, Bank of America Corporation’s long-term senior debt ratings and outlooks expressed by the ratings agencies are as follows: A2 (review for possible downgrade) by Moody’s; A (negative) by S&P; and A+ (Rating Watch Negative) by Fitch. BANA’s long-term senior debt ratings and outlooks currently are as follows: Aa3 (review for possible downgrade) by Moody’s; A+ (negative) by S&P; and A+ (Rating Watch Negative) by Fitch. MLPF&S’s long-term senior debt ratings and outlooks are A+ (negative) by S&P and A+ (Rating Watch Negative) by Fitch. Merrill Lynch International’s long-term senior debt rating is A+ (negative) by S&P. The credit ratings of Merrill Lynch from the three major credit ratings agencies are the same as those of Bank of America Corporation. The major credit ratings agencies have indicated that the primary drivers of Merrill Lynch’s credit ratings are Bank of America Corporation’s credit ratings.
     These ratings agencies have indicated that, as a systemically important financial institution, our credit ratings currently reflect their expectation that, if necessary, we would receive significant support from the U.S. government. All three ratings agencies, however, have indicated they will reevaluate, and could reduce the uplift they include in our ratings for government support, for reasons arising from financial services regulatory reform proposals or legislation. On June 2, 2011, Moody’s placed our ratings on review for possible downgrade from negative outlook due to its view that the current level of U.S. government support incorporated into our ratings may no longer be appropriate.
     Other factors that influence our credit ratings include changes to the ratings agencies’ methodologies for our industry or certain security types, the ratings agencies’ assessment of the general operating environment for financial services companies, our relative positions in the markets in which we compete, reputation, liquidity position, diversity of funding sources, the level and volatility of earnings, corporate governance and risk management policies, capital position, capital management practices and current or future regulatory and legislative initiatives.

74


Table of Contents

     A reduction in certain of our credit ratings or the ratings of certain asset-backed securitizations would likely have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, access to credit markets, the related cost of funds, our businesses and on certain trading revenues, particularly in those businesses where counterparty creditworthiness is critical. Under the terms of certain OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements, in the event of a credit ratings downgrade, the counterparties to those agreements may require us to provide additional collateral or to terminate these contracts or agreements. Such collateral calls or terminations could cause us to sustain losses, impair our liquidity, or both, by requiring us to provide the counterparties with additional collateral in the form of cash or highly liquid securities. If the short-term credit ratings of our parent company, bank or broker-dealer subsidiaries were downgraded by one or more levels, the potential loss of short-term funding sources such as commercial paper or repo financing, and the effect on our incremental cost of funds would be material. For information regarding the additional collateral and termination payments that would be required in connection with certain OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements as a result of such a credit ratings downgrade, see Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Item 1A. Risk Factors on page 219 and Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Credit Risk Management
     Credit quality continued to show improvement during the first six months of 2011. Continued economic stability and our proactive credit risk management initiatives positively impacted the credit portfolio as charge-offs and delinquencies continued to improve across most portfolios along with risk rating improvements in the commercial portfolios. However, global and national economic uncertainty, home price declines, regulatory initiatives and reform continued to weigh on the credit portfolios through June 30, 2011. For more information, see Second Quarter 2011 Economic and Business Environment on page 7.
     We proactively refine our underwriting and credit management practices as well as credit standards to meet the changing economic environment. To actively mitigate losses and enhance customer support in our consumer businesses, we have expanded collections, loan modification and customer assistance infrastructures. We also have implemented a number of actions to mitigate losses in the commercial businesses including increasing the frequency and intensity of portfolio monitoring, hedging activity and our practice of transferring management of deteriorating commercial exposures to independent special asset officers as credits approach criticized levels.
     Since January 2008, and through the second quarter of 2011, Bank of America and Countrywide have completed more than 900,000 loan modifications with customers. During the second quarter of 2011, we completed over 69,000 customer loan modifications with a total unpaid principal balance of approximately $15.5 billion, including approximately 39,000 permanent modifications under the government’s Making Home Affordable Program. Of the loan modifications completed in the three months ended June 30, 2011, in terms of both the volume of modifications and the unpaid principal balance associated with the underlying loans, most were in the portfolio serviced for investors and were not on our balance sheet. The most common types of modifications include a combination of rate reduction and capitalization of past due amounts which represent 59 percent of the volume of modifications completed during the three months ended June 30, 2011, while principal forbearance represented 20 percent and capitalization of past due amounts represented six percent. We also provide rate reductions, rate and payment extensions, principal forgiveness and other actions. These modification types are generally considered troubled debt restructurings (TDRs). For more information on TDRs and portfolio impacts, see Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 90 and Note 6 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
     Certain European countries, including Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, continue to experience varying degrees of financial stress. Contagion fears expanded to Spain and Italy, and credit spreads widened further in European peripheral countries and European banks. The recently concluded U.S. debt ceiling negotiations, as well as events in the Middle East/North Africa and Japan add uncertainty to the global economic outlook. Risks and ongoing concerns about U.S. government debt levels, the debt crisis in Europe, rising oil and commodity prices and impacts to global supply chains could result in a disruption of financial and commodity markets and trade which could have a detrimental impact on the global economic recovery, including the impact of sovereign and non-sovereign debt in these and other countries. In the U.S., there is a perceived increase in the risk of a U.S. sovereign credit rating downgrade or a downgrade in the credit ratings of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by institutions, agencies or instrumentalities linked to the U.S. government, as well as the risk of other economic dislocations. Such a downgrade could have a significant adverse effect on the financial markets and economic conditions both in the U.S. and abroad. For more information on our direct sovereign and non-sovereign exposures in non-U.S. countries, see Non-U.S. Portfolio on page 103. For additional information on our direct sovereign and non-sovereign exposures and the risks associated with a downgrade of the U.S., see Item 1A. Risk Factors on page 219.

75


Table of Contents

Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management
     Credit risk management for the consumer portfolio begins with initial underwriting and continues throughout a borrower’s credit cycle. Statistical techniques in conjunction with experiential judgment are used in all aspects of portfolio management including underwriting, product pricing, risk appetite, setting credit limits, and establishing operating processes and metrics to quantify and balance risks and returns. Statistical models are built using detailed behavioral information from external sources such as credit bureaus and/or internal historical experience. These models are a component of our consumer credit risk management process and are used in part to help determine both new and existing credit decisions, portfolio management strategies including authorizations and line management, collection practices and strategies, determination of the allowance for loan and lease losses, and economic capital allocations for credit risk.
     For information on our accounting policies regarding delinquencies, nonperforming status, charge-offs and TDRs for the consumer portfolio, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Consumer Credit Portfolio
     Improvement in the U.S. economy and labor markets throughout most of 2010 and into the first six months of 2011 resulted in lower credit losses in most consumer portfolios compared to the first six months of 2010. However, continued stress in the housing market, including declining home prices, continued to adversely impact the home loans portfolio.

76


Table of Contents

     Table 26 presents our outstanding consumer loans and the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio. Loans that were acquired from Countrywide and considered credit-impaired were recorded at fair value upon acquisition. In addition to being included in the “Outstandings” columns in Table 26, these loans are also shown separately, net of purchase accounting adjustments, in the “Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio” column. Loans that were acquired from Merrill Lynch were recorded at fair value including those that were considered credit-impaired upon acquisition. The Merrill Lynch consumer PCI loan portfolio did not materially alter the reported credit quality statistics of the consumer portfolios and is therefore excluded from the “Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio” column and related discussion on page 86. For additional information, see Note 6 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio on certain credit statistics is reported where appropriate. See Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio on page 86 for more information. Under certain circumstances, loans that were originally classified as discontinued real estate loans upon acquisition have been subsequently modified from pay option or subprime loans into loans with more conventional terms and are now included in the residential mortgage portfolio shown in Table 26. Table 26 also includes consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option that were consolidated in connection with the Assured Guaranty Settlement in the second quarter of 2011. For more information on the Assured Guaranty Settlement, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51.
                 
Table 26
Consumer Loans
          Countrywide Purchased
          Credit-impaired Loan
  Outstandings Portfolio
  June 30 December 31 June 30 December 31
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
  Residential mortgage (1)
 $266,333  $257,973  $10,224  $10,592 
  Home equity
  130,654   137,981   12,315   12,590 
  Discontinued real estate (2)
  12,003   13,108   10,877   11,652 
  U.S. credit card
  104,659   113,785   n/a   n/a 
  Non-U.S. credit card
  26,037   27,465   n/a   n/a 
  Direct/Indirect consumer (3)
  90,258   90,308   n/a   n/a 
  Other consumer (4)
  2,762   2,830   n/a   n/a 
 
  Consumer loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option
  632,706   643,450   33,416   34,834 
  Loans accounted for under the fair value option (5)
  5,194   n/a   n/a   n/a 
 
Total consumer loans
 $637,900  $643,450  $33,416  $34,834 
 
(1) 
Outstandings include non-U.S. residential mortgages of $90 million at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(2) 
Outstandings include $10.7 billion and $11.8 billion of pay option loans at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and $1.3 billion of subprime loans at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. We no longer originate these products.
 
(3) 
Outstandings include dealer financial services loans of $42.1 billion and $43.3 billion, consumer lending loans of $9.9 billion and $12.4 billion, U.S. securities-based lending margin loans of $21.3 billion and $16.6 billion, student loans of $6.3 billion and $6.8 billion, non-U.S. consumer loans of $8.7 billion and $8.0 billion and other consumer loans of $2.0 billion and $3.2 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.
 
(4) 
Outstandings include consumer finance loans of $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Outstandings also include other non-U.S. consumer loans of $866 million and $803 million and consumer overdrafts of $104 million and $88 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(5) 
Consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option include residential mortgage loans of $1.2 billion and discontinued real estate loans of $4.0 billion at June 30, 2011. There were no consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option at December 31, 2010. See Consumer Loans Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option on page 90 and Note 17 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option.
 
n/a = not applicable

77


Table of Contents

     Table 27 presents accruing consumer loans past due 90 days or more and consumer nonperforming loans. Nonperforming loans do not include past due consumer credit card loans, consumer non-real estate-secured loans or unsecured consumer loans as these loans are generally charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due. Real estate-secured past due consumer loans, which include loans insured by the FHA and individually insured long-term credit protection agreements with FNMA and FHLMC (fully-insured loan portfolio), are reported as accruing as opposed to nonperforming since the principal repayment is insured. Fully-insured loans accruing past due 90 days or more are primarily related to our purchases of delinquent loans pursuant to our servicing agreements with GNMA. Additionally, nonperforming loans and accruing balances past due 90 days or more do not include the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio or loans accounted for under the fair value option even though the customer may be contractually past due.
                 
Table 27
Consumer Credit Quality
  Accruing Past Due 90 Days or More Nonperforming
  June 30 December 31 June 30 December 31
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
  Residential mortgage (1, 2)
 $20,047  $16,768  $16,726  $17,691 
  Home equity (1)
  -   -   2,345   2,694 
  Discontinued real estate (1)
  -   -   324   331 
  U.S. credit card
  2,413   3,320   n/a   n/a 
  Non-U.S. credit card
  607   599   n/a   n/a 
  Direct/Indirect consumer
  810   1,058   58   90 
  Other consumer
  3   2   25   48 
 
Total (3)
 $23,880  $21,747  $19,478  $20,854 
 
  Consumer loans as a percentage of outstanding consumer loans (4)
  3.77%  3.38%  3.08%  3.24%
  Consumer loans excluding Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios as a percentage of outstanding loans (4)
  0.75   0.92   3.80   3.85 
 
(1) 
Our policy is to classify consumer real estate-secured loans as nonperforming at 90 days past due, except the Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios and loans accounted for under the fair value option as referenced in footnote 2.
 
(2) 
Balances accruing past due 90 days or more are fully-insured loans. These balances include $15.7 billion and $8.3 billion of loans on which interest has been curtailed by the FHA, and therefore are no longer accruing interest, although principal is still insured and $4.3 billion and $8.5 billion of loans on which interest is still accruing at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(3) 
Balances exclude consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option at June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2011, there were no loans accounted for under fair value option accruing past due 90 days or more and approximately $2.3 billion that were nonperforming. There were no consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option at December 31, 2010.
 
(4) 
Outstanding consumer loans exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option.
 
n/a = not applicable
     Table 28 presents net charge-offs and related ratios for consumer loans and leases for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
                                 
Table 28 
Consumer Net Charge-offs and Related Ratios
  Net Charge-offs Net Charge-off Ratios(1) 
  Three Months Ended Six Months Ended Three Months Ended Six Months Ended 
  June 30 June 30 June 30 June 30 
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
  Residential mortgage
 $1,104  $971  $2,009  $2,040   1.67%  1.57%  1.54%  1.67%
  Home equity
  1,263   1,741   2,442   4,138   3.84   4.71   3.68   5.55 
  Discontinued real estate
  26   19   46   40   0.84   0.54   0.73   0.57 
  U.S. credit card
  1,931   3,517   4,205   7,480   7.29   11.88   7.85   12.36 
  Non-U.S. credit card
  429   942   831   1,573   6.31   13.64   6.11   11.02 
  Direct/Indirect consumer
  366   879   891   1,988   1.64   3.58   2.00   4.02 
  Other consumer
  43   73   83   131   6.44   10.01   6.19   8.90 
                
Total
 $5,162  $8,142  $10,507  $17,390   3.27   4.96   3.32   5.28 
 
(1) 
Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option.
     Net charge-off ratios excluding the Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios were 2.58 percent and 2.33 percent for residential mortgage, 4.24 percent and 4.05 percent for home equity, 8.09 percent and 6.78 percent for discontinued real estate and 4.00 percent and 4.04 percent for the total consumer portfolio for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively. Net charge-off ratios excluding the Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios were 1.90 percent and 1.98 percent for residential mortgage, 5.17 percent and 6.08 percent for home equity, 4.90 percent and 4.66 percent for discontinued real estate and 5.54 percent and 5.84 percent for the total consumer portfolio for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively. These are the only product classifications materially impacted by the Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. For all loan and lease categories, the net charge-offs were largely unchanged.

78


Table of Contents

     During the first quarter of 2011, we announced a plan to manage the exposures we have to certain residential mortgage, home equity and discontinued real estate products through the creation of Legacy Asset Servicing within CRES which will manage both our owned loans as well as loans serviced for others that meet certain criteria. The criteria generally represent home lending standards which we do not consider as part our continuing core business. The Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio includes the following:
  
Discontinued real estate loans (e.g., subprime and pay option)
 
  
Residential mortgage loans and home equity loans for products we no longer originate (e.g., reduced document loans and interest-only loans not underwritten to fully amortizing payment)
 
  
Loans that would not have been originated under our underwriting standards at December 31, 2010 (e.g., conventional loans with an original loan-to-value (LTV) greater than 95 percent and government-insured loans for which the borrower has a FICO score less than 620)
 
  
Countrywide PCI loan portfolios
 
  
Certain loans that met a pre-defined delinquency and probability of default threshold as of January 1, 2011
     The Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio was established as of January 1, 2011. Since making the determination of the pool of loans to be included in the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio, the criteria have not changed for this portfolio; however, the criteria continue to be evaluated over time. Information presented relating to periods prior to December 31, 2010 was not restated to conform to the realignment between the core portfolio and Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio. For more information on Legacy Asset Servicing within CRES, see page 35.
                         
Table 29 
Home Loans Portfolio 
  Outstandings  Nonperforming  Net Charge-offs 
                  June 30, 2011 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  Three Months  Six Months 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  Ended  Ended 
 
Core portfolio
                        
Residential mortgage
 $175,552  $166,927  $1,670  $1,510  $34  $57 
Home equity
  69,171   71,519   261   107   100   148 
Legacy Asset Servicing owned portfolio
                        
Residential mortgage (1)
  90,781   91,046   15,056   16,181   1,070   1,952 
Home equity
  61,483   66,462   2,084   2,587   1,163   2,294 
Discontinued real estate (1)
  12,003   13,108   324   331   26   46 
 
Home loans portfolio
                        
Residential mortgage
  266,333   257,973   16,726   17,691   1,104   2,009 
Home equity
  130,654   137,981   2,345   2,694   1,263   2,442 
Discontinued real estate
  12,003   13,108   324   331   26   46 
 
Total home loans portfolio
 $408,990  $409,062  $19,395  $20,716  $2,393  $4,497 
 
(1) 
Balances exclude consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option of residential mortgage loans of $1.2 billion and discontinued real estate loans of $4.0 billion at June 30, 2011. There were no consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option at December 31, 2010. See Note 17 — Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option.
     We believe that the presentation of information adjusted to exclude the impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, the fully-insured loan portfolio and loans accounted for under the fair value option is more representative of the ongoing operations and credit quality of the business. As a result, in the following discussions of the residential mortgage, home equity and discontinued real estate portfolios, we provide information that excludes the impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, the fully-insured loan portfolio and loans accounted for under the fair value option in certain credit quality statistics. We separately disclose information on the Countrywide PCI loan portfolios on page 86.
Residential Mortgage
     The residential mortgage portfolio, which excludes the discontinued real estate portfolio acquired from Countrywide, makes up the largest percentage of our consumer loan portfolio at 42 percent of consumer loans at June 30, 2011. Approximately 14 percent of the residential mortgage portfolio is in GWIM and represents residential mortgages that are originated for the home purchase and refinancing needs of our wealth management clients. The remaining portion of the portfolio is mostly in All Other and is comprised of both originated loans as well as purchased loans used in our overall ALM activities.

79


Table of Contents

     Outstanding balances in the residential mortgage portfolio, excluding $1.2 billion of loans accounted for under the fair value option, increased $8.4 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 as new origination volume, which is primarily fully-insured, was partially offset by paydowns, charge-offs and transfers to foreclosed properties. In addition, repurchases of FHA delinquent loans pursuant to our servicing agreements with GNMA also increased the residential mortgage portfolio during the six months ended June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the residential mortgage portfolio included $86.2 billion and $67.2 billion of outstanding fully-insured loans. On this portion of the residential mortgage portfolio, we are protected against principal loss as a result of FHA insurance and long-term credit protection agreements with FNMA and FHLMC.
     We have mitigated a portion of our credit risk on the residential mortgage portfolio through the use of synthetic securitization vehicles and long-term credit protection agreements with FNMA and FHLMC as described in Note 6 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the synthetic securitization vehicles referenced $37.6 billion and $53.9 billion of residential mortgage loans and provided loss protection up to $936 million and $1.1 billion. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had a receivable of $445 million and $722 million from these vehicles for reimbursement of losses. The Corporation records an allowance for credit losses on loans referenced by the synthetic securitization vehicles. The reported net charge-offs for the residential mortgage portfolio do not include the benefit of amounts reimbursable from these vehicles. Adjusting for the benefit of the credit protection from the synthetic securitizations, the residential mortgage net charge-off ratio, excluding the Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios, for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 would have been reduced by 16 bps at each period compared to 13 bps and nine bps for the same periods in 2010.
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, $17.2 billion and $12.9 billion in loans were protected by long-term credit protection agreements. All of these loans are individually insured and therefore the Corporation does not record an allowance for credit losses.
     Synthetic securitizations and the long-term credit protection agreements with FNMA and FHLMC together reduce our regulatory risk-weighted assets due to the transfer of a portion of our credit risk to unaffiliated parties. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, these vehicles had the cumulative effect of reducing our risk-weighted assets by $6.5 billion and $8.2 billion, and increased our Tier 1 capital ratio by five bps and six bps and our Tier 1 common capital ratio by four bps and five bps.

80


Table of Contents

     Table 30 presents certain residential mortgage key credit statistics on both a reported basis and excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, the fully-insured loan portfolio and loans accounted for under the fair value option. We believe the presentation of information adjusted to exclude these loan portfolios is more representative of the credit risk in the residential mortgage loan portfolio. As such, the following discussion presents the residential mortgage portfolio excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, the fully-insured loan portfolio and loans accounted for under the fair value option. For more information on the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, see page 86.
Table 30
Residential Mortgage – Key Credit Statistics

 
                 
          Excluding Countrywide 
          Purchased Credit-impaired 
  Reported Basis (1)  and Fully-insured Loans 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Outstandings
 $266,333  $257,973  $169,865  $180,136 
Accruing past due 30 days or more
  28,091   24,267   4,289   5,117 
Accruing past due 90 days or more
  20,047   16,768   n/a   n/a 
Nonperforming loans
  16,726   17,691   16,726   17,691 
Percent of portfolio
                
Refreshed LTV greater than 90 but less than 100
  14%  15%  11%  11%
Refreshed LTV greater than 100
  37   32   27   24 
Refreshed FICO below 620
  22   20   15   15 
2006 and 2007 vintages (2)
  29   32   38   40 
 
                                 
                  Excluding Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired and 
  Reported Basis  Fully-insured Loans 
  Three Months Ended
June 30
  Six Months Ended
June 30
  Three Months Ended
June 30
  Six Months Ended
June 30
 
  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Net charge-off ratio (3)
  1.67%  1.57%  1.54%  1.67%  2.58%  1.90%  2.33%  1.98%
 
(1) 
Outstandings, accruing past due, nonperforming loans and percentages of portfolio exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option at June 30, 2011. There were no residential mortgage loans accounted for under the fair value option at December 31, 2010. SeeNote 17 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option.
 
(2) 
These vintages of loans account for 65 percent and 67 percent of nonperforming residential mortgage loans at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. These vintages of loans accounted for 73 percent and 74 percent of residential mortgage net charge-offs during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 80 percent for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2010.
 
(3) 
Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans, excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option.
 
n/a = not applicable
     Nonperforming residential mortgage loans decreased $965 million compared to December 31, 2010 as charge-offs, nonperforming loans returning to performing status, and paydowns and payoffs outpaced new inflows, which continued to slow in the six months ended June 30, 2011 due to favorable delinquency trends. Accruing loans past due 30 days or more (i.e., those loans that are 30 to 89 days past due but still accruing interest) decreased $828 million to $4.3 billion at June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2011, $12.1 billion, or 72 percent, of the nonperforming residential mortgage loans were 180 days or more past due and had been written down to the estimated fair value of the collateral less estimated costs to sell. Net charge-offs increased $133 million to $1.1 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2011, or 2.58 percent of total average residential mortgage loans compared to 1.90 percent for the same period in 2010 as increased losses due primarily to further deterioration in home prices were partially offset by favorable delinquency trends. Net charge-offs remained relatively flat at $2.0 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011, or 2.33 percent of total average residential mortgage loans compared to 1.98 percent for the same period in 2010. In addition to the factors noted in the three-month discussion above, the six months ended June 30, 2010 included $175 million of net charge-offs related to compliance with regulatory guidance on collateral dependent modified loans that were written down to their underlying collateral value. Net charge-off ratios were further impacted by lower loan balances primarily due to paydowns and charge-offs outpacing new originations.
     Loans in the residential mortgage portfolio with certain characteristics have greater risk of loss than others. These characteristics include loans with a high refreshed LTV, loans originated at the peak of home prices in 2006 and 2007, interest-only loans and loans to borrowers located in California and Florida where we have concentrations and where significant declines in home prices have been experienced. Although the following disclosures address each of these risk characteristics separately, there is significant overlap in loans with these characteristics, which contributed to a disproportionate share of the losses in the portfolio. The residential mortgage loans with all of these higher risk characteristics comprised six percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Loans with all of these risk characteristics accounted for 22 percent and 23 percent of the residential mortgage net charge-offs during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to 25 percent and 27 percent for the same periods in 2010.
     Residential mortgage loans with a greater than 90 percent but less than 100 percent refreshed LTV represented 11 percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent represented 27 percent of the residential mortgage loan portfolio at June 30, 2011 and 24 percent at December 31, 2010. Of the loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent, 90 percent and 88 percent were performing at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent reflect loans

81


Table of Contents

where the outstanding carrying value of the loan is greater than the most recent valuation of the property securing the loan. The majority of these loans have a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent due primarily to home price deterioration over the past several years. Loans to borrowers with refreshed FICO scores below 620 represented 15 percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
     Of the residential mortgage loans, $60.6 billion, or 36 percent, and $62.2 billion, or 35 percent, at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are interest-only loans of which 88 percent and 87 percent were performing. Nonperforming balances on interest-only residential mortgage loans were $7.2 billion, or 43 percent, and $8.0 billion, or 45 percent, of total nonperforming residential mortgages at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Additionally, net charge-offs on the interest-only portion of the portfolio represented 57 percent and 56 percent of the total residential mortgage net charge-offs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to 50 percent and 49 percent for the same periods in 2010.
     Table 31 presents outstandings, nonperforming loans and net charge-offs by certain state concentrations for the residential mortgage portfolio. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) within California represented 12 percent and 13 percent of outstandings at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Loans within this MSA comprised only seven percent and six percent of net charge-offs for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
Table 31
Residential Mortgage State Concentrations

 
                                 
  Outstandings (1)  Nonperforming (1)  Net Charge-offs 
                  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
California
 $58,638  $63,677  $6,004  $6,389  $365  $407  $673  $887 
Florida
  12,983   13,298   1,999   2,054   186   135   342   295 
New York
  11,850   12,198   759   772   37   23   56   21 
Texas
  8,155   8,466   465   492   14   11   26   20 
Virginia
  6,145   6,441   419   450   23   17   37   41 
Other U.S./Non-U.S.
  72,094   76,056   7,080   7,534   479   378   875   776 
 
Residential mortgage loans (2)
 $169,865  $180,136  $16,726  $17,691  $1,104  $971  $2,009  $2,040 
 
Fully-insured loan portfolio
  86,244   67,245                         
Countrywide purchased credit-impaired residential mortgage loan portfolio
  10,224   10,592                         
 
Total residential mortgage loan portfolio
 $266,333  $257,973                         
 
(1) 
Outstandings and nonperforming amounts exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option at June 30, 2011. There were no residential mortgage loans accounted for under the fair value option at December 31, 2010. See Note 17 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option.
 
(2) 
Amount excludes the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage and fully-insured loan portfolios.
     The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages banks to meet the credit needs of their communities for housing and other purposes, particularly in neighborhoods with low or moderate incomes. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, our CRA portfolio was $13.4 billion and $13.8 billion, or eight percent of the residential mortgage loan balances for both periods. The CRA portfolio included $2.7 billion and $3.0 billion of nonperforming loans at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 representing 16 percent and 17 percent of total nonperforming residential mortgage loans. Net charge-offs related to the CRA portfolio were $204 million and $220 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, or 19 percent and 23 percent of total net charge-offs for the residential mortgage portfolio. Net charge-offs related to this portfolio were $412 million and $500 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, or 21 percent and 25 percent of total net charge-offs for the residential mortgage portfolio.
     For information on representations and warranties related to our residential mortgage portfolio, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51 and Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Home Equity
     The home equity portfolio makes up 20 percent of the consumer portfolio and is comprised of home equity lines of credit, home equity loans and reverse mortgages. As of June 30, 2011, our home equity line of credit (HELOC) portfolio had an outstanding balance of $107.6 billion. HELOCs generally have an initial draw period of 10 years with approximately 15 percent of the portfolio having a draw period of five years with a five-year renewal option. During the initial draw period, the borrowers are only required to pay the interest due on the loans on a monthly basis. After the initial draw period ends, the loans generally convert to 15-year amortizing loans. As of June 30, 2011, our home equity loan portfolio had an outstanding balance of $22.0 billion. Home equity loans are almost all fixed-rate loans with amortizing payment terms of 10 to 30 years and approximately 80 percent of these loans have 25 to 30-year terms. As of June 30, 2011, our reverse mortgage portfolio had an outstanding balance of $1.1 billion. In the first quarter of 2011, we announced that we were exiting the reverse mortgage origination business.

82


Table of Contents

     At June 30, 2011, approximately 87 percent of the home equity portfolio was included in CRESwhile the remainder of the portfolio was primarily in GWIM. Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio decreased $7.3 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 primarily due to paydowns and charge-offs outpacing new originations. Of the total home equity portfolio at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, $25.1 billion, or 19 percent, and $24.8 billion, or 18 percent, were in first-lien positions (21 percent and 20 percent excluding the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio). For more information on the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio, see page 86. As of June 30, 2011, outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio that were in a second-lien or more junior-lien position and where we also held the first-lien loan totaled $41.7 billion, or 35 percent, of our home equity portfolio excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio.
     Unused HELOCs totaled $72.1 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $80.1 billion at December 31, 2010. This decrease was due primarily to customers choosing to close accounts as well as line management initiatives on deteriorating accounts, which more than offset new production. The HELOC utilization rate was 60 percent at June 30, 2011 compared to 59 percent at December 31, 2010.
     Table 32 presents certain home equity portfolio key credit statistics on both a reported basis as well as excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio. We believe the presentation of information adjusted to exclude the impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio is more representative of the credit risk in this portfolio.
Table 32
Home Equity – Key Credit Statistics

 
                 
          Excluding Countrywide Purchased 
  Reported Basis  Credit-impaired Loans 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Outstandings
 $130,654  $137,981  $118,339  $125,391 
Accruing past due 30 days or more(1)
  1,681   1,929   1,681   1,929 
Nonperforming loans (1)
  2,345   2,694   2,345   2,694 
Percent of portfolio
                
Refreshed combined loan-to-value greater than 90 but less than 100
  11%  11%  11%  11%
Refreshed combined loan-to-value greater than 100
  39   34   36   30 
Refreshed FICO below 620
  13   14   12   12 
2006 and 2007 vintages (2)
  50   50   47   47 
 
                                 
  Reported Basis  Excluding Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loans 
  Three Months Ended
June 30
  Six Months Ended
June 30
  Three Months Ended
June 30
  Six Months Ended
June 30
 
  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Net charge-off ratio (3)
  3.84%  4.71%  3.68%  5.55%  4.24%  5.17%  4.05%  6.08%
 
(1) 
Accruing past due 30 days or more include $698 million and $662 million and nonperforming loans include $715 million and $480 million of loans where we service the underlying first-lien at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(2) 
These vintages of loans have higher refreshed consumer LTV ratios and accounted for 55 percent and 57 percent of nonperforming home equity loans at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. These vintages of loans accounted for 65 percent and 66 percent of net charge-offs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 65 percent for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2010.
 
(3) 
Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans.
     The following discussion presents the home equity portfolio excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio.
     Nonperforming outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio decreased $349 million compared to December 31, 2010 driven primarily by charge-offs and nonperforming loans returning to performing status which together outpaced delinquency inflows, which continued to slow during the six months ended June 30, 2011 due to favorable early stage delinquency trends. Accruing outstanding balances past due 30 days or more decreased $248 million at June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2011, $912 million, or 39 percent, of the nonperforming home equity portfolio were 180 days or more past due and had been written down to their fair values.
     In some cases, the junior-lien home equity outstanding balance that we hold is current, but the underlying first-lien is not. For outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio in which we service the first-lien loan, we are able to track whether the first-lien loan is in default. For loans in which the first-lien is serviced by a third party, we utilize credit bureau data to estimate the delinquency status of the first-lien. Given that the credit bureau database we use does not include a property address for the mortgages, we are unable to identify with certainty whether a reported delinquent first mortgage pertains to the same property for which we hold a second- or more junior-lien loan. As of June 30, 2011, we estimate that $5.1 billion of current second-lien or more junior-lien loans were behind a delinquent first-lien loan. We service the first-lien loans on $1.5 billion of that amount, with the remaining $3.6 billion serviced by third parties. Of the $5.1 billion current second-lien loans, we estimate that approximately $2.6 billion had first-lien loans that were 120 days or more past due, of which approximately $2.1 billion had first-lien loans serviced by third parties and we have therefore assumed the worst delinquency status of all outstanding mortgages for the borrower as discussed above.

83


Table of Contents

     Net charge-offs decreased $478 million to $1.3 billion, or 4.24 percent of the total average home equity portfolio, for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $1.7 billion, or 5.17 percent, for the same period in the prior year primarily driven by favorable portfolio trends due in part to improvement in the U.S. economy. Also, the prior-year period included $128 million of net charge-offs related to certain modified loans that were written down to the underlying collateral value. Net charge-offs decreased $1.7 billion to $2.4 billion, or 4.05 percent of the total average home equity portfolio, for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $4.1 billion, or 6.08 percent, for the same period in the prior year. The decrease was driven by the same factors noted in the three-month discussion above with the impact of implementing regulatory guidance on collateral dependent modified loans resulting in $771 million in net charge-offs for the six months ended June 30, 2010. Net charge-off ratios were further impacted by lower outstanding balances primarily as a result of charge-offs and paydowns outpacing new originations.
     Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio with a high refreshed combined loan-to-value (CLTV), that were originated at the peak of home prices in 2006 and 2007 or that are secured by homes in geographic areas have experienced the most significant declines in home prices. Home price declines coupled with the fact that most home equity outstandings are secured by second-lien positions have significantly reduced and, in some cases, eliminated all collateral value after consideration of the first-lien position. Although the disclosures below address each of these risk characteristics separately, there is significant overlap in outstanding balances with these characteristics, which has contributed to a disproportionate share of losses in the portfolio. Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio with all of these higher risk characteristics comprised 11 percent and 10 percent of the total home equity portfolio at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, but have accounted for 29 percent and 28 percent of the home equity net charge-offs during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to 30 percent for both of the same periods in 2010.
     Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio with greater than 90 percent but less than 100 percent refreshed CLTVs comprised 11 percent of the home equity portfolio at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Outstanding balances with refreshed CLTVs greater than 100 percent comprised 36 percent and 30 percent of the home equity portfolio at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Of those outstanding balances with a refreshed CLTV greater than 100 percent, 98 percent were performing at June 30, 2011 while 97 percent were performing at December 31, 2010. Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio with a refreshed CLTV greater than 100 percent reflect loans where the carrying value and available line of credit of the combined loans are equal to or greater than the most recent valuation of the property securing the loan. Depending on the value of the property, there may be collateral in excess of the first-lien that is available to reduce the severity of loss on the second-lien. Home price deterioration over the past several years has contributed to an increase in CLTV ratios. Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio to borrowers with a refreshed FICO score below 620 represented 12 percent of the home equity portfolio at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
     Of the $118.3 billion in total home equity portfolio outstandings, 77 percent and 75 percent at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 were interest-only loans almost all of which were HELOCs. The outstanding balance of HELOCs that have entered the amortization period was $1.4 billion, or one percent of total HELOCs, at June 30, 2011. The HELOCs that have entered the amortization period have experienced a higher percentage of early stage delinquencies and nonperforming status when compared to the HELOC portfolio as a whole. As of June 30, 2011, $47 million, or three percent of outstanding HELOCs that had entered the amortization period, were accruing loans past due 30 days or more. In addition, $59 million, or four percent, were nonperforming compared to $1.4 billion, or one percent of the entire HELOC portfolio, that were accruing loans past due 30 days or more and $1.9 billion, or two percent, that were nonperforming.
     Although we do not actively track how many of our home equity customers only pay the minimum amount due on their home equity loans and lines, we can infer some of this information through a review of our HELOC portfolio that we service and that is still in its revolving period (i.e., customers may draw on and repay their line of credit, but are generally only required to pay interest on a monthly basis). During the three months ended June 30, 2011, approximately 59 percent of these customers did not pay down any principal on their HELOCs.

84


Table of Contents

     Table 33 presents outstandings, nonperforming balances and net charge-offs by certain state concentrations for the home equity portfolio. In the New York area, the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island MSA made up 11 percent of the outstanding home equity portfolio at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. This MSA comprised only seven percent of net charge-offs for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and seven percent and six percent for the same periods in 2010. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA within California made up 11 percent of the outstanding home equity portfolio at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. This MSA comprised 11 percent and 10 percent of net charge-offs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 12 percent for both of the same periods in 2010.
     For information on representations and warranties related to our home equity portfolio, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51 and Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Table 33
Home Equity State Concentrations

 
                                 
  Outstandings  Nonperforming  Net Charge-offs 
                  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
California
 $33,861  $35,426  $623  $708  $409  $601  $777  $1,472 
Florida
  14,175   15,028   389   482   247   371   486   885 
New Jersey
  7,763   8,153   159   169   48   60   90   130 
New York
  7,693   8,061   224   246   57   80   110   165 
Massachusetts
  5,142   5,657   63   71   22   25   42   61 
Other U.S./Non-U.S.
  49,705   53,066   887   1,018   480   604   937   1,425 
 
Home equity loans (1)
 $118,339  $125,391  $2,345  $2,694  $1,263  $1,741  $2,442  $4,138 
 
Countrywide purchased credit-impaired home equity portfolio
  12,315   12,590                         
                         
Total home equity loan portfolio
 $130,654  $137,981                         
 
(1) Amount excludes the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio.
Discontinued Real Estate
     The discontinued real estate portfolio, excluding $4.0 billion of loans accounted for under the fair value option, totaled $12.0 billion at June 30, 2011 and consists of pay option and subprime loans acquired in the Countrywide acquisition. Upon acquisition, the majority of the discontinued real estate portfolio was considered credit-impaired and written down to fair value. At June 30, 2011, the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio was $10.9 billion, or 91 percent of the total discontinued real estate portfolio. This portfolio is included in All Other and is managed as part of our overall ALM activities. See Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio on page 86 for more information on the discontinued real estate portfolio.
     At June 30, 2011, the purchased discontinued real estate portfolio that was not credit-impaired was $1.1 billion. Loans with greater than 90 percent refreshed LTVs and CLTVs comprised 32 percent of the portfolio and those with refreshed FICO scores below 620 represented 47 percent of the portfolio. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA within California made up 16 percent of outstanding discontinued real estate loans at June 30, 2011.
     Pay option adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), which are included in the discontinued real estate portfolio, have interest rates that adjust monthly and minimum required payments that adjust annually, subject to resetting of the loan if minimum payments are made and deferred interest limits are reached. Annual payment adjustments are subject to a 7.5 percent maximum change. To ensure that contractual loan payments are adequate to repay a loan, the fully-amortizing loan payment amount is re-established after the initial five- or 10-year period and again every five years thereafter. These payment adjustments are not subject to the 7.5 percent limit and may be substantial due to changes in interest rates and the addition of unpaid interest to the loan balance. Payment advantage ARMs have interest rates that are fixed for an initial period of five years. Payments are subject to reset if the minimum payments are made and deferred interest limits are reached. If interest deferrals cause a loan’s principal balance to reach a certain level within the first 10 years of the life of the loan, the payment is reset to the interest-only payment; then at the 10-year point, the fully-amortizing payment is required.
     The difference between the frequency of changes in a loan’s interest rates and payments along with a limitation on changes in the minimum monthly payments of 7.5 percent per year can result in payments that are not sufficient to pay all of the monthly interest charges (i.e., negative amortization). Unpaid interest is added to the loan balance until the loan balance increases to a specified limit, which can be no more than 115 percent of the original loan amount, at which time a new monthly payment amount adequate to repay the loan over its remaining contractual life is established.

85


Table of Contents

     At June 30, 2011, the unpaid principal balance of pay option loans was $13.4 billion, with a carrying amount of $10.7 billion, including $10.2 billion of loans that were credit-impaired upon acquisition. The total unpaid principal balance of pay option loans with accumulated negative amortization was $11.2 billion including $785 million of negative amortization. The percentage of borrowers electing to make only the minimum payment on option ARMs was 71 percent at June 30, 2011 compared to 69 percent at December 31, 2010. We continue to evaluate our exposure to payment resets on the acquired negative-amortizing loans including the Countrywide PCI pay option loan portfolio and have taken into consideration several assumptions regarding this evaluation (e.g., prepayment rates). Based on our expectations, four percent and three percent of the pay option loan portfolio are expected to reset in the remainder of 2011 and 2012. Approximately five percent are expected to reset thereafter and approximately 88 percent are expected to default or repay prior to being reset.
Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio
     Loans acquired with evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination and for which it is probable at purchase that we will be unable to collect all contractually required payments are accounted for under the accounting guidance for PCI loans, which addresses accounting for differences between contractual and expected cash flows to be collected from the purchaser’s initial investment in loans if those differences are attributable, at least in part, to credit quality. Evidence of credit quality deterioration as of the acquisition date may include statistics such as past due status, refreshed FICO scores and refreshed LTVs. PCI loans are recorded at fair value upon acquisition and the applicable accounting guidance prohibits carrying over or recording a valuation allowance in the initial accounting. The Merrill Lynch consumer PCI loan portfolio did not materially alter the reported credit quality statistics of the consumer portfolios. As such, the Merrill Lynch consumer PCI loans are excluded from the following discussion and credit statistics.
     Acquired loans from Countrywide that were considered credit-impaired were recorded at to fair value at the acquisition date. Table 34 presents the unpaid principal balance, carrying value, related valuation allowance and the net carrying value as a percentage of the unpaid principal balance for the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
Table 34
Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio
(1)
 
                     
  June 30, 2011 
              Carrying    
  Unpaid      Related  Value Net of  % of Unpaid 
  Principal  Carrying  Valuation  Valuation  Principal 
(Dollars in millions)
 Balance  Value  Allowance  Allowance  Balance 
 
Residential mortgage
 $10,911  $10,224  $1,245  $8,979   82.29%
Home equity
  13,940   12,315   5,075   7,240   51.94 
Discontinued real estate
  13,637   10,877   1,919   8,958   65.69 
       
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired loan portfolio
 $38,488  $33,416  $8,239  $25,177   65.42%
 
  December 31, 2010 
Residential mortgage
 $11,481  $10,592  $663  $9,929   86.48%
Home equity
  15,072   12,590   4,467   8,123   53.89 
Discontinued real estate
  14,893   11,652   1,204   10,448   70.15 
       
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired loan portfolio
 $41,446  $34,834  $6,334  $28,500   68.76%
 
(1) 
Certain PCI loans that were originally classified as discontinued real estate loans upon acquisition have been subsequently modified and are now included in the residential mortgage outstandings along with the related valuation allowance.
     Of the unpaid principal balance at June 30, 2011, $14.6 billion was 180 days or more past due, including $10.2 billion of first-lien and $4.4 billion of home equity. Of the $23.9 billion that is less than 180 days past due, $20.4 billion, or 85 percent of the total unpaid principal balance was current based on the contractual terms while $1.9 billion, or eight percent, was in early stage delinquency. During the three months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded $394 million of provision for credit losses on Countrywide PCI loans including $182 million for discontinued real estate, $130 million for home equity and $82 million for residential mortgage loans. This compared to a total provision for Countrywide PCI loans of $328 million during the three months ended June 30, 2010. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded $1.9 billion of provision for credit losses for PCI loans including $997 million for discontinued real estate, $605 million for home equity loans and $303 million for residential mortgage. This compared to a total provision of $1.2 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2010. Provision expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 was driven primarily by recent deterioration in home prices resulting in a refreshed outlook reflecting further declines in home prices over 2011 and slower appreciation in subsequent years versus previous expectations. For further information on the PCI loan portfolio, see Note 6 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

86


Table of Contents

     Additional information is provided below on the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage, home equity and discontinued real estate loan portfolios.
Purchased Credit-impaired Residential Mortgage Loan Portfolio
     The Countrywide PCI residential mortgage loan portfolio comprised 31 percent of the total Countrywide PCI loan portfolio. Those loans to borrowers with a refreshed FICO score below 620 represented 38 percent of the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage loan portfolio at June 30, 2011. Refreshed LTVs greater than 90 percent represented 64 percent of the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage loan portfolio after consideration of purchase accounting adjustments and the related valuation allowance, and 87 percent based on the unpaid principal balance at June 30, 2011. Those loans that were originally classified as Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate loans upon acquisition and have been subsequently modified are now included in the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage outstandings. Table 35 presents outstandings net of purchase accounting adjustments and before the related valuation allowance, by certain state concentrations.
Table 35
Outstanding Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio
Residential Mortgage State Concentrations
 
         
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010
 
California
 $5,689  $5,882 
Florida
  741   779 
Virginia
  555   579 
Maryland
  264   271 
Texas
  154   164 
Other U.S./Non-U.S.
  2,821   2,917 
 
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired residential mortgage loan portfolio
 $10,224  $10,592 
 
Purchased Credit-impaired Home Equity Portfolio
     The Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio comprised 37 percent of the total Countrywide PCI loan portfolio. Those loans with a refreshed FICO score below 620 represented 26 percent of the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio at June 30, 2011. Refreshed CLTVs greater than 90 percent represented 82 percent of the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio after consideration of purchase accounting adjustments and the related valuation allowance, and 86 percent based on the unpaid principal balance at June 30, 2011. Table 36 presents outstandings net of purchase accounting adjustments and before the related valuation allowance, by certain state concentrations.
Table 36
Outstanding Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio
Home Equity State Concentrations
 
         
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010
 
California
 $4,063  $4,178 
Florida
  743   750 
Virginia
  515   532 
Arizona
  510   520 
Colorado
  361   375 
Other U.S./Non-U.S.
  6,123   6,235 
 
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired home equity portfolio
 $12,315  $12,590 
 
Purchased Credit-impaired Discontinued Real Estate Loan Portfolio
     The Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate loan portfolio comprised 32 percent of the total Countrywide PCI loan portfolio. Those loans to borrowers with a refreshed FICO score below 620 represented 62 percent of the Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate loan portfolio at June 30, 2011. Refreshed LTVs, or CLTVs in the case of second-liens, greater than 90 percent represented 39 percent of the Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate loan portfolio after consideration of purchase accounting adjustments and the related valuation allowance, and 85 percent based on the unpaid principal balance at June 30, 2011. Those loans that were originally classified as discontinued real estate loans upon acquisition and have been subsequently modified are now excluded from this portfolio and included in the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage loan portfolio, but remain in the PCI loan pool.

87


Table of Contents

     Table 37 presents outstandings net of purchase accounting adjustments and before the related valuation adjustment, by certain state concentrations.
Table 37
Outstanding Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio
Discontinued Real Estate State Concentrations
 
         
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010
 
California
 $5,866  $6,322 
Florida
  1,043   1,121 
Washington
  350   368 
Virginia
  314   344 
Arizona
  297   339 
Other U.S./Non-U.S.
  3,007   3,158 
 
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired discontinued real estate loan portfolio
 $10,877  $11,652 
 
U.S. Credit Card
     Table 38 presents certain key credit statistics for the consumer U.S. credit card portfolio.
Table 38
U.S. Credit Card – Key Credit Statistics

 
         
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010
 
Outstandings
 $104,659  $113,785 
Accruing past due 30 days or more
  4,263   5,913 
Accruing past due 90 days or more
  2,413   3,320 
 
                 
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30  June 30 
  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Net charge-offs
                
Amount
 $1,931  $3,517  $4,205  $7,480 
Ratios (1)
  7.29%  11.88%  7.85%  12.36%
 
(1) Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans and leases.
     The consumer U.S. credit card portfolio is managed in Global Card Services. Outstandings in the U.S. credit card loan portfolio decreased $9.1 billion compared to December 31, 2010 due to a seasonal decline in retail transaction volume, higher payment rates, charge-offs and portfolio divestitures. Compared to the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, net charge-offs decreased $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion and $3.3 billion to $4.2 billion due to improvements in delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies as a result of an improved economic environment and the impact of higher credit quality originations. U.S. credit card loans 30 days or more past due and still accruing interest decreased $1.7 billion while loans 90 days or more past due and still accruing interest decreased $907 million compared to December 31, 2010 due to improvement in the U.S. economy.
     Table 39 presents certain state concentrations for the U.S. credit card portfolio.
Table 39
U.S. Credit Card State Concentrations

 
                                 
          Accruing Past Due    
  Outstandings  90 Days or More  Net Charge-offs 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
California
 $15,507  $17,028  $426  $612  $372  $740  $822  $1,583 
Florida
  8,196   9,121   257   376   225   442   496   956 
Texas
  7,007   7,581   146   207   113   213   249   456 
New York
  6,318   6,862   141   192   107   184   231   387 
New Jersey
  4,233   4,579   100   132   72   119   157   252 
Other U.S.
  63,398   68,614   1,343   1,801   1,042   1,819   2,250   3,846 
 
Total U.S. credit card portfolio
 $104,659  $113,785  $2,413  $3,320  $1,931  $3,517  $4,205  $7,480 
 
     Unused lines of credit for U.S. credit card totaled $393.5 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $399.7 billion at December 31, 2010. The $6.2 billion decrease was driven by the closure of inactive accounts, portfolio divestitures and account management initiatives on higher risk accounts.

88


Table of Contents

Non-U.S. Credit Card
     Table 40 presents certain key credit statistics for the non-U.S. credit card portfolio.
Table 40
Non-U.S. Credit Card – Key Credit Statistics

 
         
  June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions)
 2011 2010
 
Outstandings
 $26,037  $27,465 
Accruing past due 30 days or more
  1,215   1,354 
Accruing past due 90 days or more
  607   599 
 
                 
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30  June 30 
  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Net charge-offs
                
Amount
 $429  $942  $831  $1,573 
Ratio (1)
  6.31%  13.64%  6.11%  11.02%
 
(1) Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans and leases.
     The consumer non-U.S. credit card portfolio is managed in Global Card Services. Outstandings in the non-U.S. credit card portfolio decreased $1.4 billion compared to December 31, 2010 due to lower origination volume, charge-offs and the transfer of certain loans to held-for-sale, partially offset by strengthening of certain foreign currencies against the U.S. dollar. Compared to the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, net charge-offs decreased $513 million to $429 million and $742 million to $831 million due primarily to the impact of aligning charge-off policies across Global Card Serviceson certain types of renegotiated loans, which accelerated charge-offs in the second quarter of 2010 and resulted in lower charge-offs in subsequent periods.
     Unused lines of credit for non-U.S. credit card totaled $60.8 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $60.3 billion at December 31, 2010. The $517 million increase was driven by strengthening of certain foreign currencies against the U.S. dollar.
Direct/Indirect Consumer
     At June 30, 2011, approximately 47 percent of the direct/indirect portfolio was included inGlobal Commercial Banking (dealer financial services - automotive, marine, aircraft and recreational vehicle loans), 34 percent was included in GWIM (principally other non-real estate-secured, unsecured personal loans and securities-based lending margin loans), 11 percent was included in Global Card Services (consumer personal loans) and the remainder was in All Other(student loans).
     Outstanding loans and leases were flat at $90.3 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 as lower outstandings in the Global Card Services unsecured consumer lending portfolio and the dealer financial services portfolio were offset by securities-based lending growth and product transfers from U.S. commercial. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, net charge-offs decreased $513 million and $1.1 billion to $366 million and $891 million, or 1.64 percent and 2.00 percent of total average direct/indirect loans compared to 3.58 percent and 4.02 percent for the same periods in the prior year. This decrease was primarily driven by improvements in delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies in the unsecured consumer lending portfolio as a result of an improved economic environment as well as reduced outstandings. An additional driver was lower net charge-offs in the dealer financial services portfolio due to the impact of higher credit quality originations and higher resale values.
     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, net charge-offs in the unsecured consumer lending portfolio decreased $450 million and $933 million to $294 million and $691 million, or 11.27 percent and 12.55 percent of total average unsecured consumer lending loans compared to 18.28 percent and 18.92 percent for the same periods in the prior year. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, net charge-offs in the dealer financial services portfolio decreased $40 million and $110 million to $44 million and $147 million, or 0.43 percent and 0.71 percent of total average dealer financial services loans compared to 0.73 percent and 1.12 percent for the same periods in the prior year. Direct/indirect loans that were past due 30 days or more and still accruing interest declined $698 million compared to $1.9 billion at December 31, 2010 due to improvements in both the unsecured consumer lending and dealer financial services portfolios.

89


Table of Contents

     Table 41 presents certain state concentrations for the direct/indirect consumer loan portfolio.
Table 41
Direct/Indirect State Concentrations

 
                                 
  Outstandings  Accruing Past Due 90
Days or More
  Net Charge-offs 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
California
 $11,149  $10,558  $96  $132  $54  $154  $136  $361 
Texas
  7,876   7,885   57   78   25   67   70   155 
Florida
  7,045   6,725   58   80   30   90   84   208 
New York
  5,148   4,770   44   56   22   49   49   106 
Georgia
  2,802   2,814   39   44   14   33   35   75 
Other U.S./Non-U.S.
  56,238   57,556   516   668   221   486   517   1,083 
 
Total direct/indirect loan portfolio
 $90,258  $90,308  $810  $1,058  $366  $879  $891  $1,988 
 
Other Consumer
     At June 30, 2011, approximately 65 percent of the $2.8 billion other consumer portfolio was associated with portfolios from certain consumer finance businesses that we previously exited and is included in All Other. The remainder consisted of the non-U.S. consumer loan portfolio, most of which we previously exited and is largely in Global Card Services and deposit overdrafts inDeposits.
Consumer Loans Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option
     Outstanding consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option were $5.2 billion at June 30, 2011 and represent $4.0 billion of discontinued real estate loans and $1.2 billion of residential mortgage loans consolidated in connection with the Assured Guaranty Settlement in the second quarter of 2011. For more information on the Assured Guaranty Settlement, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51. This portfolio is managed as part of our Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio and is included in CRES. We recorded net losses of $100 million resulting from changes in the fair value of the loan portfolio during the three months ended June 30, 2011. These amounts were primarily attributable to changes in instrument-specific credit risk and were recorded in other income and offset by gains recorded on the related debt.
Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity
     Table 42 presents nonperforming consumer loans and foreclosed properties activity for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Nonperforming LHFS are excluded from nonperforming loans as they are recorded at either fair value or the lower of cost or fair value. Nonperforming loans do not include past due consumer credit card loans and in general, past due consumer loans not secured by real estate as these loans are generally charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due. The fully-insured loan portfolio is not reported as nonperforming as principal repayment is insured. Additionally, nonperforming loans do not include the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio or loans which we account for under the fair value option. For further information on nonperforming loans, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Nonperforming loans declined $978 million and $1.4 billion during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. Delinquency inflows to nonaccrual loans, which slowed due to favorable portfolio trends, were more than offset by charge-offs, nonperforming loans returning to performing status, and paydowns and payoffs.
     The outstanding balance of a real estate-secured loan that is in excess of the estimated property value, after reducing the estimated property value for estimated costs to sell, is charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due unless repayment of the loan is fully insured. At June 30, 2011, $15.1 billion, or 71 percent, of the nonperforming consumer real estate loans and foreclosed properties had been written down to their estimated property value less estimated costs to sell, including $13.3 billion of nonperforming loans 180 days or more past due and $1.8 billion of foreclosed properties.
     Foreclosed properties increased $466 million and $548 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 due in part to $158 million of foreclosed properties consolidated in connection with the Assured Guaranty Settlement in the second quarter of 2011. For more information on the Assured Guaranty Settlement, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51. PCI loans are excluded from nonperforming loans as these loans were written down to fair value at the acquisition date. However, once the underlying real estate is acquired by the Corporation upon foreclosure of the delinquent PCI loan, it is included in foreclosed properties. Net changes to foreclosed properties related to PCI loans were an increase of $159 million and $250 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $272 million and $355 million for

90


Table of Contents

the same periods in 2010. Not included in foreclosed properties at June 30, 2011 was $1.4 billion of real estate that we acquired upon foreclosure of delinquent FHA-insured loans. We hold this real estate on our balance sheet until we convey these properties to the FHA. We exclude these amounts from our nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties activity as we will be reimbursed once the property is conveyed to the FHA for principal and, up to certain limits, costs incurred during the foreclosure process and interest incurred during the holding period. Foreclosures were temporarily halted in October 2010 as we began a review of our foreclosure processes. We have resumed foreclosure sales in all non-judicial states; however, while we have recently resumed foreclosure proceedings in nearly all judicial states, our progress on foreclosure sales in judicial states has been significantly slower than in non-judicial states. We have also not yet resumed foreclosure sales for certain types of customers, including those in bankruptcy and those with FHA-insured loans, although we have resumed foreclosure proceedings with respect to these types of customers. The implementation of changes in procedures and controls, including loss mitigation procedures related to our ability to recover on FHA insurance-related claims, as well as governmental, regulatory and judicial actions, may result in continuing delays in foreclosure proceedings and foreclosure sales, as well as creating obstacles to the collection of certain fees and expenses, in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. For more information on the review of our foreclosure processes, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Other Mortgage-related Matters on page 60.
Restructured Loans
     Nonperforming loans also include certain loans that have been modified in TDRs where economic concessions have been granted to borrowers experiencing financial difficulties. These concessions typically result from the Corporation’s loss mitigation activities and could include reductions in the interest rate, payment extensions, forgiveness of principal, forbearance or other actions. Certain TDRs are classified as nonperforming at the time of restructuring and may only be returned to performing status after considering the borrower’s sustained repayment performance under revised payment terms for a reasonable period, generally six months. Nonperforming TDRs, excluding those modified loans in the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, are included in Table 42.
     As a result of accounting guidance on PCI loans, beginning January 1, 2010, modifications of loans in the PCI loan portfolio do not result in removal of the loan from the PCI loan pool. TDRs in the consumer real estate portfolio that were removed from the PCI loan portfolio prior to the adoption of this accounting guidance were $2.0 billion and $2.1 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, of which $465 million and $426 million were nonperforming. These nonperforming loans are excluded from Table 42.

91


Table of Contents

     Nonperforming consumer real estate TDRs, included in Table 42, as a percentage of total nonperforming consumer loans and foreclosed properties, increased to 20 percent at June 30, 2011 from 16 percent at December 31, 2010.
Table 42
Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity
(1)
 
                 
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30  June 30
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Nonperforming loans
                
Balance, beginning of period
 $20,456  $21,557  $20,854  $20,839 
 
Additions to nonperforming loans:
                
New nonaccrual loans (2)
  4,044   5,409   8,171   12,465 
Reductions in nonperforming loans:
                
Paydowns and payoffs
  (1,003)  (528)  (1,782)  (1,153)
Returns to performing status (3)
  (1,311)  (1,816)  (2,651)  (4,337)
Charge-offs (4)
  (2,300)  (2,607)  (4,320)  (5,524)
Transfers to foreclosed properties
  (408)  (331)  (794)  (606)
 
Total net additions (reductions) to nonperforming loans
  (978)  127   (1,376)  845 
 
Total nonperforming loans, end of period (5)
  19,478   21,684   19,478   21,684 
 
Foreclosed properties
                
Balance, beginning of period
  1,331   1,388   1,249   1,428 
 
Additions to foreclosed properties:
                
New foreclosed properties (6)
  930   847   1,536   1,396 
Reductions in foreclosed properties:
                
Sales
  (416)  (453)  (875)  (996)
Write-downs
  (48)  (38)  (113)  (84)
 
Total net additions to foreclosed properties
  466   356   548   316 
 
Total foreclosed properties, end of period
  1,797   1,744   1,797   1,744 
 
Nonperforming consumer loans and foreclosed properties, end of period
 $21,275  $23,428  $21,275  $23,428 
 
Nonperforming consumer loans as a percentage of outstanding consumer loans (7)
  3.08%  3.34%        
Nonperforming consumer loans and foreclosed properties as a percentage of outstanding consumer loans and foreclosed properties (7)
  3.35   3.60         
 
(1) 
Balances do not include nonperforming LHFS of $835 million and $1.3 billion at June 30, 2011 and 2010.
 
(2) 
The six months ended June 30, 2010 includes $448 million of nonperforming loans as a result of the consolidation of variable interest entities.
 
(3) 
Consumer loans may be returned to performing status when all principal and interest is current and full repayment of the remaining contractual principal and interest is expected, or when the loan otherwise becomes well-secured and is in the process of collection. Certain TDRs are classified as nonperforming at the time of restructure and may only be returned to performing status after considering the borrower’s sustained repayment performance for a reasonable period, generally six months.
 
(4) 
Our policy is not to classify consumer credit card and consumer loans not secured by real estate as nonperforming; therefore, the charge-offs on these loans have no impact on nonperforming activity and accordingly are excluded from this table.
 
(5) 
At June 30, 2011, 68 percent of nonperforming loans 180 days or more past due and were written down through charge-offs to 67 percent of the unpaid principal balance.
 
(6) 
Our policy is to record any losses in the value of foreclosed properties as a reduction in the allowance for loan and lease losses during the first 90 days after transfer of a loan into foreclosed properties. Thereafter, all gains and losses in value are recorded in noninterest expense. New foreclosed properties in the table above are net of $99 million and $187 million of charge-offs for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, recorded during the first 90 days after transfer. For the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, new foreclosed properties in the table above are net of $160 million and $396 million of charge-offs, recorded during the first 90 days after transfer.
 
(7) 
Outstanding consumer loans exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option.
     Table 43 presents TDRs for the home loans portfolio. Performing TDR balances are excluded from nonperforming loans in Table 42.
Table 43
Home Loans Troubled Debt Restructurings

 
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010
(Dollars in millions)
 Total  Nonperforming  Performing  Total  Nonperforming  Performing 
 
Residential mortgage (1, 2)
 $15,771  $3,949  $11,822  $11,788  $3,297  $8,491 
Home equity (3)
  1,815   473   1,342   1,721   541   1,180 
Discontinued real estate (4)
  397   206   191   395   206   189 
 
Total home loans troubled debt restructurings
 $17,983  $4,628  $13,355  $13,904  $4,044  $9,860 
 
(1) 
Residential mortgage TDRs deemed collateral dependent totaled $3.9 billion and $3.2 billion, and included $1.3 billion and $921 million of loans classified as nonperforming and $2.6 billion and $2.3 billion of loans classified as performing at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(2) 
Residential mortgage performing TDRs included $5.1 billion and $2.5 billion of loans that were fully-insured at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(3) 
Home equity TDRs deemed collateral dependent totaled $787 million and $796 million, and included $216 million and $245 million of loans classified as nonperforming and $571 million and $551 million of loans classified as performing at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(4) 
Discontinued real estate TDRs deemed collateral dependent totaled $227 million and $213 million, and included $110 million and $97 million of loans classified as nonperforming and $117 million and $116 million as performing at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

92


Table of Contents

     We also work with customers that are experiencing financial difficulty by renegotiating credit card, consumer lending and small business loans (the renegotiated TDR portfolio), while complying with Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) guidelines. Substantially all renegotiated portfolio modifications are considered to be TDRs. The renegotiated TDR portfolio may include modifications, both short- and long-term, of interest rates or payment amounts or a combination of interest rates and payment amounts. We make modifications primarily through internal renegotiation programs utilizing direct customer contact, but may also utilize external renegotiation programs. The renegotiated TDR portfolio is excluded from Table 42 as we do not generally classify consumer non-real estate loans as nonperforming. At June 30, 2011, our renegotiated TDR portfolio was $9.8 billion, of which $7.6 billion was current or less than 30 days past due under the modified terms compared to $12.1 billion at December 31, 2010, of which $9.2 billion was current or less than 30 days past due under the modified terms. The decline in the renegotiated TDR portfolio was primarily driven by lower new program enrollments as well as attrition throughout the first half of 2011. For more information on the renegotiated TDR portfolio, see Note 6 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Commercial Portfolio Credit Risk Management
     Commercial credit risk is evaluated and managed with the goal that concentrations of credit exposure do not result in undesirable levels of risk. We review, measure and manage concentrations of credit exposure by industry, product, geography, customer relationship and loan size. We also review, measure and manage commercial real estate loans by geographic location and property type. In addition, within our international portfolio, we evaluate exposures by region and by country. Tables 48, 53, 57 and 58 summarize our concentrations. We also utilize syndications of exposure to third parties, loan sales, hedging and other risk mitigation techniques to manage the size and risk profile of the commercial credit portfolio.
     For information on our accounting policies regarding delinquencies, nonperforming status and net charge-offs for the commercial portfolio, see Commercial Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 83 in the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K andNote 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Commercial Credit Portfolio
     During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, commercial loans continued to show stabilization relative to prior periods. Regional economic conditions, client demand and enterprise-wide initiatives drove non-U.S. commercial loan growth in both loans and trade finance. Commercial real estate loans declined in the second quarter of 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 as net paydowns outpaced new originations and renewals, as well as charge-offs, particularly in higher risk portfolios. U.S. commercial loans, excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option, increased $1.1 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 due to continued growth across the portfolio, net of securities-based lending loans that were transferred to the consumer portfolio in the first quarter of 2011.
     Reservable criticized balances, net charge-offs and nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed property balances in the commercial credit portfolio declined during the second quarter of 2011 compared to December 31, 2010. Commercial real estate continued to show signs of stabilization during the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 in both the homebuilder and non-homebuilder portfolios. However, levels of stressed commercial real estate loans remain elevated. The reductions in reservable criticized and non-performing loans, leases and foreclosed property were primarily in the commercial real estate and U.S. commercial portfolios. The reduction in U.S. commercial was driven by broad-based improvements in terms of clients, industries and lines of business. Most other credit indicators across the remaining commercial portfolios have also improved.

93


Table of Contents

     Table 44 presents our commercial loans and leases, and related credit quality information at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
Table 44
Commercial Loans and Leases

 
                         
                  Accruing Past Due 90 
  Outstandings  Nonperforming  Days or More
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
U.S. commercial
 $176,677  $175,586  $2,767  $3,453  $83  $236 
Commercial real estate (1)
  44,028   49,393   5,051   5,829   45   47 
Commercial lease financing
  21,391   21,942   23   117   22   18 
Non-U.S. commercial
  42,929   32,029   108   233   3   6 
 
 
  285,025   278,950   7,949   9,632   153   307 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
  13,929   14,719   156   204   257   325 
 
Commercial loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option
  298,954   293,669   8,105   9,836   410   632 
Loans accounted for under the fair value option (3)
  4,403   3,321   126   30   -   - 
 
Total commercial loans and leases
 $303,357  $296,990  $8,231  $9,866  $410  $632 
 
(1) 
Includes U.S. commercial real estate loans of $41.7 billion and $46.9 billion and non-U.S. commercial real estate loans of $2.3 billion and $2.5 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(2) 
Includes card-related products.
 
(3) 
Commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option include U.S. commercial loans of $1.6 billion at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, non-U.S. commercial loans of $2.8 billion and $1.7 billion and commercial real estate loans of $11 million and $79 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. See Note 17 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option.
     Nonperforming commercial loans and leases as a percentage of outstanding commercial loans and leases were 2.71 percent and 3.32 percent (2.71 percent and 3.35 percent excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option) at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Accruing commercial loans and leases past due 90 days or more as a percentage of outstanding commercial loans and leases were 0.14 percent and 0.21 percent (0.14 percent and 0.22 percent excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option) at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
     Table 45 presents net charge-offs and related ratios for our commercial loans and leases for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Commercial real estate net charge-offs during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 declined in both the homebuilder and non-homebuilder portfolios.
Table 45
Commercial Net Charge-offs and Related Ratios

 
                                 
  Net Charge-offs  Net Charge-off Ratios (1) 
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30  June 30  June 30  June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
U.S. commercial
 $60  $179  $39  $465   0.14%  0.41%  0.05%  0.52%
Commercial real estate
  163   645   451   1,260   1.43   4.03   1.93   3.83 
Commercial lease financing
  (8)  (3)  (7)  18   (0.15)  (0.06)  (0.06)  0.17 
Non-U.S. commercial
  13   66   116   91   0.13   0.98   0.64   0.68 
  
 
  228   887   599   1,834   0.32   1.23   0.43   1.26 
U.S. small business commercial
  275   528   587   1,130   7.78   12.94   8.24   13.59 
  
Total commercial
 $503  $1,415  $1,186  $2,964   0.68   1.86   0.81   1.92 
 
(1) 
Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans and leases excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option.
     Table 46 presents commercial credit exposure by type for utilized, unfunded and total binding committed credit exposure. Commercial utilized credit exposure includes SBLCs, financial guarantees, bankers’ acceptances and commercial letters of credit for which the Corporation is legally bound to advance funds under prescribed conditions, during a specified period. Although funds have not yet been advanced, these exposure types are considered utilized for credit risk management purposes. Total commercial committed credit exposure decreased $10.3 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 driven primarily by reductions in derivative assets, LHFS, debt securities and SBLCs, partially offset by an increase in loans and leases.
     Total commercial utilized credit exposure decreased $13.7 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010. Utilized loans and leases increased as growth in our international franchise was partially offset by run-off in the commercial real estate portfolio and the transfer of securities-based lending exposures from our U.S. commercial portfolio to the consumer portfolio in the first quarter of 2011. The utilization rate for loans and leases, letters of credit and financial guarantees, and bankers’ acceptances was 57 percent at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

94


Table of Contents

Table 46
Commercial Credit Exposure by Type

 
                         
  Commercial Utilized (1)  Commercial Unfunded (2, 3)  Total Commercial Committed 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Loans and leases
 $303,357  $296,990  $273,554  $272,172  $576,911  $569,162 
Derivative assets (4)
  66,598   73,000   -   -   66,598   73,000 
Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees (5)
  58,951   62,745   2,624   1,511   61,575   64,256 
Debt securities and other investments(6)
  6,619   10,216   5,053   4,546   11,672   14,762 
Loans held-for-sale
  6,186   10,380   94   242   6,280   10,622 
Commercial letters of credit
  2,820   2,654   1,693   1,179   4,513   3,833 
Bankers’ acceptances
  1,481   3,706   31   23   1,512   3,729 
Foreclosed properties and other
  709   731   -   -   709   731 
 
Total commercial credit exposure
 $446,721  $460,422  $283,049  $279,673  $729,770  $740,095 
 
(1) 
Total commercial utilized exposure at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 includes loans and issued letters of credit accounted for under the fair value option including loans outstanding of $4.4 billion and $3.3 billion and letters of credit with a notional value of $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion.
 
(2) 
Total commercial unfunded exposure at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 includes loan commitments accounted for under the fair value option with a notional value of $26.8 billion and $25.9 billion.
 
(3) 
Excludes unused business card lines which are not legally binding.
 
(4) 
Derivative assets are accounted for under the fair value option, reflect the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements and have been reduced by cash collateral of $58.8 billion and $58.3 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Not reflected in utilized and committed exposure is additional derivative collateral held of $15.7 billion and $17.7 billion which consists primarily of other marketable securities.
 
(5) 
Excludes $362 million of Other Letters of Credit at June 30, 2011.
 
(6) 
Total commercial committed exposure consists of $11.7 billion and $14.2 billion of debt securities and $0 and $590 million of other investments at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
     Table 47 presents commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure by product type. Criticized exposure corresponds to the Special Mention, Substandard and Doubtful asset categories as defined by regulatory authorities. In addition to reservable loans and leases, excluding those accounted for under the fair value option, exposure includes SBLCs, financial guarantees, bankers’ acceptances and commercial letters of credit for which we are legally bound to advance funds under prescribed conditions, during a specified time period. Total commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure decreased $7.5 billion, or 18 percent, at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010, due to decreases across all portfolios, primarily commercial real estate and U.S. commercial driven largely by continued paydowns and payoffs, charge-offs and ratings upgrades outpacing downgrades. Despite the improvements, utilized reservable criticized levels remain elevated, particularly in commercial real estate and U.S. small business commercial. At June 30, 2011, approximately 87 percent of commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure was secured compared to 88 percent at December 31, 2010.
Table 47
Commercial Utilized Reservable Criticized Exposure

 
                 
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
(Dollars in millions)
 Amount  Percent (1)  Amount  Percent (1) 
 
U.S. commercial
 $13,895   6.08%    $   17,195   7.44%     
Commercial real estate
  16,781   35.58   20,518   38.88 
Commercial lease financing
  1,001   4.68   1,188   5.41 
Non-U.S. commercial
  1,934   3.87   2,043   5.01 
    
 
  33,611   9.69   40,944   11.81 
U.S. small business commercial
  1,499   10.75   1,677   11.37 
    
Total commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure
 $35,110   9.73     $   42,621   11.80 
 
(1) 
Percentages are calculated as commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure divided by total commercial utilized reservable exposure for each exposure category.
U.S. Commercial
     At June 30, 2011, 57 percent of the U.S. commercial loan portfolio, excluding small business, was managed in Global Commercial Banking and 26 percent in GBAM. The remaining 17 percent was mostly in GWIM (business-purpose loans for wealthy clients). U.S. commercial loans, excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option, increased $1.1 billion due to continued growth across the portfolio compared to December 31, 2010, net of securities-based lending loans that were transferred to the consumer portfolio in the first quarter of 2011. Compared to December 31, 2010, reservable criticized balances and nonperforming loans and leases declined $3.3 billion and $686 million. The declines were broad-based in terms of clients and industries and were driven by improved client credit profiles and liquidity. Net charge-offs decreased $119 million and $426 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010.

95


Table of Contents

Commercial Real Estate
     The commercial real estate portfolio is predominantly managed in Global Commercial Bankingand consists of loans made primarily to public and private developers, homebuilders and commercial real estate firms. Outstanding loans decreased $5.4 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 due to paydowns, which outpaced new originations and renewals. The portfolio remains diversified across property types and geographic regions. California represents the largest state concentration at 19 percent of commercial real estate loans and leases at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. For more information on geographic and property concentrations, refer to Table 48.
     Credit quality for commercial real estate is showing signs of stabilization; however, we expect that elevated unemployment and ongoing pressure on vacancy and rental rates will continue to affect primarily the non-homebuilder portfolio. Nonperforming commercial real estate loans and foreclosed properties decreased 13 percent compared to December 31, 2010, split evenly across the homebuilder and non-homebuilder portfolios. The decline in nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties in the non-homebuilder portfolio was driven by decreases in the land and land development and office property types. Reservable criticized balances declined by $3.7 billion primarily due to declines in the shopping centers/retail, office and multi-family rental segments in the non-homebuilder portfolio and stabilization in the homebuilder portfolio. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, net charge-offs decreased $482 million and $809 million compared to the same periods in 2010 due to improvement in both the homebuilder and non-homebuilder portfolio.
     Table 48 presents outstanding commercial real estate loans by geographic region which is based on the geographic location of the collateral and property type. Commercial real estate primarily includes commercial loans and leases secured by non-owner-occupied real estate which is dependent on the sale or lease of the real estate as the primary source of repayment.
Table 48
Outstanding Commercial Real Estate Loans

 
         
  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010 
 
By Geographic Region
        
California
 $8,287  $9,012 
Northeast
  6,714   7,639 
Southwest
  5,520   6,169 
Southeast
  5,343   5,806 
Midwest
  4,745   5,301 
Florida
  3,085   3,649 
Midsouth
  2,283   2,627 
Illinois
  2,272   2,811 
Northwest
  2,004   2,243 
Non-U.S.
  2,326   2,515 
Other (1)
  1,460   1,701 
 
Total outstanding commercial real estate loans (2)
 $44,039  $49,473 
 
By Property Type
        
Office
 $8,550  $9,688 
Multi-family rental
  6,695   7,721 
Shopping centers/retail
  6,495   7,484 
Industrial/warehouse
  4,597   5,039 
Multi-use
  3,913   4,266 
Homebuilder (3)
  3,202   4,299 
Hotels/motels
  2,620   2,650 
Land and land development
  2,052   2,376 
Other (4)
  5,915   5,950 
 
Total outstanding commercial real estate loans (2)
 $44,039  $49,473 
 
(1) 
Includes unsecured outstandings to real estate investment trusts and national home builders whose portfolios of properties span multiple geographic regions and properties in the states of Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Wyoming and Montana.
 
(2) 
Includes commercial real estate loans accounted for under the fair value option of $11 million and $79 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(3) 
Homebuilder includes condominiums and residential land.
 
(4) 
Represents loans to borrowers whose primary business is commercial real estate, but the exposure is not secured by the listed property types or is unsecured.
     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we continued to see stabilization in the homebuilder portfolio. Certain portions of the non-homebuilder portfolio remain at risk as occupancy rates, rental rates and commercial property prices remain under pressure. We have adopted a number of proactive risk mitigation initiatives to reduce utilized and potential exposure in the commercial real estate portfolios including refinement of our credit standards, additional transfers of deteriorating exposures to management by independent special asset officers and the pursuit of alternative resolution methods to achieve best results for our customers and the Corporation.

96


Table of Contents

     Tables 49 and 50 present commercial real estate credit quality data by non-homebuilder and homebuilder property types. The homebuilder portfolio includes condominiums and other residential real estate. Other property types represent loans to borrowers whose primary business is commercial real estate, but the exposure is secured by another property or is unsecured.
Table 49
Commercial Real Estate Credit Quality Data

 
                 
  Nonperforming Loans and  Utilized Reservable 
  Foreclosed Properties (1)  Criticized Exposure (2)
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Commercial real estate – non-homebuilder
                
Office
 $957  $1,061  $3,350  $3,956 
Multi-family rental
  505   500   2,360   2,940 
Shopping centers/retail
  919   1,000   2,111   2,837 
Industrial/warehouse
  461   420   1,885   1,878 
Multi-use
  431   483   1,185   1,316 
Hotels/motels
  168   139   1,189   1,191 
Land and land development
  590   820   1,060   1,420 
Other
  179   168   1,386   1,604 
 
Total non-homebuilder
  4,210   4,591   14,526   17,142 
Commercial real estate – homebuilder
  1,520   1,963   2,255   3,376 
 
Total commercial real estate
 $5,730  $6,554  $16,781  $20,518 
 
(1) 
Includes commercial foreclosed properties of $678 million and $725 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(2) 
Includes loans, excluding those accounted for under the fair value option, SBLCs and bankers’ acceptances.
Table 50
Commercial Real Estate Net Charge-offs and Related Ratios

 
                                 
  Net Charge-offs  Net Charge-off Ratios (1) 
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30  June 30  June 30  June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Commercial real estate non-homebuilder
                                
Office
 $(10) $130  $24  $193   (0.46)%  4.53%  0.54%  3.28%
Multi-family rental
  20   52   29   87   1.14   1.92   0.80   1.60 
Shopping centers/retail
  22   78   110   165   1.25   3.30   3.09   3.46 
Industrial/warehouse
  6   16   26   40   0.49   1.08   1.10   1.39 
Multi-use
  13   51   22   88   1.29   3.93   1.10   3.27 
Hotels/motels
  3   11   11   24   0.48   1.03   0.86   0.84 
Land and land development
  42   70   92   173   7.85   9.27   8.35   11.24 
Other
  (4)  59   (2)  151   (0.23)  3.02   (0.11)  4.12 
                 
Total non-homebuilder
  92   467   312   921   0.87   3.23   1.45   3.10 
Commercial real estate – homebuilder
  71   178   139   339   8.30   11.78   7.57   10.60 
                 
Total commercial real estate
 $163  $645  $451  $1,260   1.43   4.03   1.93   3.83 
 
(1) 
Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option.
     At June 30, 2011, total committed non-homebuilder exposure was $58.5 billion compared to $64.2 billion at December 31, 2010, with the decrease due to exposure reductions in almost all non-homebuilder property types. Non-homebuilder nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties were $4.2 billion and $4.6 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, which represented 10.20 percent and 10.08 percent of total non-homebuilder loans and foreclosed properties. Non-homebuilder utilized reservable criticized exposure decreased to $14.5 billion, or 33.20 percent, at June 30, 2011 compared to $17.1 billion, or 35.55 percent, at December 31, 2010. The decrease in reservable criticized exposure was driven primarily by shopping centers/retail, office and multi-family rental properties. For the non-homebuilder portfolio, net charge-offs decreased $375 million and $609 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010, due in part to net recoveries of $10 million and $4 million in the office and other properties.
     At June 30, 2011, we had committed homebuilder exposure of $4.6 billion compared to $6.0 billion at December 31, 2010, of which $3.2 billion and $4.3 billion were funded secured loans. The decline in homebuilder committed exposure was due to repayments, net charge-offs, reductions in new home construction and continued risk mitigation initiatives. At June 30, 2011, homebuilder nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties declined $443 million compared to December 31, 2010 due to repayments, a decline in the volume of loans being downgraded to nonaccrual status and net charge-offs. Homebuilder utilized reservable criticized exposure decreased by $1.1 billion to $2.3 billion due to repayments and net charge-offs. The nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties and the utilized reservable criticized ratios for the

97


Table of Contents

homebuilder portfolio were 44.15 percent and 66.13 percent at June 30, 2011 compared to 42.80 percent and 74.27 percent at December 31, 2010. Net charge-offs for the homebuilder portfolio decreased $107 million and $200 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010.
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the commercial real estate loan portfolio included $15.2 billion and $19.1 billion of funded construction and land development loans that were originated to fund the construction and/or rehabilitation of commercial properties. This portfolio is mostly secured and diversified across property types and geographic regions but faces continuing challenges in the housing and rental markets. Weak rental demand and cash flows along with depressed property valuations have resulted in elevated levels of reservable criticized exposure, nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties and net charge-offs. Reservable criticized construction and land development loans totaled $8.2 billion and $10.5 billion, and nonperforming construction and land development loans and foreclosed properties totaled $3.2 billion and $4.0 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. During a property’s construction phase, interest income is typically paid from interest reserves that are established at the inception of the loan. As construction is completed and the property is put into service, these interest reserves are depleted and interest payments from operating cash flows begin. Loans continue to be classified as construction loans until they are refinanced. We do not recognize interest income on nonperforming loans regardless of the existence of an interest reserve.
Non-U.S. Commercial
     The non-U.S. commercial loan portfolio is managed primarily in GBAM. Outstanding loans, excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option, increased $10.9 billion from December 31, 2010 primarily due to regional economic conditions and client demand driving growth in both loans and trade finance, with the growth centered in Asia and Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). Net charge-offs decreased $53 million and increased $25 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010 due primarily to certain credits related to Merrill Lynch. For additional information on the non-U.S. commercial portfolio, refer to Non-U.S. Portfolio on page 103.
U.S. Small Business Commercial
     The U.S. small business commercial loan portfolio is comprised of business card and small business loans managed in Global Card Services and Global Commercial Banking. U.S. small business commercial net charge-offs decreased $253 million and $543 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010 driven by improvements in delinquency, collections, and bankruptcies resulting from an improved economic environment as well as the reduction of higher risk vintages and the impact of higher credit quality originations. Of the U.S. small business commercial net charge-offs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, 73 percent and 74 percent were credit card-related products compared to 79 percent for both of the same periods in 2010.
Commercial Loans Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option
     The portfolio of commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option is managed primarily in GBAM. Outstanding commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option increased $1.1 billion to an aggregate fair value of $4.4 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 due primarily to increased corporate borrowings under bank credit facilities. We recorded net gains of $50 million and $222 million resulting from new originations, loans being paid off at par value and changes in the fair value of the loan portfolio during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to net losses of $256 million and $140 million for the same periods in 2010. These amounts were primarily attributable to changes in instrument-specific credit risk and were recorded in other income.
     In addition, unfunded lending commitments and letters of credit had an aggregate fair value of $773 million and $866 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and were recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities. The associated aggregate notional amount of unfunded lending commitments and letters of credit accounted for under the fair value option were $28.0 billion and $27.3 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Net gains (losses) resulting from new originations, terminations and changes in the fair value of commitments and letters of credit of $(151) million and $0 were recorded during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to net gains (losses) of $(11) million and $60 million for the same periods in 2010. These amounts were primarily attributable to changes in instrument-specific credit risk and were recorded in other income.
Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity
     Table 51 presents the nonperforming commercial loans, leases and foreclosed properties activity during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Nonperforming loans and leases decreased $1.0 billion and $1.7 billion during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 to $8.1 billion compared to $9.8 billion at December 31, 2010 driven by

98


Table of Contents

paydowns, payoffs and charge-offs. Approximately 96 percent of commercial nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties are secured and approximately 51 percent are contractually current. In addition, commercial nonperforming loans are carried at approximately 72 percent of their unpaid principal balance before consideration of the allowance for loan and lease losses as the carrying value of these loans has been reduced to the estimated property value less estimated costs to sell.
Table 51
Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity
(1, 2)
 
                 
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30  June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Nonperforming loans and leases, beginning of period
 $9,131  $12,060  $9,836  $12,703 
 
Additions to nonperforming loans and leases:
                
New nonaccrual loans and leases
  1,042   2,256   2,341   4,137 
Advances
  52   62   119   145 
Reductions in nonperforming loans and leases:
                
Paydowns and payoffs
  (1,023)  (1,148)  (1,787)  (1,919)
Sales
  (141)  (256)  (388)  (426)
Returns to performing status (3)
  (362)  (404)  (682)  (727)
Charge-offs (4)
  (290)  (870)  (778)  (1,826)
Transfers to foreclosed properties
  (241)  (205)  (441)  (524)
Transfers to loans held-for-sale
  (63)  (82)  (115)  (150)
 
Total net reductions to nonperforming loans and leases
  (1,026)  (647)  (1,731)  (1,290)
 
Total nonperforming loans and leases, June 30
  8,105   11,413   8,105   11,413 
 
Foreclosed properties, beginning of period
  725   920   725   777 
 
Additions to foreclosed properties:
                
New foreclosed properties
  130   119   261   379 
Reductions in foreclosed properties:
                
Sales
  (151)  (253)  (271)  (346)
Write-downs
  (26)  (29)  (37)  (53)
 
Total net additions to foreclosed properties
  (47)  (163)  (47)  (20)
 
Total foreclosed properties, June 30
  678   757   678   757 
 
Nonperforming commercial loans, leases and foreclosed properties, June 30
 $8,783  $12,170  $8,783  $12,170 
 
Nonperforming commercial loans and leases as a percentage of outstanding commercial loans and leases (5)
  2.71%  3.77%        
Nonperforming commercial loans, leases and foreclosed properties as a percentage of outstanding commercial loans, leases and foreclosed properties (5)
  2.93   4.01         
 
(1) 
Balances do not include nonperforming LHFS of $1.3 billion and $2.7 billion at June 30, 2011 and 2010.
 
(2) 
Includes U.S. small business commercial activity.
 
(3) 
Commercial loans and leases may be returned to performing status when all principal and interest is current and full repayment of the remaining contractual principal and interest is expected or when the loan otherwise becomes well-secured and is in the process of collection. TDRs are generally classified as performing after a sustained period of demonstrated payment performance.
 
(4) 
Business card loans are not classified as nonperforming; therefore, the charge-offs on these loans have no impact on nonperforming activity and accordingly are excluded from this table.
 
(5) 
Outstanding commercial loans and leases exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option.
     Table 52 presents commercial TDRs by product type and status. U.S. small business commercial TDRs are comprised of renegotiated business card loans and are not classified as nonperforming as they are charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due.
Table 52
Commercial Troubled Debt Restructurings

 
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010
(Dollars in millions)
 Total  Nonperforming  Performing  Total  Nonperforming  Performing 
 
U.S. commercial
 $532  $348  $184  $356  $175  $181 
Commercial real estate
  1,027   868   159   815   770   45 
Non-U.S. commercial
  88   40   48   19   7   12 
U.S. small business commercial
  521   -   521   688   -   688 
 
Total commercial troubled debt restructurings
 $2,168  $1,256  $912  $1,878  $952  $926 
 
Industry Concentrations
     Table 53 on page 101 presents commercial committed and utilized credit exposure by industry and the total net credit default protection purchased to cover the funded and unfunded portions of certain credit exposures. Our commercial credit exposure is diversified across a broad range of industries. The decline in commercial committed exposure of $10.3 billion from December 31, 2010 to June 30, 2011, was broad-based across most industries.

99


Table of Contents

     Industry limits are used internally to manage industry concentrations and are based on committed exposures and capital usage that are allocated on an industry-by-industry basis. A risk management framework is in place to set and approve industry limits, as well as to provide ongoing monitoring. Management’s Credit Risk Committee (CRC) oversees industry limit governance.
     Diversified financials, our largest industry concentration, experienced a decrease in committed exposure of $4.2 billion, or five percent, at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010. This decrease was driven primarily by reduced exposures in consumer finance along with asset managers, regulated funds and broker/dealers.
     Real estate, our second largest industry concentration, experienced a decrease in committed exposure of $4.9 billion, or seven percent, at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 due primarily to net paydowns which outpaced new originations and renewals, as well as charge-offs. Real estate construction and land development exposure represented 24 percent of the total real estate industry committed exposure at June 30, 2011, down from 27 percent at December 31, 2010. For more information on the commercial real estate and related portfolios, refer to Commercial Real Estate on page 96.
     Committed exposure in the banking industry increased $5.8 billion, or 20 percent, at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 which was primarily due to increases in international loan exposure as a result of momentum from regional economies and growth initiatives in foreign markets. The increase in committed exposure in the energy industry of $3.5 billion, or 13 percent, at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 was primarily due to growth in foreign loan exposure. Other committed exposure decreased $9.9 billion, or 58 percent, at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 due to reductions primarily in traded products exposure.
     The Corporation’s committed state and municipal exposure of $46.3 billion at June 30, 2011 consisted of $33.8 billion of commercial utilized exposure (including $18.8 billion of funded loans, $12.6 billion of SBLCs and $2.4 billion of derivative assets), and unutilized commercial exposure of $12.5 billion (primarily unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit) and is reported in the government and public education industry presented in Table 53. Economic conditions continue to impact debt issued by state and local municipalities and certain exposures to these municipalities. While historically default rates were low, stress on the municipalities’ financials due to the economic downturn has increased the potential for defaults in the near term. As part of our overall and ongoing risk management processes, we continually monitor these exposures through a rigorous review process. Additionally, internal communications surrounding certain at-risk counterparties and/or sectors are regularly circulated ensuring exposure levels are in compliance with established concentration guidelines.
Monoline and Related Exposure
     Monoline exposure is reported in the insurance industry and managed under insurance portfolio industry limits. Direct loan exposure to monolines consisted of revolvers in the amount of $51 million at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
     We have indirect exposure to monolines primarily in the form of guarantees supporting our loans, investment portfolios, securitizations and credit-enhanced securities as part of our public finance business and other selected products. Such indirect exposure exists when we purchase credit protection from monolines to hedge all or a portion of the credit risk on certain credit exposures including loans and CDOs. We underwrite our public finance exposure by evaluating the underlying securities.
     We also have indirect exposure to monolines, primarily in the form of guarantees supporting our mortgage and other loan sales. Indirect exposure may exist when credit protection was purchased from monolines to hedge all or a portion of the credit risk on certain mortgage and other loan exposures. A loss may occur when we are required to repurchase a loan and the market value of the loan has declined or we are required to indemnify or provide recourse for a guarantor’s loss. For additional information regarding our exposure to representations and warranties, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51, and Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
     Monoline derivative credit exposure at June 30, 2011 had a notional value of $35.6 billion compared to $38.4 billion at December 31, 2010. Mark-to-market monoline derivative credit exposure was $8.7 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $9.2 billion at December 31, 2010 with the decrease driven by positive valuation adjustments on legacy assets and terminated monoline contracts. The counterparty credit valuation adjustment related to monoline derivative exposure was $5.7 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $5.3 billion December 31, 2010. This adjustment reduced our net mark-to-market exposure to $3.1 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $3.9 billion at December 31, 2010 and covered 65 percent of the mark-to-market exposure at June 30, 2011, up from 57 percent at December 31, 2010. At June 30, 2011, approximately

100


Table of Contents

52 percent of this exposure was related to one monoline compared to approximately 62 percent at December 31, 2010. We do not hold collateral against these derivative exposures. For more information on our monoline exposure, see GBAM on page 42.
     We also have indirect exposure to monolines as we invest in securities where the issuers have purchased wraps (i.e., insurance). For example, municipalities and corporations purchase insurance in order to reduce their cost of borrowing. If the ratings agencies downgrade the monolines, the credit rating of the bond may fall and may have an adverse impact on the market value of the security. In the case of default, we first look to the underlying securities and then to the purchased insurance for recovery. Investments in securities issued by municipalities and corporations with purchased wraps at June 30, 2011 had a notional value of $1.6 billion compared to $2.4 billion at December 31, 2010. Mark-to-market investment exposure was $1.4 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $2.2 billion at December 31, 2010.
Table 53
Commercial Credit Exposure by Industry
(1)
 
                 
  Commercial
Utilized
  Total Commercial
Committed
 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Diversified financials
 $51,889  $55,196  $79,056  $83,248 
Real estate (2)
  53,597   58,531   67,093   72,004 
Government and public education
  42,153   44,131   58,027   59,594 
Capital goods
  23,880   21,940   46,822   46,087 
Healthcare equipment and services
  28,757   30,420   45,608   47,569 
Retailing
  25,530   24,660   45,604   43,950 
Consumer services
  23,195   24,759   37,735   39,694 
Materials
  17,696   15,873   35,831   33,046 
Banks
  32,005   26,831   35,461   29,667 
Commercial services and supplies
  20,740   20,056   31,344   30,517 
Energy
  12,661   9,765   29,817   26,328 
Food, beverage and tobacco
  14,697   14,777   28,920   28,126 
Utilities
  6,407   6,990   24,697   24,207 
Insurance, including monolines
  16,306   17,263   23,059   24,417 
Individuals and trusts
  16,249   18,278   20,498   22,899 
Media
  10,730   11,611   20,461   20,619 
Transportation
  11,778   12,070   18,129   18,436 
Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology
  4,998   3,859   12,152   11,009 
Technology hardware and equipment
  4,557   4,373   11,005   10,932 
Religious and social organizations
  8,087   8,409   10,319   10,823 
Telecommunication services
  3,890   3,823   10,096   9,321 
Software and services
  3,480   3,837   8,995   9,531 
Consumer durables and apparel
  4,329   4,297   8,938   8,836 
Food and staples retailing
  3,123   3,222   6,521   6,161 
Automobiles and components
  2,466   2,090   6,391   5,941 
Other
  3,521   13,361   7,191   17,133 
 
Total commercial credit exposure by industry
 $446,721  $460,422  $729,770  $740,095 
Net credit default protection purchased on total commitments (3)
         $(19,861) $(20,118)
 
(1) 
Includes U.S. small business commercial exposure.
 
(2) 
Industries are viewed from a variety of perspectives to best isolate the perceived risks. For purposes of this table, the real estate industry is defined based on the borrowers’ or counterparties’ primary business activity using operating cash flows and primary source of repayment as key factors.
 
(3) 
Represents net notional credit protection purchased. See Risk Mitigation below for additional information.
Risk Mitigation
     We purchase credit protection to cover the funded portion as well as the unfunded portion of certain credit exposures. To lower the cost of obtaining our desired credit protection levels, credit exposure may be added within an industry, borrower or counterparty group by selling protection.
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, net notional credit default protection purchased in our credit derivatives portfolio to hedge our funded and unfunded exposures for which we elected the fair value option, as well as certain other credit exposures, was $19.9 billion and $20.1 billion. The mark-to-market effects, including the cost of net credit default protection hedging our credit exposure, resulted in net losses of $12 million and $209 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to net gains (losses) of $181 million and $(23) million for the same periods in 2010.

101


Table of Contents

     The average Value-at-Risk (VaR) for these credit derivative hedges was $47 million and $52 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $57 million and $58 million for the same periods in 2010. The average VaR for the related credit exposure was $57 million and $55 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $59 million and $61 million for the same periods in 2010. There is a diversification effect between the net credit default protection hedging our credit exposure and the related credit exposure such that the combined average VaR was $31 million and $35 million during for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $42 million and $44 million for the same periods in 2010. Refer to Trading Risk Management on page 112 for a description of our VaR calculation for the market-based trading portfolio.
     Tables 54 and 55 present the maturity profiles and the credit exposure debt ratings of the net credit default protection portfolio at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The distribution of debt ratings for net notional credit default protection purchased is shown as a negative amount.
Table 54
Net Credit Default Protection by Maturity Profile

 
         
  June 30  December 31 
  2011  2010 
 
Less than or equal to one year
  14%  14%
Greater than one year and less than or equal to five years
  80   80 
Greater than five years
  6   6 
 
Total net credit default protection
  100%  100%
 
Table 55
Net Credit Default Protection by Credit Exposure Debt Rating
(1)
 
                 
(Dollars in millions) June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
  Net  Percent of  Net  Percent of 
Ratings (2) Notional  Total  Notional  Total 
 
AA
 $(313)  1.6% $(188)  0.9%
A
  (7,016)  35.3   (6,485)  32.2 
BBB
  (7,542)  38.0   (7,731)  38.4 
BB
  (1,659)  8.4   (2,106)  10.5 
B
  (1,381)  7.0   (1,260)  6.3 
CCC and below
  (756)  3.8   (762)  3.8 
NR (3)
  (1,194)  5.9   (1,586)  7.9 
 
Total net credit default protection
 $(19,861)  100.0% $(20,118)  100.0%
 
(1) 
Ratings are refreshed on a quarterly basis.
 
(2) 
The Corporation considers ratings of BBB- or higher to meet the definition of investment-grade.
 
(3) 
In addition to names that have not been rated, “NR” includes $(1.1) billion and $(1.5) billion in net credit default swaps index positions at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. While index positions are principally investment-grade, credit default swaps indices include names in and across each of the ratings categories.
     In addition to our net notional credit default protection purchased to cover the funded and unfunded portion of certain credit exposures, credit derivatives are used for market-making activities for clients and establishing positions intended to profit from directional or relative value changes. We execute the majority of our credit derivative trades in the OTC market with large, multinational financial institutions, including broker/dealers and, to a lesser degree, with a variety of other investors. Because these transactions are executed in the OTC market, we are subject to settlement risk. We are also subject to credit risk in the event that these counterparties fail to perform under the terms of these contracts. In most cases, credit derivative transactions are executed on a daily margin basis. Therefore, events such as a credit downgrade, depending on the ultimate rating level, or a breach of credit covenants would typically require an increase in the amount of collateral required of the counterparty, where applicable, and/or allow us to take additional protective measures such as early termination of all trades.
     Table 56 presents notional amounts that represent the total contract/notional amount of credit derivatives outstanding and include both purchased and written credit derivatives. The credit risk amounts are measured as the net replacement cost, in the event the counterparties with contracts in a gain position to us fail to perform under the terms of those contracts. For information on the performance risk of our written credit derivatives, see Note 4 – Derivativesto the Consolidated Financial Statements.

102


Table of Contents

     The credit risk amounts discussed on page 102 and noted in Table 56 take into consideration the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements while amounts disclosed in Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements are shown on a gross basis. Credit risk reflects the potential benefit from offsetting exposure to non-credit derivative products with the same counterparties that may be netted upon the occurrence of certain events, thereby reducing the Corporation’s overall exposure.
Table 56
Credit Derivatives
 
                 
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010
(Dollars in millions)
 Contract/Notional  Credit Risk  Contract/Notional  Credit Risk 
 
Purchased credit derivatives:
                
Credit default swaps
 $2,065,664  $15,029  $2,184,703  $18,150 
Total return swaps/other
  41,401   601   26,038   1,013 
 
Total purchased credit derivatives
  2,107,065   15,630   2,210,741   19,163 
 
Written credit derivatives:
                
Credit default swaps
  1,990,530   n/a   2,133,488   n/a 
Total return swaps/other
  40,788   n/a   22,474   n/a 
 
Total written credit derivatives
  2,031,318   n/a   2,155,962   n/a 
 
Total credit derivatives
 $4,138,383  $15,630  $4,366,703  $19,163 
 
n/a = not applicable
Counterparty Credit Risk Valuation Adjustments
     We record a counterparty credit risk valuation adjustment on certain derivative assets, including our credit default protection purchased, in order to properly reflect the credit quality of the counterparty. These adjustments are necessary as the market quotes on derivatives do not fully reflect the credit risk of the counterparties to the derivative assets. We consider collateral and legally enforceable master netting agreements that mitigate our credit exposure to each counterparty in determining the counterparty credit risk valuation adjustment. All or a portion of these counterparty credit risk valuation adjustments are subsequently adjusted due to changes in the value of the derivative contract, collateral and creditworthiness of the counterparty.
     During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, credit valuation losses of $(592) million and $(450) million ($(151) million and $(624) million, net of hedges) compared to $(752) million and $(426) million ($(302) million and $(370) million, net of hedges) for the same periods in 2010 were recognized in trading account profits for counterparty credit risk related to derivative assets. For additional information on gains or losses related to the counterparty credit risk on derivative assets, refer to Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements. For information on our monoline counterparty credit risk, see Collateralized Debt Obligation Exposure on page 44 and Monoline and Related Exposure on page 100.
Non-U.S. Portfolio
     Our non-U.S. credit and trading portfolios are subject to country risk. We define country risk as the risk of loss from unfavorable economic and political conditions, currency fluctuations, social instability and changes in government policies. A risk management framework is in place to measure, monitor and manage non-U.S. risk and exposures. Management oversight of country risk, including cross-border risk, is provided by the Regional Risk Committee, a subcommittee of the CRC.
     Non-U.S. exposure includes credit exposure net of local liabilities, securities and other investments issued by or domiciled in countries other than the U.S. Total non-U.S. exposure can be adjusted for externally guaranteed loans outstanding and certain collateral types. Exposures which are subject to external guarantees are reported under the country of the guarantor. Exposures with tangible collateral are reflected in the country where the collateral is held. For securities received, other than cross-border resale agreements, outstandings are assigned to the domicile of the issuer of the securities. Resale agreements are generally presented based on the domicile of the counterparty consistent with FFIEC reporting requirements.
     At June 30, 2011, the total cross-border exposure to the U.K., China and Japan was $30.9 billion, $25.4 billion and $22.7 billion, respectively. The U.K., China and Japan were the only countries where cross-border exposure exceeded one percent of our total assets, representing 1.37 percent, 1.13 percent and 1.01 percent of total assets. At June 30, 2011, the total cross-border exposure to France and Canada was $20.1 billion and $19.0 billion, representing 0.89 percent and 0.84 percent of total assets. France and Canada were the only other countries that had total cross-border exposure that exceeded 0.75 percent of our total assets at June 30, 2011.

103


Table of Contents

     As presented in Table 57, non-U.S. exposure to borrowers or counterparties in emerging markets increased $9.6 billion to $74.7 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $65.1 billion at December 31, 2010. The increase was primarily due to an increase in the Asia Pacific region. Non-U.S. exposure to borrowers or counterparties in emerging markets represented 28 percent and 25 percent of total non-U.S. exposure at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
Table 57
Selected Emerging Markets
(1)
 
                                 
                          Total    
                          Emerging  Increase 
  Loans and                  Local Country  Market  (Decrease) 
  Leases, and          Securities/  Total Cross-  Exposure Net  Exposure at  From 
  Loan  Other  Derivative  Other  border  of Local  June 30,  December 31, 
(Dollars in millions)
 Commitments  Financing (2)  Assets (3)  Investments (4)  Exposure (5)  Liabilities (6)  2011  2010 
 
Region/Country
                                
Asia Pacific
                                
China
 $2,534  $425  $990  $21,494  $25,443  $99  $25,542  $1,614 
India
  4,154   1,485   551   2,381   8,571   516   9,087   819 
South Korea
  873   1,255   401   2,105   4,634   1,774   6,408   1,129 
Taiwan
  472   78   74   603   1,227   1,519   2,746   891 
Singapore
  616   43   428   1,488   2,575   -   2,575   29 
Hong Kong
  518   396   178   1,056   2,148   287   2,435   393 
Thailand
  20   15   32   878   945   -   945   276 
Malaysia
  85   10   132   476   703   2   705   471 
Indonesia
  148   15   5   519   687   7   694   545 
Other Asia Pacific (7)
  226   92   53   381   752   -   752   421 
 
Total Asia Pacific
  9,646   3,814   2,844   31,381   47,685   4,204   51,889   6,588 
 
Latin America
                                
Brazil
  1,254   375   407   3,213   5,249   1,848   7,097   1,291 
Mexico
  2,029   475   257   3,032   5,793   -   5,793   1,408 
Chile
  1,069   58   336   27   1,490   41   1,531   5 
Peru
  373   114   20   92   599   -   599   81 
Other Latin America(7)
  263   346   39   334   982   152   1,134   (403)
 
Total Latin America
  4,988   1,368   1,059   6,698   14,113   2,041   16,154   2,382 
 
Middle East and Africa
                                
United Arab Emirates
  1,088   30   126   85   1,329   -   1,329   153 
Bahrain
  79   1   4   1,001   1,085   2   1,087   (73)
South Africa
  361   22   88   48   519   -   519   (52)
Other Middle East and Africa(7)
  513   103   93   209   918   28   946   165 
 
Total Middle East and Africa
  2,041   156   311   1,343   3,851   30   3,881   193 
 
Central and Eastern Europe
                                
Russian Federation
  819   117   12   187   1,135   11   1,146   610 
Turkey
  321   45   6   217   589   96   685   185 
Other Central and Eastern Europe(7)
  116   84   221   492   913   -   913   (340)
 
Total Central and Eastern Europe
  1,256   246   239   896   2,637   107   2,744   455 
 
Total emerging markets exposure
 $17,931  $5,584  $4,453  $40,318  $68,286  $6,382  $74,668  $9,618 
 
(1) 
There is no generally accepted definition of emerging markets. The definition that we use includes all countries in Asia Pacific excluding Japan, Australia and New Zealand; all countries in Latin America excluding Cayman Islands and Bermuda; all countries in Middle East and Africa; and all countries in Central and Eastern Europe. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, there was $526 million and $460 million in emerging markets exposure accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(2) 
Includes acceptances, due froms, SBLCs, commercial letters of credit and formal guarantees.
 
(3) 
Derivative assets are accounted for under the fair value option and have been reduced by the amount of cash collateral applied of $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, there were $226 million and $408 million of other marketable securities collateralizing derivative assets.
 
(4) 
Generally, cross-border resale agreements are presented based on the domicile of the counterparty, consistent with FFIEC reporting requirements. Cross-border resale agreements where the underlying securities are U.S. Treasury securities, in which case the domicile is the U.S., are excluded from this presentation.
 
(5) 
Cross-border exposure includes amounts payable to the Corporation by borrowers or counterparties with a country of residence other than the one in which the credit is booked, regardless of the currency in which the claim is denominated, consistent with FFIEC reporting requirements.
 
(6) 
Local country exposure includes amounts payable to the Corporation by borrowers with a country of residence in which the credit is booked regardless of the currency in which the claim is denominated. Local funding or liabilities are subtracted from local exposures consistent with FFIEC reporting requirements. Total amount of available local liabilities funding local country exposure was $21.4 billion and $15.7 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Local liabilities at June 30, 2011 in Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East and Africa were $19.2 billion, $1.6 billion and $579 million, respectively, of which $8.8 billion was in Singapore, $2.6 billion in Hong Kong, $2.4 billion in China, $2.1 billion in India, $1.5 billion in Mexico, $1.0 billion in Korea, $949 million in Indonesia and $579 million in South Africa. There were no other countries with available local liabilities funding local country exposure greater than $500 million.
 
(7) 
No country included in Other Asia Pacific, Other Latin America, Other Middle East and Africa, and Other Central and Eastern Europe had total non-U.S. exposure of more than $500 million.

104


Table of Contents

     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, 69 percent and 70 percent of the emerging markets exposure was in Asia Pacific. Emerging markets exposure in Asia Pacific increased by $6.6 billion primarily driven by an increase in loans and loan commitments in China and India and an increase in local country exposure in South Korea and Taiwan. The securities exposure in China includes our equity investment in CCB. For more information on our CCB investment, see theAll Other discussion on page 49.
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, 22 percent and 21 percent of the emerging markets exposure was in Latin America. Latin America emerging markets exposure increased $2.4 billion driven by an increase in securities in Brazil and Mexico related to liquidity and risk diversification management initiatives.
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, five percent and six percent of the emerging markets exposure was in the Middle East and Africa. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, four percent and three percent of the emerging markets exposure was in Central and Eastern Europe.

105


Table of Contents

     Certain European countries, including Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, are currently experiencing varying degrees of financial stress. Risks from the debt crisis in Europe could result in a disruption of the financial markets which could have a detrimental impact on global economic conditions and sovereign and non-sovereign debt in these countries. Contagion fears expanded to Spain and Italy, and credit spreads widened further in European peripheral countries and European banks. There remains considerable uncertainty as to future developments in the European debt crisis and the impact on financial markets. On July 29, 2011, Moody’s placed Spain’s Aa2 sovereign credit rating on review for possible downgrade. Table 58 shows our direct sovereign and non-sovereign exposures, excluding consumer credit card exposure, in these countries at June 30, 2011. The total exposure to these countries was $16.7 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to $15.8 billion at December 31, 2010, of which $1.6 billion and $1.9 billion was total sovereign exposure. The total sovereign exposure amounts do not reflect net notional credit default protection purchased of $1.5 billion and $1.2 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. In addition to our direct sovereign and non-sovereign exposures set forth above, a significant deterioration of the European debt crisis could result in material reductions in the value of sovereign debt and other asset classes, disruptions in capital markets, widening of credit spreads, loss of investor confidence in the financial services industry, a slowdown in global economic activity, and other adverse developments. For additional information on the debt crisis in Europe, refer to Item 1A. Risk Factors.
     Our non-sovereign exposures are comprised of exposure to corporations and financial institutions, or those entities that are non-governmental or are not owned or controlled by the government. Loans, derivatives and other financing exposures are not reduced by hedges, whereas securities and other investments are reduced by correlated hedges to the extent that there is an equal or greater amount of exposure on a single name basis. Derivative assets as presented in Table 58 are not offset by corresponding derivative liabilities but are offset only by cash collateral applied.
Table 58
Selected European Countries
 
                                 
                          Total    
  Loans and                  Local Country  Non-U.S.    
  Leases, and          Securities/  Total Cross-  Exposure Net  Exposure at    
  Loan  Other  Derivative  Other  border  of Local  June 30,  Credit Default 
  (Dollars in millions) Commitments  Financing (1)  Assets (2)  Investments (3)  Exposure (4)  Liabilities (5)  2011  Protection (6) 
 
Greece
                                
Sovereign
 $-  $-  $-  $17  $17  $-  $17  $(7)
Non-sovereign
  399   5   52   47   503   -   503   - 
 
Total Greece
 $399  $5  $52  $64  $520  $-  $520  $(7)
 
Ireland
                                
Sovereign
 $1  $-  $10  $25  $36  $-  $36  $- 
Non-sovereign
  1,625   570   304   298   2,797   -   2,797   (41)
 
Total Ireland
 $1,626  $570  $314  $323  $2,833  $-  $2,833  $(41)
 
Italy
                                
Sovereign
 $28  $-  $1,320  $16  $1,364  $9  $1,373  $(1,361)
Non-sovereign
  1,165   18   655   1,233   3,071   2,450   5,521   (252)
 
Total Italy
 $1,193  $18  $1,975  $1,249  $4,435  $2,459  $6,894  $(1,613)
 
Portugal
                                
Sovereign
 $-  $-  $32  $-  $32  $-  $32  $(30)
Non-sovereign
  280   22   6   80   388   -   388   - 
 
Total Portugal
 $280  $22  $38  $80  $420  $-  $420  $(30)
 
Spain
                                
Sovereign
 $27  $-  $39  $5  $71  $52  $123  $(64)
Non-sovereign
  911   102   241   2,199   3,453   2,490   5,943   (14)
 
Total Spain
 $938  $102  $280  $2,204  $3,524  $2,542  $6,066  $(78)
 
Total
                                
Sovereign
 $56  $-  $1,401  $63  $1,520  $61  $1,581  $(1,462)
Non-sovereign
  4,380   717   1,258   3,857   10,212   4,940   15,152   (307)
 
Total selected European exposure
 $4,436  $717  $2,659  $3,920  $11,732  $5,001  $16,733  $(1,769)
 
 
(1) 
Includes acceptances, due froms, SBLCs, commercial letters of credit and formal guarantees.
 
(2) 
Derivative assets are accounted for under the fair value option and have been reduced by the amount of cash collateral applied of $3.1 billion at June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2011, there was $77 million of other marketable securities collateralizing derivative assets.
 
(3) 
Generally, cross-border resale agreements are presented based on the domicile of the counterparty, consistent with FFIEC reporting requirements. Cross-border resale agreements where the underlying securities are U.S. Treasury securities, in which case the domicile is the U.S., are excluded from this presentation.
 
(4) 
Cross-border exposure includes amounts payable to the Corporation by borrowers or counterparties with a country of residence other than the one in which the credit is booked, regardless of the currency in which the claim is denominated, consistent with FFIEC reporting requirements.
 
(5) 
Local country exposure includes amounts payable to the Corporation by borrowers with a country of residence in which the credit is booked regardless of the currency in which the claim is denominated. Local funding or liabilities of $957 million are subtracted from local exposures consistent with FFIEC reporting requirements. Of the $957 million applied for exposure reduction, $389 million was in Italy, $362 million in Ireland, $158 million in Spain and $48 million in Greece.
 
(6) 
Represents net notional credit default protection purchased to hedge counterparty risk.

106


Table of Contents

Provision for Credit Losses
     The provision for credit losses decreased $4.9 billion to $3.3 billion, and $10.8 billion to $7.1 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010. The provision for credit losses for the consumer portfolio decreased $3.4 billion to $3.8 billion, and $7.7 billion to $7.7 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010 reflecting improving economic conditions and continued expectations of improving delinquency, collection and bankruptcy trends in the U.S. consumer credit card and unsecured consumer lending portfolios. Also contributing to the improvement were lower credit costs in the non-PCI consumer real estate loan portfolio due to improving portfolio trends. Partially offsetting these improvements was an increase in reserves of $412 million and $2.0 billion in the consumer PCI loan portfolios during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $271 million and $1.1 billion in the same periods in 2010 reflecting further reductions in expected principal cash flows due primarily to our updated home price outlook based on further deterioration of HPI.
     The provision for credit losses for the commercial portfolio, including the provision for unfunded lending commitments, decreased $1.5 billion to a benefit of $523 million, and $3.1 billion to a benefit of $636 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same periods in 2010 due to continued economic improvement and its impact on property values in the commercial real estate portfolio, continued expectations of improving delinquency and bankruptcy trends in the small business portfolio, and improved borrower credit profiles across the remainder of the portfolio.
Allowance for Credit Losses
Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses
     The allowance for loan and lease losses is comprised of two components as described below. We evaluate the adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses based on the total of these two components. The allowance for loan and lease losses excludes LHFS and loans accounted for under the fair value option as the fair value adjustments include a credit risk component.
     The first component of the allowance for loan and lease losses covers nonperforming commercial loans and performing commercial loans that have been modified in a TDR, consumer real estate loans that have been modified in a TDR, renegotiated credit card, unsecured consumer and small business loans. These loans are subject to impairment measurement based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate, or in certain circumstances, impairment may also be based upon the collateral value or the loan’s observable market price if available. Impairment measurement for the renegotiated credit card, unsecured consumer and small business TDR portfolio is based on the present value of projected cash flows discounted using the average portfolio contractual interest rate, excluding promotionally priced loans, in effect prior to restructuring and prior to any risk-based or penalty-based increase in rate on the restructured loans. For purposes of computing this specific loss component of the allowance, larger impaired loans are evaluated individually and smaller impaired loans are evaluated as a pool using historical loss experience for the respective product types and risk ratings of the loans.
     The second component of the allowance for loan and lease losses covers performing consumer and commercial loans and leases which have incurred losses that are not yet individually identifiable. The allowance for consumer and certain homogeneous commercial loan and lease products is based on aggregated portfolio evaluations, generally by product type. Loss forecast models are utilized that consider a variety of factors including, but not limited to, historical loss experience, estimated defaults or foreclosures based on portfolio trends, delinquencies, economic trends and credit scores. Our consumer real estate loss forecast model estimates the portion of loans that will default based on individual loan attributes, the most significant of which are refreshed LTV or CLTV, and borrower credit score as well as vintage and geography, all of which are further broken down into current delinquency status. Incorporating refreshed LTV and CLTV into our probability of default allows us to factor the impact of changes in home prices into our allowance for loan and lease losses. These loss forecast models are updated on a quarterly basis to incorporate information reflecting the current economic environment. Included within this second component of the allowance for loan and lease losses and determined separately from the procedures outlined above are reserves which are maintained to cover uncertainties that affect our estimate of probable losses including domestic and global economic uncertainty, large single name defaults, significant events which could disrupt financial markets and model imprecision. As of June 30, 2011, the loss forecast process resulted in reductions in the allowance for most consumer portfolios, particularly the credit card and other consumer portfolio segment.

107


Table of Contents

     The allowance for commercial loan and lease losses is established by product type after analyzing historical loss experience by internal risk rating, current economic conditions, industry performance trends, geographic and obligor concentrations within each portfolio segment, and any other pertinent information. The statistical models for commercial loans are generally updated annually and utilize the Corporation’s historical database of actual defaults and other data. The loan risk ratings and composition of the commercial portfolios are updated at least quarterly to incorporate the most recent data reflecting the current economic environment. For risk-rated commercial loans, we estimate the probability of default and the loss given default (LGD) based on the Corporation’s historical experience of defaults and credit losses. Factors considered when assessing the internal risk rating include the value of the underlying collateral, if applicable; the industry in which the obligor operates; the obligor’s liquidity and other financial indicators; and other quantitative and qualitative factors relevant to the obligor’s credit risk. When estimating the allowance for loan and lease losses, management relies not only on models derived from historical experience but also on its judgment in considering the effect on probable losses inherent in the portfolios due to the current macroeconomic environment and trends, inherent uncertainty in models and other qualitative factors. As of June 30, 2011, the loan risk ratings and portfolio composition resulted in reductions in the allowance for all commercial portfolios.
     We monitor differences between estimated and actual incurred loan and lease losses. This monitoring process includes periodic assessments by senior management of loan and lease portfolios and the models used to estimate incurred losses in those portfolios.
     Additions to, or reductions of, the allowance for loan and lease losses generally are recorded through charges or credits to the provision for credit losses. Credit exposures deemed to be uncollectible are charged against the allowance for loan and lease losses. Recoveries of previously charged off amounts are credited to the allowance for loan and lease losses.
     The allowance for loan and lease losses for the consumer portfolio as presented in Table 60 was $31.9 billion at June 30, 2011, a decrease of $2.8 billion from December 31, 2010. This decrease was primarily due to improving credit quality in the Global Card Services consumer portfolios. For the consumer PCI loan portfolios, updates to our expected principal cash flows resulted in an increase in reserves of $412 million and $2.0 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 in the discontinued real estate, home equity and residential mortgage portfolios.
     The allowance for loan and lease losses for the commercial portfolio was $5.4 billion at June 30, 2011, a $1.7 billion decrease from December 31, 2010. The decrease was driven by stabilization in the economy and its impact on property values in the commercial real estate portfolio, continued expectations of improving delinquencies in the U.S. small business commercial portfolio, primarily within Global Card Services, and stronger borrower credit profiles in the U.S. commercial portfolios as a result of improving economic conditions, primarily in Global Commercial Banking and GBAM.
     The allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding was 4.00 percent at June 30, 2011 compared to 4.47 percent at December 31, 2010. The decrease in the ratio was mostly due to improved credit quality and economic conditions which led to the reserve reductions discussed above. The June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 ratios above include the PCI loan portfolio. Excluding the PCI loan portfolio, the allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding was 3.24 percent at June 30, 2011 compared to 3.94 percent at December 31, 2010.

108


Table of Contents

     Table 59 presents a rollforward of the allowance for credit losses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
Table 59
Allowance for Credit Losses
 
                 
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended
  June 30  June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
  Allowance for loan and lease losses, beginning of period
 $39,843  $46,835  $41,885  $47,988 
  Loans and leases charged off
                
Residential mortgage
  (1,244)  (986)  (2,226)  (2,062)
Home equity
  (1,332)  (1,813)  (2,614)  (4,280)
Discontinued real estate
  (27)  (20)  (52)  (47)
U.S. credit card
  (2,139)  (3,709)  (4,624)  (7,850)
Non-U.S. credit card
  (498)  (989)  (949)  (1,663)
Direct/Indirect consumer
  (552)  (1,130)  (1,292)  (2,502)
Other consumer
  (56)  (88)  (111)  (164)
 
Total consumer charge-offs
  (5,848)  (8,735)  (11,868)  (18,568)
 
U.S. commercial (1)
  (440)  (811)  (893)  (1,783)
Commercial real estate
  (299)  (659)  (641)  (1,289)
Commercial lease financing
  (6)  (17)  (17)  (43)
Non-U.S. commercial
  (14)  (84)  (114)  (124)
 
Total commercial charge-offs
  (759)  (1,571)  (1,665)  (3,239)
 
Total loans and leases charged off
  (6,607)  (10,306)  (13,533)  (21,807)
 
  Recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off
                
Residential mortgage
  140   15   217   22 
Home equity
  69   72   172   142 
Discontinued real estate
  1   1   6   7 
U.S. credit card
  208   192   419   370 
Non-U.S. credit card
  69   47   118   90 
Direct/Indirect consumer
  186   251   401   514 
Other consumer
  13   15   28   33 
 
Total consumer recoveries
  686   593   1,361   1,178 
 
U.S. commercial (2)
  105   104   267   188 
Commercial real estate
  136   14   190   29 
Commercial lease financing
  14   20   24   25 
Non-U.S. commercial
  1   18   (2)  33 
 
Total commercial recoveries
  256   156   479   275 
 
Total recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off
  942   749   1,840   1,453 
 
Net charge-offs
  (5,665)  (9,557)  (11,693)  (20,354)
 
Provision for loan and lease losses
  3,260   8,105   7,176   17,704 
Other
  (126)  (128)  (56)  (83)
 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, June 30
  37,312   45,255   37,312   45,255 
 
  Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, beginning of period
  961   1,521   1,188   1,487 
Provision for unfunded lending commitments
  (5)  -   (107)  206 
Other
  (59)  (108)  (184)  (280)
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, June 30
  897   1,413   897   1,413 
 
Allowance for credit losses, June 30
 $38,209  $46,668  $38,209  $46,668 
 
 
(1) 
Includes U.S. small business commercial charge-offs of $304 million and $640 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $554 million and $1.2 billion for the same periods in 2010.
 
(2) 
Includes U.S. small business commercial recoveries of $29 million and $53 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $26 million and $49 million for the same periods in 2010.

109


Table of Contents

Table 59
Allowance for Credit Losses (continued)
 
                 
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended
  June 30  June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Loans and leases outstanding at June 30 (3)
 $931,660  $952,279  $931,660  $952,279 
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases and outstanding at June 30 (3)
  4.00%  4.75%  4.00%  4.75%
Consumer allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total consumer loans outstanding at June 30
  5.04   5.62   5.04   5.62 
Commercial allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total commercial loans and leases outstanding at June 30 (3)
  1.82   2.89   1.82   2.89 
Average loans and leases outstanding (3)
 $929,408  $962,850  $932,352  $974,847 
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding (3)
  2.44%  3.98%  2.53%  4.21%
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases at June 30 (3, 5)
  135   137   135   137 
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at June 30 to annualized net charge-offs
  1.64   1.18   1.58   1.10 
Amounts included in allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans (4)
 $19,935  $24,338  $19,935  $24,338 
Allowance as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases excluding the amounts included in the allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans (4)
  63.00%  63.20%  63.00%  63.20%
 
Excluding purchased credit-impaired loans: (6)
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding at June 30 (3)
  3.24%  4.37%  3.24 %  4.37%
Consumer allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total consumer loans outstanding at June 30
  3.95   5.09   3.95   5.09 
Commercial allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total commercial loans and leases outstanding at June 30 (3)
  1.82   2.88   1.82   2.88 
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding (3)
  2.54   4.11   2.63   4.36 
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases at June 30 (3, 5)
  105   121   105   121 
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at June 30 to annualized net charge-offs
  1.28   1.05   1.23   0.98 
 
(3) 
Outstanding loan and lease balances and ratios do not include loans accounted for under the fair value option. Loans accounted for under the fair value option were $9.6 billion and $3.9 billion at June 30, 2011 and 2010. Average loans accounted for under the fair value option were $9.1 billion and $6.4 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion for the same periods in 2010.
 
(4) 
Amounts included in allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans primarily includes amounts allocated to Global Card Services portfolios and PCI.
 
(5) 
For more information on our definition of nonperforming loans, see pages 90 and 98.
 
(6) 
Metrics exclude the impact of Countrywide consumer PCI loans and Merrill Lynch commercial PCI loans.

110


Table of Contents

     For reporting purposes, we allocate the allowance for credit losses across products. However, the allowance is available to absorb any credit losses without restriction. Table 60 presents our allocation by product type.
Table 60
Allocation of the Allowance for Credit Losses by Product Type

 
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
          Percent of          Percent of 
          Loans and          Loans and 
      Percent of  Leases      Percent of  Leases 
  (Dollars in millions) Amount  Total  Outstanding (1)  Amount  Total  Outstanding (1) 
 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
                        
Residential mortgage
 $5,845   15.66%  2.19% $5,082   12.14%  1.97%
Home equity
  13,111   35.14   10.03   12,887   30.77   9.34 
Discontinued real estate
  1,997   5.35   16.64   1,283   3.06   9.79 
U.S. credit card
  7,540   20.21   7.20   10,876   25.97   9.56 
Non-U.S. credit card
  1,771   4.75   6.80   2,045   4.88   7.45 
Direct/Indirect consumer
  1,475   3.95   1.63   2,381   5.68   2.64 
Other consumer
  145   0.39   5.25   161   0.38   5.67 
            
Total consumer
  31,884   85.45   5.04   34,715   82.88   5.40 
            
U.S. commercial (2)
  2,792   7.48   1.46   3,576   8.54   1.88 
Commercial real estate
  2,314   6.20   5.26   3,137   7.49   6.35 
Commercial lease financing
  99   0.27   0.46   126   0.30   0.57 
Non-U.S. commercial
  223   0.60   0.52   331   0.79   1.03 
            
Total commercial (3)
  5,428   14.55   1.82   7,170   17.12   2.44 
            
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  37,312   100.00%  4.00   41,885   100.00%  4.47 
            
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments
  897           1,188         
                    
Allowance for credit losses (4)
 $38,209          $43,073         
 
(1) 
Ratios are calculated as allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of loans and leases outstanding excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option for each loan and lease category. Consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option include residential mortgage loans of $1.2 billion and discontinued real estate of $4.0 billion at June 30, 2011. There were no consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option at December 31, 2010. Commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option include U.S. commercial loans of $1.6 billion and $1.6 billion, non-U.S. commercial loans of $2.8 billion and $1.7 billion, and commercial real estate loans of $11 million and $79 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(2) 
Includes allowance for U.S. small business commercial loans of $1.0 billion and $1.5 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(3) 
Includes allowance for loan and lease losses for impaired commercial loans of $778 million and $1.1 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
(4) 
Includes $8.4 billion and $6.4 billion of valuation reserve presented with the allowance for credit losses related to PCI loans at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
Reserve for Unfunded Lending Commitments
 
     In addition to the allowance for loan and lease losses, we also estimate probable losses related to unfunded lending commitments such as letters of credit, financial guarantees, unfunded bankers’ acceptances and binding loan commitments, excluding commitments accounted for under the fair value option. Unfunded lending commitments are subject to the same assessment as funded loans, including estimates of probability of default and LGD. Due to the nature of unfunded commitments, the estimate of probable losses must also consider utilization. To estimate the portion of these undrawn commitments that is likely to be drawn by a borrower at the time of estimated default, analyses of the Corporation’s historical experience are applied to the unfunded commitments to estimate the funded exposure at default (EAD). The expected loss for unfunded lending commitments is the product of the probability of default, the LGD and the EAD, adjusted for any qualitative factors including economic uncertainty and inherent imprecision in models.
     The reserve for unfunded lending commitments at June 30, 2011 was $897 million, $291 million lower than December 31, 2010 primarily driven by accretion of purchase accounting adjustments on acquired Merrill Lynch unfunded positions and a decline in unfunded commitment and letter of credit balances primarily due to higher utilization.
Market Risk Management
     Market risk is the risk that values of assets and liabilities or revenues will be adversely affected by changes in market conditions such as market movements. This risk is inherent in the financial instruments associated with our operations and/or activities including loans, deposits, securities, short-term borrowings, long-term debt, trading account assets and liabilities, and derivatives. Market-sensitive assets and liabilities are generated through loans and deposits associated with our traditional banking business, customer and other trading operations, the ALM process, credit risk mitigation activities and mortgage banking activities. In the event of market volatility, factors such as underlying market movements and liquidity have an impact on the results of the Corporation. More detailed information on our market risk management process is included on pages 100 through 106 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

111


Table of Contents

Trading Risk Management
     Trading-related revenues represent the amount earned from trading positions, including market-based net interest income, which are taken in a diverse range of financial instruments and markets. Trading account assets and liabilities and derivative positions are reported at fair value. For more information on fair value, see Note 16 – Fair Value Measurements to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Trading-related revenues can be volatile and are largely driven by general market conditions and customer demand. Also, trading-related revenues are dependent on the volume and type of transactions, the level of risk assumed, and the volatility of price and rate movements at any given time within the ever-changing market environment.
     The Global Markets Risk Committee (GRC), chaired by the Global Markets Risk Executive, has been designated by ALMRC as the primary governance authority for global markets risk management including trading risk management. The GRC’s focus is to take a forward-looking view of the primary credit and market risks impacting GBAM and prioritize those that need a proactive risk mitigation strategy. Market risks that impact lines of business outside of GBAM are monitored and governed by their respective governance authorities.
     The GRC monitors significant daily revenues and losses by business and the primary drivers of the revenues or losses. Thresholds are in place for each of our businesses in order to determine if the revenue or loss is considered to be significant for that business. If any of the thresholds are exceeded, an explanation of the variance is provided to the GRC. The thresholds are developed in coordination with the respective risk managers to highlight those revenues or losses that exceed what is considered to be normal daily income statement volatility.
     The histogram below is a graphic depiction of trading volatility and illustrates the daily level of trading-related revenue for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared with the three months ended March 31, 2011. During the three months ended June 30, 2011, positive trading-related revenue was recorded for 95 percent (60 days) of the trading days of which 78 percent (49 days) were daily trading gains of over $25 million, three percent (two days) of the trading days had losses greater than $25 million and the largest loss was $77 million. These results can be compared to the three months ended March 31, 2011, where positive trading-related revenue was recorded for 100 percent of the trading days of which 98 percent were daily trading gains of over $25 million.
Histogram of Daily Trading-Related Revenue
(GRAPH)
     To evaluate risk in our trading activities, we focus on the actual and potential volatility of individual positions as well as portfolios. VaR is a key statistic used to measure market risk. In order to manage day-to-day risks, VaR is subject to trading limits both for our overall trading portfolio and within individual businesses. All limit excesses are communicated to management for review.

112


Table of Contents

     A VaR model simulates the value of a portfolio under a range of hypothetical scenarios in order to generate a distribution of potential gains and losses. VaR represents the worst loss the portfolio is expected to experience based on historical trends with a given level of confidence and depends on the volatility of the positions in the portfolio and on how strongly their risks are correlated. Within any VaR model, there are significant and numerous assumptions that will differ from company to company. In addition, the accuracy of a VaR model depends on the availability and quality of historical data for each of the positions in the portfolio. A VaR model may require additional modeling assumptions for new products that do not have extensive historical price data or for illiquid positions for which accurate daily prices are not consistently available.
     A VaR model is an effective tool in estimating ranges of potential gains and losses on our trading portfolios. There are, however, many limitations inherent in a VaR model as it utilizes historical results over a defined time period to estimate future performance. Historical results may not always be indicative of future results and changes in market conditions or in the composition of the underlying portfolio could have a material impact on the accuracy of the VaR model. In order for the VaR model to reflect current market conditions, we update the historical data underlying our VaR model on a bi-weekly basis and regularly review the assumptions underlying the model.
     We continually review, evaluate and enhance our VaR model so that it reflects the material risks in our trading portfolio. Nevertheless, due to the limitations previously discussed, we have historically used the VaR model as only one of the components in managing our trading risk and also use other techniques such as stress testing and desk level limits. Periods of extreme market stress influence the reliability of these techniques to varying degrees.
     The accuracy of the VaR methodology is reviewed by backtesting (i.e., comparing actual results against expectations derived from historical data) the VaR results against the daily profit and loss. Graphic representation of the backtesting results with additional explanation of backtesting excesses are reported to the GRC. Backtesting excesses occur when trading losses exceed VaR. Senior management reviews and evaluates the results of these tests. In periods of market stress, the GRC members communicate daily to discuss losses and VaR limit excesses. As a result of this process, the lines of business may selectively reduce risk. Where economically feasible, positions are sold or macroeconomic hedges are executed to reduce the exposure.
     The graph below shows daily trading-related revenue and VaR for the twelve months ended June 30, 2011. Actual losses did not exceed daily trading VaR in the twelve months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Our VaR model uses a historical simulation approach based on three years of historical data and an expected shortfall methodology equivalent to a 99 percent confidence level. Statistically, this means that losses will exceed VaR, on average, one out of 100 trading days, or two to three times each year. The three years of historical market data through June 30, 2011 includes the stressed fourth quarter of 2008. Recent market volatility has not approached the volatility in fourth quarter of 2008 and actual losses have therefore not exceeded VaR.
Trading Risk and Return
Daily Trading-related Revenue VaR
(GRAPH)

113


Table of Contents

     Table 61 presents average, high and low daily trading VaR for the three months ended June 30, 2011, March 31, 2011 and June 30, 2010, as well as average daily trading VaR for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
Table 61
Trading Activities Market Risk VaR
 
                                             
  Three Months Ended  Three Months Ended  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
  June 30, 2011  March 31, 2011  June 30, 2010  June 30 
                                      2011  2010 
  (Dollars in millions) Average  High (1)  Low (1)  Average  High (1)  Low (1)  Average  High (1)  Low (1)  Average  Average 
 
Foreign exchange
 $14.3  $34.6  $6.0  $28.7  $48.6  $13.2  $21.5  $63.0  $6.6  $21.4  $34.5 
Interest rate
  63.6   76.6   49.5   48.7   73.1   33.2   56.4   89.7   38.4   56.2   60.0 
Credit
  133.6   155.3   97.3   138.3   154.4   120.7   175.8   216.2   146.8   135.9   191.8 
Real estate/mortgage
  100.2   138.9   72.5   93.7   139.5   73.9   71.0   80.2   63.5   97.0   67.4 
Equities
  55.2   79.5   32.1   50.1   82.8   25.1   36.6   68.1   20.9   52.7   49.7 
Commodities
  23.7   33.8   15.9   23.9   29.5   17.9   23.2   31.7   14.0   23.8   22.7 
Portfolio diversification
  (161.4)  -   -   (199.5)  -   -   (195.5)  -   -   (180.3)  (194.4)
                                  
Total market-based trading
portfolio
 $229.2  $318.6  $140.9  $183.9  $260.5  $140.3  $189.0  $296.3  $123.0  $206.7  $231.7 
 
(1) 
The high and low for the total portfolio may not equal the sum of the individual components as the highs or lows of the individual portfolios may have occurred on different trading days.
     The increase in average VaR for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to March 31, 2011 was primarily due to a reduction in portfolio diversification and increases in the exposure in our equities and interest rate categories.
     Counterparty credit risk is an adjustment to the mark-to-market value of our derivative exposures reflecting the impact of the credit quality of counterparties on our derivative assets. Since counterparty credit exposure is not included in the VaR component of the regulatory capital allocation, we do not include it in our trading VaR, and it is therefore not included in the daily trading-related revenue illustrated in our histogram or used for backtesting.
 
Trading Portfolio Stress Testing
 
     Because the very nature of a VaR model suggests results can exceed our estimates, we also stress test our portfolio. Stress testing estimates the value change in our trading portfolio that may result from abnormal market movements. Various scenarios, categorized as either historical or hypothetical, are regularly run and reported for the overall trading portfolio and individual businesses. Historical scenarios simulate the impact of price changes that occurred during a set of extended historical market events. Generally, a 10-business-day window or longer, representing the most severe point during a crisis, is selected for each historical scenario. Hypothetical scenarios provide simulations of anticipated shocks from pre-defined market stress events. These stress events include shocks to underlying market risk variables which may be well beyond the shocks found in the historical data used to calculate VaR. As with the historical scenarios, the hypothetical scenarios are designed to represent a short-term market disruption. Scenarios are reviewed and updated as necessary in light of changing positions and new economic or political information. In addition to the value afforded by the results themselves, this information provides senior management with a clear picture of the trend of risk being taken given the relatively static nature of the shocks applied. Stress testing for the trading portfolio is also integrated with enterprise-wide stress testing and incorporated into the limits framework. A process has been established to promote consistency between the scenarios used for the trading portfolio and those used for enterprise-wide stress testing. The scenarios used for enterprise-wide stress testing purposes differ from the typical trading portfolio scenarios in that they have a longer time horizon and the results are forecasted over multiple periods for use in consolidated capital and liquidity planning. For additional information on enterprise-wide stress testing, see page 69.
Interest Rate Risk Management for Nontrading Activities
     Interest rate risk represents the most significant market risk exposure to our nontrading balance sheet. Interest rate risk is measured as the potential volatility in our core net interest income caused by changes in market interest rates. Client-facing activities, primarily lending and deposit-taking, create interest rate sensitive positions on our balance sheet.
     We prepare forward-looking forecasts of core net interest income. The baseline forecast takes into consideration expected future business growth, ALM positioning and the direction of interest rate movements as implied by the market-based forward curve. We then measure and evaluate the impact that alternative interest rate scenarios have on the baseline forecast in order to assess interest rate sensitivity under varied conditions. The core net interest income forecast is frequently updated for changing assumptions and differing outlooks based on economic trends, market conditions and business strategies. Thus, we continually monitor our balance sheet position in an effort to maintain an acceptable level of exposure to interest rate changes.
     The interest rate scenarios that we analyze incorporate balance sheet assumptions such as loan and deposit growth and pricing, changes in funding mix, product repricing and maturity characteristics, but do not include the impact of hedge ineffectiveness. Our overall goal is to manage interest rate risk so that movements in interest rates do not adversely affect core net interest income.

114


Table of Contents

     Periodically, we evaluate the scenarios presented to ensure that they provide a comprehensive view of the Corporation’s interest rate risk exposure and are meaningful in the context of the current rate environment. Given the low level of short-end rates, we have determined that gradual downward shifts of 50 bps applied to the short-end of the market-based forward curve provide a more realistic view of potential exposure resulting from changes in interest rates. This replaced the 100 bps downward shift scenarios applied to the short-end of the market-based forward curve previously presented. In addition, a long-end flattener of (50) bps was added for comparability purposes.
     The spot and 12-month forward monthly rates used in our baseline forecasts at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are presented in Table 62.
Table 62
Forward Rates
 
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
     Three-month        Three-month    
  Federal Funds  LIBOR  10-Year Swap  Federal Funds  LIBOR  10-Year Swap 
Spot rates
  0.25%  0.25%  3.28%    0.25 %    0.30%  3.39%
12-month forward rates
  0.25   0.61   3.73    0.25    0.72   3.86 
 
     Table 63 shows the pre-tax dollar impact to forecasted core net interest income over the next twelve months from June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, resulting from gradual parallel and non-parallel shocks to the market-based forward curve. For further discussion of core net interest income, see page 23.
Table 63
Estimated Core Net Interest Income
 
                 
(Dollars in millions)         June 30  December 31 
Curve Change Short Rate (bps)  Long Rate (bps)  2011  2010 
 
+100 bps Parallel shift
  +100   +100  $597  $601 
-50 bps Parallel shift
  -50   -50   (720)  (499)
Flatteners
                
Short end
  +100   -   60   136 
Long end
  -   -50   (400)  (280)
Long end
  -   -100   (901)  (637)
Steepeners
                
Short end
  -50   -   (319)  (209)
Long end
  -   +100   542   493 
 
     The sensitivity analysis in Table 63 assumes that we take no action in response to these rate shifts over the indicated periods. Our core net interest income was asset sensitive to a parallel move in interest rates at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. As part of our ALM activities, we use securities, residential mortgages, and interest rate and foreign exchange derivatives in managing interest rate sensitivity.
Securities
     The securities portfolio is an integral part of our ALM position and is primarily comprised of debt securities including MBS and to a lesser extent U.S. Treasury, corporate, municipal and other debt securities. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, we held AFS debt securities of $330.9 billion and $337.6 billion with a weighted-average duration of 4.5 years and 4.9 years, and primarily relates to our MBS and U.S. Treasury portfolio. During the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, we purchased AFS debt securities of $36.4 billion and $34.8 billion, sold $29.1 billion and $28.3 billion, and had maturities and received paydowns of $11.0 billion and $17.8 billion. We realized $899 million and $37 million in net gains on sales of debt securities during the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. There were no residential mortgage loans securitized into MBS for the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $436 million during the same period in 2010, which we retained within the HFI portfolio.
     During the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, we purchased AFS debt securities of $59.8 billion and $99.7 billion, sold $40.0 billion and $62.6 billion, and had maturities and received paydowns of $28.7 billion and $36.5 billion. We realized $1.4 billion and $771 million in net gains on sales of debt securities during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. There were no residential mortgage loans securitized into MBS for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $2.1 billion during the same period in 2010, which we retained within the HFI portfolio.
     Accumulated OCI includes after-tax net unrealized gains of $8.1 billion and $2.9 billion at June 30, 2011 and 2010, comprised primarily of after-tax net unrealized gains of nearly $1.6 billion and $2.9 billion related to AFS debt securities

115


Table of Contents

and after-tax net unrealized gains of $6.5 billion and after-tax net unrealized losses of $1 million related to AFS equity securities. The amount of pre-tax accumulated OCI related to AFS debt securities increased by $2.4 billion and $1.4 billion during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 to $2.5 billion primarily due to lower interest rates.
     We recognized $45 million and $133 million of other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) losses through earnings on AFS debt securities in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $126 million and $727 million for the same periods in 2010. There were no recognized OTTI losses on AFS marketable equity securities during the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $3 million for the same period in 2010.
     The recognition of impairment losses on AFS debt and marketable equity securities is based on a variety of factors, including the length of time and extent to which the market value has been less than amortized cost, the financial condition of the issuer of the security including credit ratings and the specific events affecting the operations of the issuer, underlying assets that collateralize the debt security, other industry and macroeconomic conditions, and our intent and ability to hold the security to recovery. We do not intend to sell securities with unrealized losses and it is not more-likely-than-not that we will be required to sell those securities before recovery of amortized cost. Based on our evaluation of the above and other relevant factors, and after consideration of the losses described in the paragraph above, we do not believe that the AFS debt and marketable equity securities that are in an unrealized loss position at June 30, 2011 are other-than-temporarily impaired.
 
Residential Mortgage Portfolio
 
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, our residential mortgage portfolio was $267.5 billion (which includes $1.2 billion in residential mortgage loans accounted for under the fair value option) and $258.0 billion. For more information on consumer fair value option loans, refer to Consumer Credit Portfolio on page 76. During the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, we retained $13.0 billion and $8.8 billion in first mortgages originated by CRES and GWIM. Outstanding residential mortgage loans increased $9.5 billion at June 30, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 as new origination volume, which is primarily fully-insured, was partially offset by paydowns, charge-offs and transfers to foreclosed properties. In addition, the $7.5 billion repurchases of FHA delinquent loans pursuant to our servicing agreements with GNMA also increased the residential mortgage portfolio during the six months ended June 30, 2011. There were no loans securitized during the three months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $436 million of residential mortgage loans securitized into MBS which we retained for the same period in 2010. We recognized gains of $23 million on securitizations completed during the three months ended June 30, 2010. For more information on these securitizations, see Note 8 – Securitizations and Other Variable Interest Entities to the Consolidated Financial Statements. There were no purchases of residential mortgages related to ALM activities during the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. We sold $50 million of residential mortgages during the three months ended June 30, 2011, all of which consisted of originated residential mortgages. This compares to sales of $41 million of residential mortgages during the three months ended June 30, 2010, all of which were originated residential mortgages. Net gains on these transactions were minimal. We received paydowns of $8.5 billion and $8.2 billion in the three months ended June 2011 and 2010.
     We retained $23.8 billion and $19.7 billion in first mortgages originated by CRES and GWIMduring the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. There were no loans securitized during the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $2.1 billion of residential mortgage loans securitized into MBS which we retained during the six months ended June 30, 2010. We recognized gains of $61 million on the securitizations completed during the six months ended June 30, 2010. There were no purchases of residential mortgages related to ALM activities during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. We sold $73 million of residential mortgages during the six months ended June 30, 2011, all of which consisted of originated residential mortgages. We sold $283 million of residential mortgages during both the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, of which $272 million were originated residential mortgages and $11 million were previously purchased from third parties. Net gains on these transactions were minimal. We received paydowns of $20.3 billion and $16.5 billion in the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
 
Interest Rate and Foreign Exchange Derivative Contracts
 
     Interest rate and foreign exchange derivative contracts are utilized in our ALM activities and serve as an efficient tool to manage our interest rate and foreign exchange risk. We use derivatives to hedge the variability in cash flows or changes in fair value on our balance sheet due to interest rate and foreign exchange components. For additional information on our hedging activities, see Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

116


Table of Contents

     Our interest rate contracts are generally non-leveraged generic interest rate and foreign exchange basis swaps, options, futures and forwards. In addition, we use foreign exchange contracts, including cross-currency interest rate swaps, foreign currency forward contracts and options to mitigate the foreign exchange risk associated with foreign currency-denominated assets and liabilities.
     Changes to the composition of our derivatives portfolio during the three months ended June 30, 2011 reflect actions taken for interest rate and foreign exchange rate risk management. The decisions to reposition our derivatives portfolio are based upon the current assessment of economic and financial conditions including the interest rate and foreign currency environments, balance sheet composition and trends, and the relative mix of our cash and derivative positions.

117


Table of Contents

     Table 64 includes derivatives utilized in our ALM activities including those designated as accounting and economic hedging instruments and shows the notional amount, fair value, weighted-average receive-fixed and pay-fixed rates, expected maturity and estimated duration of our open ALM derivatives at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. These amounts do not include derivative hedges on our MSRs.
Table 64
Asset and Liability Management Interest Rate and Foreign Exchange Contracts
 
                                     
          June 30, 2011  
          Expected Maturity  
                                  Average
(Dollars in millions, average Fair                             Estimated
estimated duration in years) Value Total 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Thereafter Duration
 
Receive-fixed interest rate swaps (1, 2)
 $7,499                               5.12 
Notional amount
     $100,235  $-  $23,422  $7,769  $7,713  $10,788  $50,543     
Weighted-average fixed-rate
      4.18%  -%  2.60%  3.85%  3.88%  4.01%  5.04%    
Pay-fixed interest rate swaps (1, 2)
  (4,076)                              11.12 
Notional amount
     $98,435  $-  $2,550  $1,435  $3,077  $17,436  $73,937     
Weighted-average fixed-rate
      3.40%  -%  1.48%  2.50%  2.17%  2.52%  3.74%    
Same-currency basis swaps (3)
  5                                 
Notional amount
     $171,907  $9,422  $49,766  $45,383  $24,357  $14,854  $28,125     
Foreign exchange basis swaps (2, 4, 5)
  7,189                                 
Notional amount
      269,034   15,724   46,746   45,615   56,387   25,884   78,678     
Option products (6)
  (133)                                
Notional amount (8)
      10,944   3,100   1,500   2,252   600   300   3,192     
Foreign exchange contracts (2, 5, 7)
  2,735                                 
Notional amount (8)
      35,608   (11,410)  5,792   7,966   11,156   2,212   19,892     
Futures and forward rate contracts
  24                                 
Notional amount (8)
      2,086   2,086   -   -   -   -   -     
 
                                    
Net ALM contracts
 $13,243                                 
 
      
          December 31, 2010  
          Expected Maturity  
 
                                 Average
(Dollars in millions, average
 Fair                             Estimated
estimated duration in years)
 Value Total  2011   2012   2013   2014   2015  Thereafter Duration
 
Receive-fixed interest rate swaps (1, 2)
 $7,364                               4.45 
Notional amount
     $104,949  $8  $36,201  $7,909  $7,270  $8,094  $45,467     
Weighted-average fixed-rate
      3.94%  1.00%  2.49%  3.90%  3.66%  3.71%  5.19%    
Pay-fixed interest rate swaps (1, 2)
  (3,827)                              6.03 
Notional amount
     $156,067  $50,810  $16,205  $1,207  $4,712  $10,933  $72,200     
Weighted-average fixed-rate
      3.02%  2.37%  2.15%  2.88%  2.40%  2.75%  3.76%    
Same-currency basis swaps (3)
  103                                 
Notional amount
     $152,849  $13,449  $49,509  $31,503  $21,085  $11,431  $25,872     
Foreign exchange basis swaps (2, 4, 5)
  4,830                                 
Notional amount
      235,164   21,936   39,365   46,380   41,003   23,430   63,050     
Option products (6)
  (120)                                
Notional amount (8)
      6,572   (1,180)  2,092   2,390   603   311   2,356     
Foreign exchange contracts (2, 5, 7)
  4,272                                 
Notional amount (8)
      109,544   59,508   5,427   10,048   13,035   2,372   19,154     
Futures and forward rate contracts
  (21)                                
Notional amount (8)
      (280)  (280)  -   -   -   -   -     
 
                                    
Net ALM contracts
 $12,601                                 
 
(1) 
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the receive-fixed interest rate swap notional amounts that represented forward starting swaps and which will not be effective until their respective contractual start dates were $1.7 billion. The forward starting pay-fixed swap positions at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 were $25.1 billion and $34.5 billion.
 
(2) 
Does not include basis adjustments on either fixed-rate debt issued by the Corporation or AFS debt securities which are hedged using derivatives designated as fair value hedging instruments that substantially offset the fair values of these derivatives.
 
(3) 
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, same-currency basis swaps consisted of $171.9 billion and $152.8 billion in both foreign currency and U.S. dollar-denominated basis swaps in which both sides of the swap are in the same-currency.
 
(4) 
Foreign exchange basis swaps consisted of cross-currency variable interest rate swaps used separately or in conjunction with receive-fixed interest rate swaps.
 
(5) 
Does not include foreign currency translation adjustments on certain non-U.S. debt issued by the Corporation that substantially offset the fair values of these derivatives.
 
(6) 
Option products of $10.9 billion at June 30, 2011 were comprised of $43 million in purchased caps/floors, $8.0 billion in swaptions and $2.9 billion of foreign exchange options. Option products of $6.6 billion at December 31, 2010 were comprised of $160 million in purchased caps/floors, $8.2 billion in swaptions and $(1.8) billion in foreign exchange options.
 
(7) 
Foreign exchange contracts include foreign currency-denominated and cross-currency receive-fixed interest rate swaps as well as foreign currency forward rate contracts. Total notional amount was comprised of $47.0 billion in foreign currency-denominated and cross-currency receive-fixed swaps and ($11.4) billion in net foreign currency forward rate contracts at June 30, 2011, and $57.6 billion in foreign currency-denominated and cross-currency receive-fixed swaps and $52.0 billion in foreign currency forward rate contracts at December 31, 2010.
 
(8) 
Reflects the net of long and short positions.

118


Table of Contents

     We use interest rate derivative instruments to hedge the variability in the cash flows of our assets and liabilities and other forecasted transactions (collectively referred to as cash flow hedges). The net losses on both open and terminated derivative instruments recorded in accumulated OCI, net-of-tax, were $3.3 billion and $3.2 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. These net losses are expected to be reclassified into earnings in the same period as the hedged cash flows affect earnings and will decrease income or increase expense on the respective hedged cash flows. Assuming no change in open cash flow derivative hedge positions and no changes in prices or interest rates beyond what is implied in forward yield curves at June 30, 2011, the pre-tax net losses are expected to be reclassified into earnings as follows: $1.7 billion, or 33 percent, within the next year, 81 percent within five years, and 93 percent within 10 years, with the remaining seven percent thereafter. For more information on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, see Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
     We hedge our net investment in non-U.S. operations determined to have functional currencies other than the U.S. dollar using forward foreign exchange contracts that typically settle in less than 180 days, cross-currency basis swaps, foreign exchange options and foreign currency-denominated debt. We recorded after-tax losses on derivatives and foreign currency-denominated debt in accumulated OCI associated with net investment hedges which were offset by gains on our net investments in consolidated non-U.S. entities at June 30, 2011.
Mortgage Banking Risk Management
     We originate, fund and service mortgage loans, which subject us to credit, liquidity and interest rate risks, among others. We determine whether loans will be HFI or held-for-sale at the time of commitment and manage credit and liquidity risks by selling or securitizing a portion of the loans we originate.
     Interest rate risk and market risk can be substantial in the mortgage business. Fluctuations in interest rates drive consumer demand for new mortgages and the level of refinancing activity, which in turn, affects total origination and service fee income. Typically, a decline in mortgage interest rates will lead to an increase in mortgage originations and fees and a decrease in the value of the MSRs driven by higher prepayment expectations. Hedging the various sources of interest rate risk in mortgage banking is a complex process that requires complex modeling and ongoing monitoring. IRLCs and the related residential first mortgage LHFS are subject to interest rate risk between the date of the IRLC and the date the loans are sold to the secondary market. To hedge interest rate risk, we utilize forward loan sale commitments and other derivative instruments including purchased options. These instruments are used as economic hedges of IRLCs and residential first mortgage LHFS. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the notional amount of derivatives economically hedging the IRLCs and residential first mortgage LHFS was $66.8 billion and $129.0 billion.
     MSRs are nonfinancial assets created when the underlying mortgage loan is sold to investors and we retain the right to service the loan. We use certain derivatives such as interest rate options, interest rate swaps, forward rate agreements, Eurodollar and U.S. Treasury futures, as well as mortgage-backed and U.S. Treasury securities as economic hedges of MSRs. The notional amounts of the derivative contracts and other securities designated as economic hedges of MSRs were $2.3 trillion and $52.5 billion at June 30, 2011 and $1.6 trillion and $60.3 billion at December 31, 2010. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded gains in mortgage banking income of $1.5 billion and $1.3 billion related to the change in fair value of these economic hedges compared to gains of $4.0 billion and $4.9 billion for the same periods in 2010. For additional information on MSRs, see Note 19 – Mortgage Servicing Rights to the Consolidated Financial Statements and for more information on mortgage banking income, see Consumer Real Estate Services on page 35.
Compliance Risk Management
     Compliance risk is the risk posed by the failure to manage regulatory, legal and ethical issues that could result in monetary damages, losses or harm to our reputation or image. The Seven Elements of a Compliance Program® provides the framework for the compliance programs that are consistently applied across the Corporation to manage compliance risk. This framework includes a common approach to commitment and accountability, policies and procedures, controls and supervision, monitoring and testing, regulatory change management, education and awareness, and reporting.
     We approach compliance risk management on an enterprise and line of business level. The Operational and Compliance Risk Committee, which is a sub-committee of the Operational Risk Committee (ORC), provides oversight of significant compliance risk issues. Global Compliance Risk Management develops and implements the strategies, policies and practices for assessing and managing compliance risks across the organization. The lines of business are responsible for all the risks within the business line, including compliance risk. For more information on our Compliance Risk Management activities, refer to page 106 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

119


Table of Contents

Operational Risk Management
     The Corporation defines operational risk as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events. Operational risk may occur anywhere in the Corporation, not solely in operations functions, and its effects may extend beyond financial losses. Operational risk includes legal risk. Successful operational risk management is particularly important to diversified financial services companies because of the nature, volume and complexity of the financial services business. Global banking guidelines and country-specific requirements for managing operational risk were established in Basel II which requires that banks have internal operational risk management processes to assess and measure operational risk exposure and to set aside appropriate capital to address those exposures.
     We approach operational risk management from two perspectives to best manage operational risk within the structure of the Corporation: (1) at the enterprise level to provide independent, integrated management of operational risk across the organization, and (2) at the line of business and enterprise control function levels to address operational risk in revenue producing and non-revenue producing units. A sound internal governance structure ensures the effectiveness of the Corporation’s Operational Risk Management Program and is accomplished at the enterprise level through formal oversight by the Board, the Chief Risk Officer and a variety of management committees and risk oversight groups aligned to the Corporation’s overall risk governance framework and practices. Of these, the ORC oversees and approves the Corporation’s policies and processes to assure sound operational and compliance risk management. The ORC also serves as an escalation point for critical operational risk and compliance matters within the Corporation. The ORC reports operational risk activities to the Enterprise Risk Committee of the Board.
     Within the Global Risk Management organization, the Corporate Operational Risk team develops and guides the strategies, policies, practices, controls and monitoring tools for assessing and managing operational risks across the organization and reports results to the lines of business, enterprise control functions, senior management, governance committees and the Board.
     Each line of business and enterprise control function is responsible for all risks within their respective line of business, including operational risks. In addition to enterprise risk management tools such as loss reporting, scenario analysis and risk and control self-assessments, independent operational risk executives, working in conjunction with senior line of business executives, have developed key tools to proactively identify, measure, mitigate and monitor risk specific to each line of business and enterprise control function.
     Independent review and challenge to the Corporation’s overall operational risk management framework is performed by the Corporate Operational Risk Validation Team, Compliance and Internal Audit.
     For more information on our operational risk management activities, refer to pages 106 through 107 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Complex Accounting Estimates
     Our significant accounting principles, as described in Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K are essential in understanding the MD&A. Many of our significant accounting principles require complex judgments to estimate the values of assets and liabilities. We have procedures and processes in place to facilitate making these judgments. The more judgmental estimates are summarized below.
     We have identified and described the development of the variables most important in the estimation processes that involve mathematical models to derive the estimates. In many cases, there are numerous alternative judgments that could be used in the process of determining the inputs to the models. Where alternatives exist, we have used the factors that we believe represent the most reasonable value in developing the inputs. Actual performance that differs from our estimates of the key variables could impact our operating results. Separate from the possible future impact to our operating results from input and model variables, the value of our lending portfolio and market-sensitive assets and liabilities may change subsequent to the balance sheet date, often significantly, due to the nature and magnitude of future credit and market conditions. Such credit and market conditions may change quickly and in unforeseen ways and the resulting volatility could have a significant, negative effect on future operating results. These fluctuations would not be indicative of deficiencies in our models or inputs.
     For additional information, see Complex Accounting Estimates on page 107 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

120


Table of Contents

Level 3 Assets and Liabilities
     Financial assets and liabilities whose values are based on valuation techniques that require inputs that are both unobservable and are significant to the overall fair value measurement are classified as Level 3 under the fair value hierarchy established in applicable accounting guidance. The Level 3 financial assets and liabilities include consumer MSRs, highly structured, complex or long-dated derivative contracts, ABS, structured notes, certain CDOs and private equity investments for which there is not an active market for identical assets from which to determine fair value or where sufficient, current market information about similar assets to use as observable, corroborated data for all significant inputs into a valuation model is not available. In these cases, the fair values of these Level 3 financial assets and liabilities are determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, a net asset value approach for certain structured securities, or similar techniques for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation. In the six months ended June 30, 2011, there were no changes to the quantitative models, or uses of such models, that resulted in a material adjustment to the Consolidated Statement of Income.
  Table 65
  Level 3 Asset and Liability Summary
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
      As a %          As a %    
      of Total  As a %      of Total  As a % 
  Level 3  Level 3  of Total  Level 3  Level 3  of Total 
  (Dollars in millions) Fair Value  Assets  Assets  Fair Value  Assets  Assets 
     
Trading account assets
 $14,024   19.16%  0.62% $15,525   19.56%  0.69%
Derivative assets
  15,214   20.79   0.67   18,773   23.65   0.83 
AFS debt securities
  13,462   18.40   0.60   15,873   19.99   0.70 
All other Level 3 assets at fair value
  30,476   41.65   1.35   29,217   36.80   1.29 
 
Total Level 3 assets at fair value (1)
 $73,176   100.00%  3.24% $79,388   100.00%  3.51%
 
                         
      As a %          As a %    
      of Total  As a %      of Total  As a % 
  Level 3  Level 3  of Total  Level 3  Level 3  of Total 
  Fair Value  Liabilities  Liabilities  Fair Value  Liabilities  Liabilities 
       
Derivative liabilities
 $9,796   66.62%  0.48% $11,028   70.90%  0.54%
Long-term debt
  3,324   22.61   0.16   2,986   19.20   0.15 
All other Level 3 liabilities at fair value
  1,584   10.77   0.08   1,541   9.90   0.07 
 
Total Level 3 liabilities at fair value(1)
 $14,704   100.00%  0.72% $15,555   100.00%  0.76%
 
(1) 
Level 3 total assets and liabilities are shown before the impact of counterparty netting related to our derivative positions.
     During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we recognized net losses of $158 million and net gains of $2.1 billion on Level 3 assets and liabilities. The net losses during the three months ended June 30, 2011 were primarily related to MSRs due to valuation charges during the quarter. These losses were partially offset by gains on trading account assets combined with gains on net derivatives. The net gains during the six months ended June 30, 2011 were primarily related to strong trading account asset gains in the first quarter of 2011 combined with gains on net derivatives driven by income earned on IRLCs. These gains were partially offset by losses on MSRs. We also recorded pre-tax net unrealized losses of $42 million and $0 in accumulated OCI on Level 3 assets and liabilities during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, primarily related to other taxable and tax-exempt securities.
     Level 3 financial instruments, such as our consumer MSRs, may be economically hedged with derivatives classified as Level 1 or 2; therefore, gains or losses associated with Level 3 financial instruments may be offset by gains or losses associated with financial instruments classified in other levels of the fair value hierarchy. The Level 3 gains and losses recorded in earnings did not have a significant impact on our liquidity or capital resources.
     We conduct a review of our fair value hierarchy classifications on a quarterly basis. Transfers into or out of Level 3 are made if the significant inputs used in the financial models measuring the fair values of the assets and liabilities became unobservable or observable, respectively, in the current marketplace. These transfers are considered to be effective as of the beginning of the quarter in which they occur.
     During the three months ended June 30, 2011, there were no significant transfers into or out of Level 3.
     During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the more significant transfers into Level 3 included $939 million of trading account assets and $1.0 billion of long-term debt accounted for under the fair value option. Transfers into Level 3 for trading account assets were primarily driven by certain collateralized loan obligations which were transferred into Level 3 due to a lack of pricing transparency. Transfers into Level 3 for long-term debt were the result of an increase in unobservable inputs used in the pricing of certain equity-linked structured notes.

121


Table of Contents

     During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the more significant transfers out of Level 3 included $749 million of trading account assets and $1.6 billion of other assets. Transfers out of Level 3 for trading account assets were primarily driven by increased price observability on certain RMBS and consumer ABS portfolios. Transfers out of Level 3 for other assets were the result of an IPO of an equity investment which occurred in the first quarter of 2011.
Goodwill and Intangible Assets
Background
     The nature of and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets are discussed in Note 1 — Summary of Significant Accounting Principles and Note 10 – Goodwill and Intangible Assets to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K as well as Complex Accounting Estimates on page 107 of the MD&A of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Goodwill is reviewed for potential impairment at the reporting unit level on an annual basis, which for the Corporation is performed as of June 30, and in interim periods if events or circumstances indicate a potential impairment. A reporting unit is an operating segment or one level below. As reporting units are determined after an acquisition or evolve with changes in business strategy, goodwill is assigned to reporting units and it no longer retains its association with a particular acquisition. All of the revenue streams and related activities of a reporting unit, whether acquired or organic, are available to support the value of the goodwill.
     We use the reporting units’ allocated equity as a proxy for the carrying amount of equity for each reporting unit in our goodwill impairment tests as we do not maintain a record of equity as defined under GAAP at the reporting unit level. Allocated equity includes economic capital, goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets allocated to the reporting units. The allocation of economic capital to the reporting units utilized for goodwill impairment testing has the same basis as the allocation of economic capital to our operating segments. Economic capital allocation plans are incorporated into the Corporation’s operating plan which is approved by the Board on an annual basis. Allocated equity is updated on a quarterly basis.
     We are in the process of completing our annual impairment test for all reporting units as of June 30, 2011. We performed an impairment test for CRES and Global Card Services during the three months ended June 30, 2011 as discussed below.
2010 Goodwill Impairment Testing
     Due to continued stress on Global Card Services and the uncertain debit card interchange provisions under the Financial Reform Act, we concluded that an additional impairment analysis should be performed for this reporting unit during the third quarter of 2010. Based on the results of this goodwill impairment test for Global Card Services, we determined that goodwill was impaired for this reporting unit and recorded a non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $10.4 billion during the three months ended September 30, 2010.
     During the fourth quarter of 2010, we performed an impairment test for the CRES reporting unit as it was likely that there was a decline in its fair value as a result of increased uncertainties and risks in the mortgage business. Based on the results of the fourth quarter 2010 goodwill impairment test for CRES, we determined that goodwill was impaired for this reporting unit and recorded a non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $2.0 billion as of December 31, 2010.
Second Quarter 2011 Goodwill Impairment Test
     During the three months ended June 30, 2011, we performed an impairment test for the CRESreporting unit as a consequence of the BNY Mellon Settlement we entered into on June 28, 2011, the adverse impact of the incremental mortgage-related charges recorded during the three months ended June 30, 2011 and the continued economic slowdown in the mortgage business. Based on the results of this test, we concluded that the remaining goodwill balance of $2.6 billion was impaired. Accordingly, we recorded a non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $2.6 billion during the three months ended June 30, 2011 to reduce the carrying value of the goodwill in CRES to zero.
     On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule which will be effective October 1, 2011 that establishes debit card interchange fees in connection with the Durbin Amendment of the Financial Reform Act. The rate expected to be earned is higher than our original estimate used in our previous goodwill impairment tests. While we expected that the increased interchange fees allowed under the final rule would increase the estimated fair value of Global Card Services, we performed an impairment analysis for this reporting unit during the three months ended June 30, 2011.

122


Table of Contents

     In step one of the goodwill impairment test, the fair value of Global Card Services was estimated using the income approach. The significant assumptions under the income approach included the discount rate, terminal value, cash flow estimates and expected new account growth. The step one fair value estimate also included the impact of the Federal Reserve’s final rule on debit card interchange fees. At June 30, 2011, the carrying amount, fair value and goodwill for the Global Card Services reporting unit were $24.8 billion, $37.3 billion and $11.9 billion, respectively. The estimated fair value as a percent of the carrying amount was 150 percent. Although the fair value exceeded the carrying amount in step one of the Global Card Servicesgoodwill impairment test, to further substantiate the value of goodwill, we also performed step two for this reporting unit. Under step two of the goodwill impairment test, significant assumptions in measuring the fair value of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit including discount rates, loss rates and interest rates were updated to reflect the current economic conditions. The results of step two of the goodwill impairment test indicated that the remaining balance of goodwill of $11.9 billion was not impaired as of June 30, 2011. Given the recent Federal Reserve rulemaking and improved economic environment, the uncertainty concerning the recoverability of Global Card Services goodwill has been significantly reduced.
Representations and Warranties
     The methodology used to estimate the liability for obligations under representations and warranties related to transfers of residential mortgage loans is a function of the representations and warranties given and considers a variety of factors. Depending upon the counterparty, these factors include actual defaults, estimated future defaults, historical loss experience, estimated home prices, other economic conditions, estimated probability that we will receive a repurchase request, including consideration of whether presentation thresholds will be met, number of payments made by the borrower prior to default, estimated probability that we will be required to repurchase a loan and the experience with and the behavior of the counterparty. It also considers bulk settlements, as appropriate. The estimate of the liability for obligations under representations and warranties is based upon currently available information, significant judgment, and a number of factors, including those set forth above, that are subject to change. Changes to any one of these factors could significantly impact the estimate of our liability.
     The provision for representations and warranties may vary significantly each period as the methodology used to estimate the expense continues to be refined based on the level and type of repurchase requests presented, defects identified, the latest experience gained on repurchase requests and other relevant facts and circumstances. The estimated range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure has been disclosed. However, we are not currently able to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss with respect to any such potential impact in excess of current reserves on future GSE provisions if the behavior of the GSEs changes from past experience. For the GSE claims where we have established a representations and warranties liability as discussed in Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements, an assumed simultaneous increase or decrease of 10 percent in estimated future defaults, loss severity and the net repurchase rate would result in an increase of approximately $829 million or decrease of approximately $710 million in the representations and warranties liability as of June 30, 2011. Viewed from the perspective of home prices, for each one percent change in home prices, the liability for representations and warranties on unsettled GSE originations is estimated to be impacted by $125 million based on projected collateral losses and defect rates. These sensitivities are hypothetical and are intended to provide an indication of the impact of a significant change in these key assumptions on the representations and warranties liability. In reality, changes in one assumption may result in changes in other assumptions, which may or may not counteract the sensitivity.
     For additional information on representations and warranties, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 51, as well asNote 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees and Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

123


Table of Contents

Glossary
Alt-A Mortgage – Alternative-A mortgage, a type of U.S. mortgage that, for various reasons, is considered riskier than A-paper, or “prime,” and less risky than “subprime,” the riskiest category. Alt-A interest rates, which are determined by credit risk, therefore tend to be between those of prime and subprime home loans. Typically, Alt-A mortgages are characterized by borrowers with less than full documentation, lower credit scores and higher LTVs.
Assets in Custody – Consist largely of custodial and non-discretionary trust assets excluding brokerage assets administered for clients. Trust assets encompass a broad range of asset types including real estate, private company ownership interest, personal property and investments.
Assets Under Management (AUM) – The total market value of assets under the investment advisory and discretion of GWIM which generate asset management fees based on a percentage of the assets’ market values. AUM reflects assets that are generally managed for institutional, high net-worth and retail clients and are distributed through various investment products including mutual funds, other commingled vehicles and separate accounts.
Client Brokerage Assets – Include client assets which are held in brokerage accounts. This includes non-discretionary brokerage and fee-based assets which generate brokerage income and asset management fee revenue.
Committed Credit Exposure – Includes any funded portion of a facility plus the unfunded portion of a facility on which the lender is legally bound to advance funds during a specified period under prescribed conditions.
Core Net Interest Income – Net interest income on a FTE basis excluding the impact of market-based activities.
Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) – Legislation signed into law on May 22, 2009 to provide changes to credit card industry practices including significantly restricting credit card issuers’ ability to change interest rates and assess fees to reflect individual consumer risk, change the way payments are applied and requiring changes to consumer credit card disclosures. The majority of the provisions became effective on February 22, 2010, while certain provisions became effective in the third quarter of 2010.
Credit Default Swap – A derivative contract that provides protection against the deterioration of credit quality and allows one party to receive payment in the event of default by a third party under a borrowing arrangement.
Interest Rate Lock Commitment (IRLC) – Commitment with a loan applicant in which the loan terms, including interest rate and price, are guaranteed for a designated period of time subject to credit approval.
Letter of Credit – A document issued on behalf of a customer to a third party promising to pay the third party upon presentation of specified documents. A letter of credit effectively substitutes the issuer’s credit for that of the customer.
Loan-to-value (LTV) – A commonly used credit quality metric that is reported in terms of ending and average LTV. Ending LTV is calculated as the outstanding carrying value of the loan at the end of the period divided by the estimated value of the property securing the loan. Estimated property values are primarily determined by utilizing the Case-Schiller Home Index, a widely used index based on data from repeat sales of single family homes. Case-Schiller indices are updated quarterly and are reported on a three-month or one-quarter lag. An additional metric related to LTV is combined loan-to-value (CLTV) which is similar to the LTV metric, yet combines the outstanding balance on the residential mortgage loan and the outstanding carrying value on the home equity loan or available line of credit, both of which are secured by the same property, divided by the estimated value of the property. A LTV of 100 percent reflects a loan that is currently secured by a property valued at an amount exactly equal to the carrying value or available line of the loan. Under certain circumstances, estimated values can also be determined by utilizing an automated valuation method (AVM) or Mortgage Risk Assessment Corporation (MRAC) index. An AVM is a tool that estimates the value of a property by reference to large volumes of market data including sales of comparable properties and price trends specific to the MSA in which the property being valued is located. The MRAC index is similar to the Case-Schiller Home Index in that it is an index that is based on data from repeat sales of single family homes and is reported on a lag.
Mortgage Servicing Right (MSR) – The right to service a mortgage loan when the underlying loan is sold or securitized. Servicing includes collections for principal, interest and escrow payments from borrowers and accounting for and remitting principal and interest payments to investors.
Net Interest Yield – Net interest income divided by average total interest-earning assets.

124


Table of Contents

Nonperforming Loans and Leases – Includes loans and leases that have been placed on nonaccrual status, including nonaccruing loans whose contractual terms have been restructured in a manner that grants a concession to a borrower experiencing financial difficulties (troubled debt restructurings or TDRs). Loans accounted for under the fair value option, PCI loans and LHFS are not reported as nonperforming loans and leases. Consumer credit card loans, business card loans, consumer loans not secured by real estate, and consumer loans secured by real estate, which include loans insured by the FHA and individually insured long-term credit protection agreements with FNMA and FHLMC (fully-insured loan portfolio), are not placed on nonaccrual status and are, therefore, not reported as nonperforming loans and leases.
Purchased Credit-impaired (PCI) Loan – A loan purchased as an individual loan, in a portfolio of loans or in a business combination with evidence of deterioration in credit quality since origination for which it is probable, upon acquisition, that the investor will be unable to collect all contractually required payments. These loans are recorded at fair value upon acquisition.
Subprime Loans – Although a standard industry definition for subprime loans (including subprime mortgage loans) does not exist, the Corporation defines subprime loans as specific product offerings for higher risk borrowers, including individuals with one or a combination of high credit risk factors, such as low FICO scores, high debt to income ratios and inferior payment history.
Super Senior CDO Exposure – Represents the most senior class of commercial paper or notes that are issued by CDO vehicles. These financial instruments benefit from the subordination of all other securities, including AAA-rated securities, issued by CDO vehicles.
Tier 1 Common Capital – Tier 1 capital including any CES, less preferred stock, qualifying trust preferred securities, hybrid securities and qualifying noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries.
Troubled Debt Restructurings (TDRs) – Loans whose contractual terms have been restructured in a manner that grants a concession to a borrower experiencing financial difficulties. Concessions could include a reduction in the interest rate on the loan, payment extensions, forgiveness of principal, forbearance or other actions intended to maximize collection. TDRs are generally reported as nonperforming loans and leases while on nonaccrual status. TDRs that are on accrual status are reported as performing TDRs through the end of the calendar year in which the restructuring occurred or the year in which they are returned to accrual status. In addition, if accruing TDRs bear less than a market rate of interest at the time of modification, they are reported as performing TDRs throughout their remaining lives.
Value-at-Risk (VaR) – A VaR model estimates a range of hypothetical scenarios to calculate a potential loss which is not expected to be exceeded with a specified confidence level. VaR represents the worst loss the portfolio is expected to experience based on historical trends with a given level of confidence and depends on the volatility of the positions in the portfolio and on how strongly their risks are correlated. A VaR model is an effective tool in estimating ranges of potential gains and losses on our trading portfolios and is a key statistic used to measure and manage market risk.

125


Table of Contents

Acronyms
   
ABS
 Asset-backed securities
AFS
 Available-for-sale
ALM
 Asset and liability management
ALMRC
 Asset Liability Market Risk Committee
ARM
 Adjustable-rate mortgage
CDO
 Collateralized debt obligation
CES
 Common Equivalent Securities
CMBS
 Commercial mortgage-backed securities
CRA
 Community Reinvestment Act
CRC
 Credit Risk Committee
DVA
 Debit valuation adjustment
EAD
 Exposure at default
FDIC
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
FFIEC
 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
FHA
 Federal Housing Administration
FHLMC
 Freddie Mac
FICC
 Fixed income, currencies and commodities
FICO
 Fair Isaac Corporation (credit score)
FNMA
 Fannie Mae
FTE
 Fully taxable-equivalent
GAAP
 Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
GNMA
 Government National Mortgage Association
GRC
 Global Markets Risk Committee
GSE
 Government-sponsored enterprise
HFI
 Held-for-investment
HPI
 Home Price Index
HUD
 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IPO
 Initial public offering
LCR
 Liquidity Coverage Ratio
LGD
 Loss given default
LHFS
 Loans held-for-sale
LIBOR
 London InterBank Offered Rate
MBS
 Mortgage-backed securities
MD&A
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
MSA
 Metropolitan Statistical Area
NSFR
 Net Stable Funding Ratio
OCC
 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
OCI
 Other comprehensive income
ORC
 Operational Risk Committee
OTC
 Over-the-counter
OTTI
 Other-than-temporary impairment
RMBS
 Residential mortgage-backed securities
ROTE
 Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity
SBLCs
 Standby letters of credit
SEC
 Securities and Exchange Commission
TLGP
 Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program

126


Table of Contents

Item 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
     See Market Risk Management on page 111 in the MD&A and the sections referenced therein for Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.
Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures
     As of the end of the period covered by this report and pursuant to Rule 13a-15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), the Corporation’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness and design of the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures (as that term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Exchange Act). Based upon that evaluation, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective, as of the end of the period covered by this report, in recording, processing, summarizing and reporting information required to be disclosed by the Corporation in reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act, within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.
Changes in internal controls
     There have been no changes in the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act) during the quarter ended June 30, 2011 that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting.

127


Table of Contents

Part I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
  Bank of America Corporation and Subsidiaries
  Consolidated Statement of Income
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
(Dollars in millions, except per share information) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Interest income
                
Loans and leases
 $11,320  $12,887  $23,249  $26,362 
Debt securities
  2,675   2,917   5,557   6,033 
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell
  597   457   1,114   905 
Trading account assets
  1,538   1,796   3,164   3,539 
Other interest income
  918   1,062   1,886   2,159 
 
Total interest income
  17,048   19,119   34,970   38,998 
 
 
                
Interest expense
                
Deposits
  843   1,031   1,682   2,153 
Short-term borrowings
  1,341   891   2,525   1,709 
Trading account liabilities
  627   715   1,254   1,375 
Long-term debt
  2,991   3,582   6,084   7,112 
 
Total interest expense
  5,802   6,219   11,545   12,349 
 
Net interest income
  11,246   12,900   23,425   26,649 
 
                
Noninterest income
                
Card income
  1,967   2,023   3,795   3,999 
Service charges
  2,012   2,576   4,044   5,142 
Investment and brokerage services
  3,009   2,994   6,110   6,019 
Investment banking income
  1,684   1,319   3,262   2,559 
Equity investment income
  1,212   2,766   2,687   3,391 
Trading account profits
  2,091   1,227   4,813   6,463 
Mortgage banking income (loss)
  (13,196)  898   (12,566)  2,398 
Insurance income
  400   678   1,013   1,393 
Gains on sales of debt securities
  899   37   1,445   771 
Other income
  1,957   1,861   2,218   3,065 
Other-than-temporary impairment losses on available-for-sale debt securities:
                
Total other-than-temporary impairment losses
  (63)  (462)  (157)  (1,783)
Less: Portion of other-than-temporary impairment losses recognized in other comprehensive income
  18   336   24   1,056 
 
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings on available-for-sale debt securities
  (45)  (126)  (133)  (727)
 
Total noninterest income
  1,990   16,253   16,688   34,473 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  13,236   29,153   40,113   61,122 
 
                
Provision for credit losses
  3,255   8,105   7,069   17,910 
 
                
Noninterest expense
                
Personnel
  9,171   8,789   19,339   17,947 
Occupancy
  1,245   1,182   2,434   2,354 
Equipment
  593   613   1,199   1,226 
Marketing
  560   495   1,124   982 
Professional fees
  766   644   1,412   1,161 
Amortization of intangibles
  382   439   767   885 
Data processing
  643   632   1,338   1,280 
Telecommunications
  391   359   762   689 
Other general operating
  6,343   3,592   11,800   7,475 
Goodwill impairment
  2,603   -   2,603   - 
Merger and restructuring charges
  159   508   361   1,029 
 
Total noninterest expense
  22,856   17,253   43,139   35,028 
 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (12,875)  3,795   (10,095)  8,184 
Income tax expense (benefit)
  (4,049)  672   (3,318)  1,879 
 
Net income (loss)
 $(8,826) $3,123  $(6,777) $6,305 
 
Preferred stock dividends
  301   340   611   688 
 
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders
 $(9,127) $2,783  $(7,388) $5,617 
 
 
                
Per common share information
                
Earnings (loss)
 $(0.90) $0.28  $(0.73) $0.56 
Diluted earnings (loss)
  (0.90)  0.27   (0.73)  0.55 
Dividends paid
  0.01   0.01   0.02   0.02 
 
Average common shares issued and outstanding (in thousands)
  10,094,928   9,956,773   10,085,479   9,570,166 
 
Average diluted common shares issued and outstanding (in thousands)
  10,094,928   10,029,776   10,085,479   10,020,926 
 
See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

128


Table of Contents

  Bank of America Corporation and Subsidiaries
  Consolidated Balance Sheet
         
  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010 
 
Assets
        
Cash and cash equivalents
 $119,527  $108,427 
Time deposits placed and other short-term investments
  20,291   26,433 
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell (includes $95,115 and $78,599 measured at fair value and $233,257 and $209,249 pledged as collateral)
  235,181   209,616 
Trading account assets (includes $16,928 and $42,221 pledged as collateral)
  196,939   194,671 
Derivative assets
  66,598   73,000 
Debt securities:
        
Available-for-sale (includes $80,262 and $99,925 pledged as collateral)
  330,871   337,627 
Held-to-maturity, at cost (fair value - $181 and $427)
  181   427 
 
Total debt securities
  331,052   338,054 
 
Loans and leases (includes $9,597 and $3,321 measured at fair value and $65,923and $91,730 pledged as collateral)
  941,257   940,440 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  (37,312)  (41,885)
 
Loans and leases, net of allowance
  903,945   898,555 
 
Premises and equipment, net
  13,793   14,306 
Mortgage servicing rights (includes $12,372 and $14,900 measured at fair value)
  12,642   15,177 
Goodwill
  71,074   73,861 
Intangible assets
  9,176   9,923 
Loans held-for-sale (includes $15,143 and $25,942 measured at fair value)
  20,092   35,058 
Customer and other receivables
  86,550   85,704 
Other assets (includes $66,153 and $70,531 measured at fair value)
  174,459   182,124 
 
Total assets
 $2,261,319  $2,264,909 
 
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
Assets of consolidated VIEs included in total assets above (substantially all pledged as collateral)
        
 
Trading account assets
 $10,746  $19,627 
Derivative assets
  2,293   2,027 
Available-for-sale debt securities
  251   2,601 
Loans and leases
  151,928   145,469 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  (6,367)  (8,935)
 
Loans and leases, net of allowance
  145,561   136,534 
 
Loans held-for-sale
  1,561   1,953 
All other assets
  7,115   7,086 
 
Total assets of consolidated VIEs
 $167,527  $169,828 
 
See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

129


Table of Contents

Bank of America Corporation and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheet(continued)
         
  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010 
 
Liabilities
        
Deposits in U.S. offices:
        
Noninterest-bearing
 $301,558  $285,200 
Interest-bearing (includes $3,334 and $2,732 measured at fair value)
  647,480   645,713 
Deposits in non-U.S. offices:
        
Noninterest-bearing
  6,555   6,101 
Interest-bearing
  82,815   73,416 
 
Total deposits
  1,038,408   1,010,430 
 
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase (includes $42,453 and $37,424 measured at fair value)
  239,521   245,359 
Trading account liabilities
  74,989   71,985 
Derivative liabilities
  54,414   55,914 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (includes $4,865 and $7,178 measured at fair value)
  50,632   59,962 
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (includes $25,398 and $33,229 measured at fair value and $897 and $1,188 of reserve for unfunded lending commitments)
  154,520   144,580 
Long-term debt (includes $60,737 and $50,984 measured at fair value)
  426,659   448,431 
 
Total liabilities
  2,039,143   2,036,661 
 
Commitments and contingencies (Note 8 – Securitizations and Other Variable Interest Entities, Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees andNote 11 – Commitments and Contingencies)
        
 
        
Shareholders’ equity
        
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value; authorized — 100,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding — 3,943,660 and 3,943,660 shares
  16,562   16,562 
Common stock and additional paid-in capital, $0.01 par value; authorized — 12,800,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding — 10,133,189,501 and 10,085,154,806 shares
  151,567   150,905 
Retained earnings
  53,254   60,849 
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
  793   (66)
Other
  -   (2)
 
Total shareholders’ equity
  222,176   228,248 
 
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity
 $2,261,319  $2,264,909 
 
 
        
 
        
Liabilities of consolidated VIEs included in total liabilities above
        
 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (includes $974 and $706 of non-recourse liabilities)
 $5,421  $6,742 
Long-term debt (includes $59,177 and $66,309 of non-recourse debt)
  64,745   71,013 
All other liabilities (includes $251 and $382 of non-recourse liabilities)
  1,127   9,141 
 
Total liabilities of consolidated VIEs
 $71,293  $86,896 
 
See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

130


Table of Contents

  Bank of America Corporation and Subsidiaries
  Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity
                                 
      Common Stock and      Accumulated           
      Additional Paid-in      Other      Total  Comprehensive 
  Preferred  Capital  Retained  Comprehensive      Shareholders’  Income 
(Dollars in millions, shares in thousands) Stock  Shares  Amount  Earnings  Income (Loss)  Other  Equity  (Loss) 
 
Balance, December 31, 2009
 $37,208   8,650,244  $128,734  $71,233  $(5,619) $(112) $231,444     
Cumulative adjustment for accounting change - Consolidation of certain VIEs
              (6,154)  (116)      (6,270) $(116)
Net income
              6,305           6,305   6,305 
Net change in available-for-sale debt and marketable equity securities
                  1,520       1,520   1,520 
Net change in derivatives
                  (505)      (505)  (505)
Employee benefit plan adjustments
                  127       127   127 
Net change in foreign currency translation adjustments
                  146       146   146 
Dividends paid:
                                
Common
              (202)          (202)    
Preferred
              (688)          (688)    
Common stock issued under employee plans and related tax effects
      96,773   1,197           61   1,258     
Common Equivalent Securities conversion
  (19,244)  1,286,000   19,244               -     
Other
  29           3       7   39     
 
Balance, June 30, 2010
 $17,993   10,033,017  $149,175  $70,497  $(4,447) $(44) $233,174  $7,477 
 
 
Balance, December 31, 2010
 $16,562   10,085,155  $150,905  $60,849  $(66) $(2) $228,248     
Net loss
              (6,777)          (6,777) $(6,777)
Net change in available-for-sale debt and marketable equity securities
                  754       754   754 
Net change in derivatives
                  (66)      (66)  (66)
Employee benefit plan adjustments
                  138       138   138 
Net change in foreign currency translation adjustments
                  33       33   33 
Dividends paid:
                                
Common
              (207)          (207)    
Preferred
              (611)          (611)    
Common stock issued under employee plans and related tax effects
      48,035   662           1   663     
Other
  -                   1   1     
 
Balance, June 30, 2011
 $16,562   10,133,190  $151,567  $53,254  $793  $-  $222,176  $(5,918)
 
See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

131


Table of Contents

  Bank of America Corporation and Subsidiaries
  Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
         
  Six Months Ended
June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011  2010 
 
Operating activities
        
Net income (loss)
 $(6,777) $6,305 
Reconciliation of net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
        
Provision for credit losses
  7,069   17,910 
Goodwill impairment
  2,603   - 
Gains on sales of debt securities
  (1,445)  (771)
Depreciation and premises improvements amortization
  1,002   1,113 
Amortization of intangibles
  767   885 
Deferred income taxes
  (3,418)  1,264 
Net decrease in trading and derivative instruments
  4,716   32,108 
Net decrease in other assets
  19,340   3,205 
Net increase in accrued expenses and other liabilities
  9,556   2,518 
Other operating activities, net
  17,790   (25,186)
 
Net cash provided by operating activities
  51,203   39,351 
 
Investing activities
        
Net decrease in time deposits placed and other short-term investments
  6,142   3,561 
Net increase in federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell
  (25,565)  (57,734)
Proceeds from sales of available-for-sale debt securities
  41,422   63,356 
Proceeds from paydowns and maturities of available-for-sale debt securities
  28,729   36,458 
Purchases of available-for-sale debt securities
  (59,846)  (99,704)
Proceeds from maturities of held-to-maturity debt securities
  -   3 
Purchases of held-to-maturity debt securities
  -   (100)
Proceeds from sales of loans and leases
  1,517   3,525 
Other changes in loans and leases, net
  (8,147)  19,657 
Net purchases of premises and equipment
  (489)  (149)
Proceeds from sales of foreclosed properties
  1,146   1,342 
Cash received due to impact of adoption of new consolidation guidance
  -   2,807 
Other investing activities, net
  (313)  6,905 
 
Net cash used in investing activities
  (15,404)  (20,073)
 
Financing activities
        
Net increase (decrease) in deposits
  27,978   (17,144)
Net increase (decrease) in federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase
  (5,838)  52,026 
Net decrease in commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  (9,330)  (18,303)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
  16,959   38,920 
Retirement of long-term debt
  (53,929)  (44,157)
Cash dividends paid
  (818)  (890)
Excess tax benefits on share-based payments
  39   47 
Other financing activities, net
  -   (34)
 
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
  (24,939)  10,465 
 
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
  240   (48)
 
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents
  11,100   29,695 
Cash and cash equivalents at January 1
  108,427   121,339 
 
Cash and cash equivalents at June 30
 $119,527  $151,034 
 
During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation entered into an agreement with Assured Guaranty Ltd. and subsidiaries which resulted in non-cash increases to loans of $5.3 billion, other assets of $504 million and long-term debt of $5.8 billion.
See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

132


Table of Contents

Bank of America Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles
     Bank of America Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, the Corporation), a financial holding company, provides a diverse range of financial services and products throughout the U.S. and in certain international markets. The term “the Corporation” as used herein may refer to the Corporation individually, the Corporation and its subsidiaries, or certain of the Corporation’s subsidiaries or affiliates.
     The Corporation conducts its activities through banking and nonbanking subsidiaries. The Corporation operates its banking activities primarily under two charters: Bank of America, National Association (Bank of America, N.A. or BANA) and FIA Card Services, National Association (FIA Card Services, N.A.).
Principles of Consolidation and Basis of Presentation
     The Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of the Corporation and its majority-owned subsidiaries, and those variable interest entities (VIEs) where the Corporation is the primary beneficiary. Intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. Results of operations of acquired companies are included from the dates of acquisition and for VIEs, from the dates that the Corporation became the primary beneficiary. Assets held in an agency or fiduciary capacity are not included in the Consolidated Financial Statements. The Corporation accounts for investments in companies for which it owns a voting interest and for which it has the ability to exercise significant influence over operating and financing decisions using the equity method of accounting or at fair value under the fair value option. These investments are included in other assets. Equity method investments are subject to impairment testing and the Corporation’s proportionate share of income or loss is included in equity investment income.
     The preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts and disclosures. Realized results could differ from those estimates and assumptions.
     These unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the audited Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The nature of the Corporation’s business is such that the results of any interim period are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, which consist of normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the interim period results have been made. The Corporation evaluates subsequent events through the date of filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation.
     Effective January 1, 2011, the Corporation changed the name of the segment formerly known asHome Loans & Insurance to Consumer Real Estate Services (CRES). For additional information, seeNote 6 – Outstanding Loans and Leases.
New Accounting Pronouncements
     In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued new accounting guidance on troubled debt restructurings (TDRs), including how to determine whether a loan modification represents a concession and whether the debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. This new accounting guidance will be effective for the Corporation’s interim period ending September 30, 2011 with retrospective application back to January 1, 2011. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
     In April 2011, the FASB issued new accounting guidance that addresses effective control in repurchase agreements and eliminates the requirement for entities to consider whether the transferor (i.e., seller) has the ability to repurchase the financial assets in a repurchase agreement. This new accounting guidance will be effective, on a prospective basis to new transactions or modifications to existing transactions, on January 1, 2012. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

133


Table of Contents

     In May 2011, the FASB issued amendments to the fair value accounting guidance. The amendments clarify the application of the highest and best use and valuation premise concepts, preclude the application of blockage factors in the valuation of all financial instruments and include criteria for applying the fair value measurement principles to portfolios of financial instruments. The amendments additionally prescribe enhanced financial statement disclosures for Level 3 fair value measurements. The new amendments will be effective on January 1, 2012. The Corporation is currently assessing the impact of this guidance on the consolidated financial position and results of operations.
     In June 2011, the FASB issued new accounting guidance on the presentation of comprehensive income in financial statements. The new guidance removes current presentation options and requires entities to report components of comprehensive income in either a continuous statement of comprehensive income or two separate but consecutive statements. This new accounting guidance will be effective for the Corporation for the three months ended March 31, 2012. The adoption of this guidance, which involves disclosures only, will not impact the Corporation’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
Significant Accounting Policies
Securities Financing Agreements
     Securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase (securities financing agreements) are treated as collateralized financing transactions. These agreements are recorded at the amounts at which the securities were acquired or sold plus accrued interest, except for certain securities financing agreements that the Corporation accounts for under the fair value option. Changes in the fair value of securities financing agreements that are accounted for under the fair value option are recorded in other income.
     The Corporation’s policy is to obtain possession of collateral with a market value equal to or in excess of the principal amount loaned under resale agreements. To ensure that the market value of the underlying collateral remains sufficient, collateral is generally valued daily and the Corporation may require counterparties to deposit additional collateral or may return collateral pledged when appropriate. Securities financing agreements give rise to negligible credit risk as a result of these collateral provisions, and accordingly, no allowance for loan losses is considered necessary.
     Substantially all repurchase and resale activities are transacted under legally enforceable master repurchase agreements which give the Corporation, in the event of default by the counterparty, the right to liquidate securities held and to offset receivables and payables with the same counterparty. The Corporation offsets repurchase and resale transactions with the same counterparty on the Consolidated Balance Sheet where it has such a legally enforceable master agreement and the transactions have the same maturity date.
     In transactions where the Corporation acts as the lender in a securities lending agreement and receives securities that can be pledged or sold as collateral, it recognizes an asset on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at fair value, representing the securities received, and a liability for the same amount, representing the obligation to return those securities.
     At the end of certain quarterly periods during the three years ended December 31, 2009, the Corporation had recorded certain sales of agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) which, based on an ongoing internal review and interpretation, should have been recorded as secured financings. The Corporation is currently conducting a detailed review to determine whether there are additional sales of agency MBS which should have been recorded as secured financings. Upon completion of this detailed review, additional transactions will be identified. These transactions are not expected to have an impact on the Corporation’s current period consolidated financial position or results of operations. For additional information, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

134


Table of Contents

Loans and Leases
     Under applicable accounting guidance, a portfolio segment is defined as the level at which an entity develops and documents a systematic methodology to determine the allowance for credit losses, and a class of financing receivables is defined as the level of disaggregation of portfolio segments based on the initial measurement attribute, risk characteristics and methods for assessing risk. The Corporation’s portfolio segments are home loans, credit card and other consumer, and commercial. The classes within the home loans portfolio segment are core portfolio residential mortgage, Legacy Asset Servicing residential mortgage, Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide) residential mortgage purchased credit-impaired (PCI), core portfolio home equity, Legacy Asset Servicing home equity, Countrywide home equity PCI, Legacy Asset Servicing discontinued real estate and Countrywide discontinued real estate PCI. The classes within the credit card and other consumer portfolio segment are U.S. credit card, non-U.S. credit card, direct/indirect consumer and other consumer. The classes within the commercial portfolio segment are U.S. commercial, commercial real estate, commercial lease financing, non-U.S. commercial and U.S. small business commercial.
Revenue Recognition
     The following summarizes the Corporation’s revenue recognition policies as they relate to certain noninterest income line items in the Consolidated Statement of Income.
     Card income is derived from fees such as interchange, cash advance, annual, late, over-limit and other miscellaneous fees, which are recorded as revenue when earned, primarily on an accrual basis. Uncollected fees are included in the customer card receivable balances with an amount recorded in the allowance for loan and lease losses for estimated uncollectible card income receivables. Uncollected fees are written off when a card receivable reaches 180 days past due.
     Service charges include fees for insufficient funds, overdrafts and other banking services and are recorded as revenue when earned. Uncollected fees are included in outstanding loan balances with an amount recorded for estimated uncollectible service fee receivables. Uncollected fees are written off when a fee receivable reaches 60 days past due.
     Investment and brokerage services revenue consists primarily of asset management fees and brokerage income that is recognized over the period in which the services are provided or when commissions are earned. Asset management fees consist primarily of fees for investment management and trust services and are generally based on the dollar amount of the assets being managed. Brokerage income is generally derived from commissions and fees earned on the sale of various financial products.
     Investment banking income consists primarily of advisory and underwriting fees, which are recognized in income as the services are provided and no contingencies exist. Revenues are generally recognized net of any direct expenses. Non-reimbursed expenses are recorded as noninterest expense.

135


Table of Contents

NOTE 2 – Merger and Restructuring Activity
     Merger and restructuring charges are recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Income and include incremental costs to integrate the operations of the Corporation and its most recent acquisitions. These charges represent costs associated with these one-time activities and do not represent ongoing costs of the fully integrated combined organization. The table below presents the components of merger and restructuring charges.
                 
  Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
  June 30 June 30
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Severance and employee-related charges
 $65  $123  $133  $274 
Systems integrations and related charges
  79   329   185   639 
Other
  15   56   43   116 
 
Total merger and restructuring charges
 $159  $508  $361  $1,029 
 
     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, all merger-related charges related to the Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch) acquisition. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, $424 million and $832 million of merger-related charges related to the Merrill Lynch acquisition and $84 million and $197 million related to earlier acquisitions.
     The table below presents the changes in restructuring reserves for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Restructuring reserves are established by a charge to merger and restructuring charges, and the restructuring charges are included in the total merger and restructuring charges in the table above. Substantially all of the amounts in the table below relate to the Merrill Lynch acquisition.
         
  Restructuring Reserves
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010 
 
Balance, January 1
 $336  $403 
Exit costs and restructuring charges:
        
Merrill Lynch
  65   106 
Other
  -   30 
Cash payments and other
  (237)  (294)
 
Balance, March 31
 $164  $245 
Exit costs and restructuring charges:
        
Merrill Lynch
  62   93 
Other
  -   23 
Cash payments and other
  (57)  (101)
 
Balance, June 30
 $169  $260 
 
NOTE 3 – Trading Account Assets and Liabilities
     The table below presents the components of trading account assets and liabilities at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
         
  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010 
 
Trading account assets
        
U.S. government and agency securities (1)
 $45,968  $60,811 
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
  49,309   49,352 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  46,723   33,523 
Equity securities
  37,801   32,129 
Mortgage trading loans and asset-backed securities
  17,138   18,856 
 
Total trading account assets
 $196,939  $194,671 
 
Trading account liabilities
        
U.S. government and agency securities
 $25,552  $29,340 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  22,062   15,813 
Equity securities
  16,424   15,482 
Corporate securities and other
  10,951   11,350 
 
Total trading account liabilities
 $74,989  $71,985 
 
(1) 
Includes $24.1 billion and $29.7 billion of government-sponsored enterprise obligations at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

136


Table of Contents

NOTE 4 – Derivatives
Derivative Balances
     Derivatives are entered into on behalf of customers, for trading, as economic hedges or as qualifying accounting hedges. The Corporation enters into derivatives to facilitate client transactions, for principal trading purposes and to manage risk exposures. For additional information on the Corporation’s derivatives and hedging activities, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The tables below identify derivative instruments included on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet in derivative assets and liabilities at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Balances are presented on a gross basis, prior to the application of counterparty and collateral netting. Total derivative assets and liabilities are adjusted on an aggregate basis to take into consideration the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements and have been reduced by the cash collateral applied.
                             
  June 30, 2011 
      Gross Derivative Assets  Gross Derivative Liabilities 
      Trading          Trading       
      Derivatives          Derivatives       
      and  Qualifying      and  Qualifying    
  Contract/  Economic  Accounting      Economic  Accounting    
(Dollars in billions) Notional (1)   Hedges  Hedges  Total  Hedges  Hedges (2)  Total 
 
Interest rate contracts
                            
Swaps
 $45,518.3  $1,114.0  $9.8  $1,123.8  $1,106.3  $3.8  $1,110.1 
Futures and forwards
  12,471.9   3.5   -   3.5   4.1   -   4.1 
Written options
  3,089.1   -   -   -   78.4   -   78.4 
Purchased options
  3,132.4   84.0   -   84.0   -   -   - 
Foreign exchange contracts
                            
Swaps
  880.8   32.6   3.6   36.2   32.4   0.7   33.1 
Spot, futures and forwards
  3,109.3   36.7   0.5   37.2   37.3   0.9   38.2 
Written options
  545.7   -   -   -   12.4   -   12.4 
Purchased options
  542.2   11.1   -   11.1   -   -   - 
Equity contracts
                            
Swaps
  43.4   1.2   -   1.2   1.5   -   1.5 
Futures and forwards
  105.9   2.5   -   2.5   2.4   -   2.4 
Written options
  530.7   -   -   -   20.7   -   20.7 
Purchased options
  254.1   22.6   -   22.6   -   -   - 
Commodity contracts
                            
Swaps
  87.4   5.9   0.1   6.0   6.5   -   6.5 
Futures and forwards
  534.5   4.2   -   4.2   3.0   -   3.0 
Written options
  120.3   -   -   -   8.0   -   8.0 
Purchased options
  120.0   7.7   -   7.7   -   -   - 
Credit derivatives
                            
Purchased credit derivatives:
                            
Credit default swaps
  2,065.7   59.8   -   59.8   29.2   -   29.2 
Total return swaps/other
  41.4   0.4   -   0.4   0.3   -   0.3 
Written credit derivatives:
                            
Credit default swaps
  1,990.5   28.5   -   28.5   51.9   -   51.9 
Total return swaps/other
  40.8   0.5   -   0.5   0.6   -   0.6 
 
Gross derivative assets/liabilities
     $1,415.2  $14.0  $1,429.2  $1,395.0  $5.4  $1,400.4 
Less: Legally enforceable master netting agreements
              (1,303.8)          (1,303.8)
Less: Cash collateral applied
              (58.8)          (42.2)
 
Total derivative assets/liabilities
             $66.6          $54.4 
 
(1) 
Represents the total contract/notional amount of derivative assets and liabilities outstanding.
 
(2) 
Excludes $3.3 billion of long-term debt designated as a hedge of foreign currency risk.

137


Table of Contents

                             
  December 31, 2010 
      Gross Derivative Assets  Gross Derivative Liabilities 
      Trading          Trading       
      Derivatives          Derivatives       
      and  Qualifying      and  Qualifying    
  Contract/  Economic  Accounting      Economic  Accounting    
(Dollars in billions) Notional (1)   Hedges  Hedges  Total  Hedges  Hedges (2)  Total 
 
Interest rate contracts
                            
Swaps
 $42,719.2  $1,193.9  $14.9  $1,208.8  $1,187.9  $2.2  $1,190.1 
Futures and forwards
  9,939.2   6.0   -   6.0   4.7   -   4.7 
Written options
  2,887.7   -   -   -   82.8   -   82.8 
Purchased options
  3,026.2   88.0   -   88.0   -   -   - 
Foreign exchange contracts
                            
Swaps
  630.1   26.5   3.7   30.2   28.5   2.1   30.6 
Spot, futures and forwards
  2,652.9   41.3   -   41.3   44.2   -   44.2 
Written options
  439.6   -   -   -   13.2   -   13.2 
Purchased options
  417.1   13.0   -   13.0   -   -   - 
Equity contracts
                            
Swaps
  42.4   1.7   -   1.7   2.0   -   2.0 
Futures and forwards
  78.8   2.9   -   2.9   2.1   -   2.1 
Written options
  242.7   -   -   -   19.4   -   19.4 
Purchased options
  193.5   21.5   -   21.5   -   -   - 
Commodity contracts
                            
Swaps
  90.2   8.8   0.2   9.0   9.3   -   9.3 
Futures and forwards
  413.7   4.1   -   4.1   2.8   -   2.8 
Written options
  86.3   -   -   -   6.7   -   6.7 
Purchased options
  84.6   6.6   -   6.6   -   -   - 
Credit derivatives
                            
Purchased credit derivatives:
                            
Credit default swaps
  2,184.7   69.8   -   69.8   34.0   -   34.0 
Total return swaps/other
  26.0   0.9   -   0.9   0.2   -   0.2 
Written credit derivatives:
                            
Credit default swaps
  2,133.5   33.3   -   33.3   63.2   -   63.2 
Total return swaps/other
  22.5   0.5   -   0.5   0.5   -   0.5 
 
Gross derivative assets/liabilities
     $1,518.8  $18.8  $1,537.6  $1,501.5  $4.3  $1,505.8 
Less: Legally enforceable master netting agreements
              (1,406.3)          (1,406.3)
Less: Cash collateral applied
              (58.3)          (43.6)
 
Total derivative assets/liabilities
             $73.0          $55.9 
 
(1) 
Represents the total contract/notional amount of derivative assets and liabilities outstanding.
 
(2) 
Excludes $4.1 billion of long-term debt designated as a hedge of foreign currency risk.
ALM and Risk Management Derivatives
     The Corporation’s asset and liability management (ALM) and risk management activities include the use of derivatives to mitigate risk to the Corporation including both derivatives that are designated as qualifying accounting hedges and economic hedges. Interest rate, commodity, credit and foreign exchange contracts are utilized in the Corporation’s ALM and risk management activities.
     The Corporation maintains an overall interest rate risk management strategy that incorporates the use of interest rate contracts, which are generally non-leveraged generic interest rate and basis swaps, options, futures and forwards, to minimize significant fluctuations in earnings that are caused by interest rate volatility. The Corporation’s goal is to manage interest rate sensitivity and volatility so that movements in interest rates do not significantly adversely affect earnings or capital. As a result of interest rate fluctuations, hedged fixed-rate assets and liabilities appreciate or depreciate in fair value. Gains or losses on the derivative instruments that are linked to the hedged fixed-rate assets and liabilities are expected to substantially offset this unrealized appreciation or depreciation.
     Interest rate and market risk can be substantial in the mortgage business. Market risk is the risk that values of mortgage assets or revenues will be adversely affected by changes in market conditions such as interest rate movements. To hedge interest rate risk in mortgage banking production income, the Corporation utilizes forward loan sale commitments and other derivative instruments including purchased options. The Corporation also utilizes derivatives such as interest rate options,

138


Table of Contents

interest rate swaps, forward settlement contracts and Eurodollar futures as economic hedges of the fair value of mortgage servicing rights (MSRs). For additional information on MSRs, see Note 19 – Mortgage Servicing Rights.
     The Corporation uses foreign currency contracts to manage the foreign exchange risk associated with certain foreign currency-denominated assets and liabilities, as well as the Corporation’s investments in non-U.S. subsidiaries. Foreign exchange contracts, which include spot and forward contracts, represent agreements to exchange the currency of one country for the currency of another country at an agreed-upon price on an agreed-upon settlement date. Exposure to loss on these contracts will increase or decrease over their respective lives as currency exchange and interest rates fluctuate.
     The Corporation enters into derivative commodity contracts such as futures, swaps, options and forwards as well as non-derivative commodity contracts to provide price risk management services to customers or to manage price risk associated with its physical and financial commodity positions. The non-derivative commodity contracts and physical inventories of commodities expose the Corporation to earnings volatility. Cash flow and fair value accounting hedges provide a method to mitigate a portion of this earnings volatility.
     The Corporation purchases credit derivatives to manage credit risk related to certain funded and unfunded credit exposures. Credit derivatives include credit default swaps, total return swaps and swaptions. These derivatives are accounted for as economic hedges and changes in fair value are recorded in other income.
Derivatives Designated as Accounting Hedges
     The Corporation uses various types of interest rate, commodity and foreign exchange derivative contracts to protect against changes in the fair value of its assets and liabilities due to fluctuations in interest rates, exchange rates and commodity prices (fair value hedges). The Corporation also uses these types of contracts and equity derivatives to protect against changes in the cash flows of its assets and liabilities, and other forecasted transactions (cash flow hedges). The Corporation hedges its net investment in consolidated non-U.S. operations determined to have functional currencies other than the U.S. dollar using forward exchange contracts, cross-currency basis swaps, and by issuing foreign currency-denominated debt (net investment hedges).
Fair Value Hedges
     The table below summarizes amounts recognized in revenue related to the Corporation’s derivatives designated as fair value hedges for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
                         
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
  2011      2011    
      Hedged  Hedge      Hedged  Hedge 
(Dollars in millions)
 Derivative  Item  Ineffectiveness  Derivative  Item  Ineffectiveness 
 
Derivatives designated as fair value hedges
                        
Interest rate risk on long-term debt (1)
 $1,373  $(1,494) $(121) $439  $(705) $(266)
Interest rate and foreign currency risk on long-term debt (1)
  1,438   (1,487)  (49)  2,188   (2,293)  (105)
Interest rate risk on AFS securities (2)
  (1,873)  1,630   (243)  (721)  546   (175)
Price risk on commodity inventory (3)
  20   (20)  -   16   (16)  - 
 
Total
 $958  $(1,371) $(413) $1,922  $(2,468) $(546)
 
 
  2010  2010 
     
Derivatives designated as fair value hedges
                        
Interest rate risk on long-term debt (1)
 $3,202  $(3,318) $(116) $4,086  $(4,330) $(244)
Interest rate and foreign currency risk on long-term debt (1)
  (1,907)  1,704   (203)  (3,282)  2,955   (327)
Interest rate risk on AFS securities (2)
  (5,240)  5,165   (75)  (5,270)  5,184   (86)
Price risk on commodity inventory (3)
  (16)  15   (1)  42   (46)  (4)
 
Total
 $(3,961) $3,566  $(395) $(4,424) $3,763  $(661)
 
(1) 
Amounts are recorded in interest expense on long-term debt.
 
(2) 
Amounts are recorded in interest income on AFS securities.
 
(3) 
Amounts relating to commodity inventory are recorded in trading account profits.

139


Table of Contents

Cash Flow Hedges
     The table below summarizes certain information related to the Corporation’s derivatives designated as cash flow hedges and net investment hedges for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. During the next 12 months, net losses in accumulated other comprehensive income (OCI) of approximately $1.7 billion ($1.1 billion after-tax) on derivative instruments that qualify as cash flow hedges are expected to be reclassified into earnings. These net losses reclassified into earnings are expected to primarily reduce net interest income related to the respective hedged items.
     Amounts related to commodity price risk reclassified from accumulated OCI are recorded in trading account profits with the underlying hedged item. Amounts related to price risk on restricted stock awards reclassified from accumulated OCI are recorded in personnel expense. Amounts related to price risk on equity investments included in available-for-sale (AFS) securities reclassified from accumulated OCI are recorded in equity investment income with the underlying hedged item.
     Amounts related to foreign exchange risk recognized in accumulated OCI on derivatives exclude losses of $17 million and $179 million related to long-term debt designated as a net investment hedge for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to gains of $114 million and $376 million for the same periods in 2010.
                          
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
  2011  2011 
          Hedge          Hedge 
  Gains (Losses)  Gains (Losses)  Ineffectiveness and  Gains (Losses)  Gains (Losses)  Ineffectiveness and 
  Recognized in  in Income  Amounts Excluded  Recognized in  in Income  Amounts Excluded 
  Accumulated OCI  Reclassified from  from Effectiveness  Accumulated OCI  Reclassified from  from Effectiveness 
(Dollars in millions, amounts pre-tax) on Derivatives  Accumulated OCI  Testing (1)  on Derivatives  Accumulated OCI  Testing (1) 
 
Derivatives designated as cash flow hedges
                        
Interest rate risk on variable rate portfolios
 $(878) $(444) $(30) $(722) $(748) $(34)
Commodity price risk on forecasted purchases and sales
  (1)  1   -   (9)  3   (2)
Price risk on restricted stock awards
  (136)  (44)  -   (191)  (70)  - 
 
Total
 $(1,015) $(487) $(30) $(922) $(815) $(36)
 
Net investment hedges
                        
Foreign exchange risk
 $(653) $-  $(139) $(1,615) $423  $(250)
 
 
  2010  2010 
 
Derivatives designated as cash flow hedges
                        
Interest rate risk on variable rate portfolios
 $(856) $(105) $(6) $(1,358) $(186) $(20)
Commodity price risk on forecasted purchases and sales
  (5)  10   1   27   13   2 
Price risk on restricted stock awards
  (181)  6   -   (37)  17   - 
Price risk on equity investments included in AFS securities
  180   (226)  -   186   (226)  - 
 
Total
 $(862) $(315) $(5) $(1,182) $(382) $(18)
 
Net investment hedges
                        
Foreign exchange risk
 $906  $-  $(68) $1,885  $-  $(132)
 
(1) 
Amounts related to derivatives designated as cash flow hedges represent hedge ineffectiveness and amounts related to net investment hedges represent amounts excluded from effectiveness testing.
     The Corporation enters into equity total return swaps to hedge a portion of restricted stock units (RSUs) granted to certain employees as part of their compensation in prior periods. Certain awards contain clawback provisions which permit the Corporation to cancel all or a portion of the award under specified circumstances, and certain awards may be settled in cash. These RSUs are accrued as liabilities over the vesting period and adjusted to fair value based on changes in the share price of the Corporation’s common stock. From time to time, the Corporation may enter into equity derivatives to minimize the change in the expense to the Corporation driven by fluctuations in the share price of the Corporation’s common stock during the vesting period of any RSUs that may be granted from time to time, if any, subject to similar or other terms and conditions. Certain of these derivatives are designated as cash flow hedges of unrecognized unvested awards with the changes in fair value of the hedge recorded in accumulated OCI and reclassified into earnings in the same period as the RSUs affect earnings. The remaining derivatives are accounted for as economic hedges and changes in fair value are recorded in personnel expense. For more information on RSUs and related hedges, see Note 12 – Shareholders’ Equity.

140


Table of Contents

Economic Hedges
     Derivatives accounted for as economic hedges, because either they did not qualify for or were not designated as accounting hedges, are used by the Corporation to reduce certain risk exposures. The table below presents gains (losses) on these derivatives for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. These gains (losses) are largely offset by the income or expense that is recorded on the economically hedged item.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Price risk on mortgage banking production income (1, 2)
 $1,221  $2,041  $1,166  $3,397 
Interest rate risk on mortgage banking servicing income (1)
  530   2,700   385   3,312 
Credit risk on loans (3)
  -   31   (30)  (27)
Interest rate and foreign currency risk on long-term debt and other foreign exchange transactions (4)
  1,826   (5,221)  5,220   (9,209)
Other (5)
  (166)  (194)  (176)  (98)
 
Total
 $3,411  $(643) $6,565  $(2,625)
 
(1) 
Gains (losses) on these derivatives are recorded in mortgage banking income.
 
(2) 
Includes gains on interest rate lock commitments related to the origination of mortgage loans that are held-for-sale, which are considered derivative instruments, of $1.2 billion and $2.2 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $2.8 billion and $4.6 billion for the same periods in 2010.
 
(3) 
Gains (losses) on these derivatives are recorded in other income.
 
(4) 
The majority of the balance is related to the revaluation of economic hedges of foreign currency-denominated debt which is offset with the revaluation of the debt in other income.
 
(5) 
Gains (losses) on these derivatives are recorded in other income or in personnel expense for hedges of certain RSUs.
Sales and Trading Revenue
     The Corporation enters into trading derivatives to facilitate client transactions, for principal trading purposes, and to manage risk exposures arising from trading account assets and liabilities. It is the Corporation’s policy to include these derivative instruments in its trading activities which include derivatives and non-derivative cash instruments. The resulting risk from these derivatives is managed on a portfolio basis as part of the Corporation’s Global Banking & Markets (GBAM) business segment. The related sales and trading revenue generated within GBAM is recorded in various income statement line items including trading account profits and net interest income as well as other revenue categories. However, the vast majority of income related to derivative instruments is recorded in trading account profits.
     Sales and trading revenue includes changes in the fair value and realized gains and losses on the sales of trading and other assets, net interest income and fees primarily from commissions on equity securities. Revenue is generated by the difference in the client price for an instrument and the price at which the trading desk can execute the trade in the dealer market. For equity securities, commissions related to purchases and sales are recorded in other income on the Consolidated Statement of Income. Changes in the fair value of these securities are included in trading account profits. For debt securities, revenue, with the exception of interest associated with the debt securities, is typically included in trading account profits. Unlike commissions for equity securities, the initial revenue related to broker/dealer services for debt securities is included in the pricing of the instrument rather than being charged through separate fee arrangements. Therefore, this revenue is recorded in trading account profits as part of the initial mark to fair value. For derivatives, all revenue is included in trading account profits. In transactions where the Corporation acts as agent, which includes exchange-traded futures and options, fees are recorded in other income.
     Certain instruments, primarily loans, held in the GBAM segment are not considered trading instruments. Gains/losses on sales and changes in fair value of these instruments, where applicable (e.g., where the fair value option has been elected) are reflected in other income. Interest revenue for debt securities and loans is included in net interest income.

141


Table of Contents

     The table below, which includes both derivatives and non-derivative cash instruments, identifies the amounts in the respective income statement line items attributable to the Corporation’s sales and trading revenue in GBAM, categorized by primary risk for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. The difference between total trading account profits in the table below and in the Consolidated Statement of Income relates to trading activities in business segments other than GBAM.
                                 
  Three Months Ended June 30 
  2011  2010 
  Trading              Trading          
  Account  Other  Net Interest      Account  Other  Net Interest    
(Dollars in millions)
 Profits  Income(1, 2)  Income (3)  Total  Profits  Income (1, 2)  Income (3)  Total 
 
Interest rate risk
 $488  $16  $199  $703  $434  $21  $138  $593 
Foreign exchange risk
  261   (16)  4   249   234   (11)  1   224 
Equity risk
  539   564   (22)  1,081   202   727   (47)  882 
Credit risk
  579   218   760   1,557   447   73   959   1,479 
Other risk
  164   12   (31)  145   (129)  30   (43)  (142)
 
Total sales and trading revenue
 $2,031  $794  $910  $3,735  $1,188  $840  $1,008  $3,036 
 
 
  Six Months Ended June 30 
  2011  2010 
Interest rate risk
 $791  $(7) $415  $1,199  $1,493  $48  $327  $1,868 
Foreign exchange risk
  493   (31)  7   469   515   (18)  1   498 
Equity risk
  1,059   1,241   30   2,330   1,077   1,322   (3)  2,396 
Credit risk
  1,983   769   1,552   4,304   3,109   121   1,953   5,183 
Other risk
  293   45   (65)  273   50   68   (98)  20 
 
Total sales and trading revenue
 $4,619  $2,017  $1,939  $8,575  $6,244  $1,541  $2,180  $9,965 
 
(1) 
Represents investment and brokerage services and other income recorded in GBAM that the Corporation includes in its definition of sales and trading revenue.
 
(2) 
Other income includes commissions and brokerage fee revenue of $583 million and $1.3 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and $657 million and $1.3 billion for the same periods in 2010.
 
(3) 
Net interest income excludes FTE adjustments of $43 million and $98 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $75 million and $148 million for the same periods in 2010.
Credit Derivatives
     The Corporation enters into credit derivatives primarily to facilitate client transactions and to manage credit risk exposures. Credit derivatives derive value based on an underlying third party-referenced obligation or a portfolio of referenced obligations and generally require the Corporation, as the seller of credit protection, to make payments to a buyer upon the occurrence of a pre-defined credit event. Such credit events generally include bankruptcy of the referenced credit entity and failure to pay under the obligation, as well as acceleration of indebtedness and payment repudiation or moratorium. For credit derivatives based on a portfolio of referenced credits or credit indices, the Corporation may not be required to make payment until a specified amount of loss has occurred and/or may only be required to make payment up to a specified amount.

142


Table of Contents

     Credit derivative instruments where the Corporation is the seller of credit protection and their expiration at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are summarized below. These instruments are classified as investment and non-investment grade based on the credit quality of the underlying reference obligation. The Corporation considers ratings of BBB- or higher as investment grade. Non-investment grade includes non-rated credit derivative instruments.
                     
  June 30, 2011 
  Carrying Value 
  Less than  One to Three  Three to  Over Five    
(Dollars in millions)
 One Year  Years  Five Years  Years  Total 
 
Credit default swaps:
                    
Investment grade
 $113  $1,393  $5,263  $5,788  $12,557 
Non-investment grade
  758   5,380   8,334   24,864   39,336 
 
Total
  871   6,773   13,597   30,652   51,893 
 
Total return swaps/other:
                    
Investment grade
  -   35   79   255   369 
Non-investment grade
  2   8   32   209   251 
 
Total
  2   43   111   464   620 
 
Total credit derivatives
 $873  $6,816  $13,708  $31,116  $52,513 
 
Credit-related notes: (1)
                    
Investment grade
  1   17   415   2,952   3,385 
Non-investment grade
  9   26   208   1,722   1,965 
 
Total credit-related notes
 $10  $43  $623  $4,674  $5,350 
 
  Maximum Payout/Notional 
   
Credit default swaps:
                    
Investment grade
 $133,694  $434,130  $456,682  $195,869  $1,220,375 
Non-investment grade
  97,824   273,164   201,725   197,442   770,155 
 
Total
  231,518   707,294   658,407   393,311   1,990,530 
 
Total return swaps/other:
                    
Investment grade
  110   2,493   29,026   4,953   36,582 
Non-investment grade
  83   942   2,272   909   4,206 
 
Total
  193   3,435   31,298   5,862   40,788 
 
Total credit derivatives
 $231,711  $710,729  $689,705  $399,173  $2,031,318 
 
 
  December 31, 2010 
  Carrying Value 
  Less than  One to Three  Three to  Over Five    
(Dollars in millions)
 One Year  Years  Five Years  Years  Total 
 
Credit default swaps:
                    
Investment grade
 $158  $2,607  $7,331  $14,880  $24,976 
Non-investment grade
  598   6,630   7,854   23,106   38,188 
 
Total
  756   9,237   15,185   37,986   63,164 
 
Total return swaps/other:
                    
Investment grade
  -   -   38   60   98 
Non-investment grade
  1   2   2   415   420 
 
Total
  1   2   40   475   518 
 
Total credit derivatives
 $757  $9,239  $15,225  $38,461  $63,682 
 
Credit-related notes: (1, 2)
                    
Investment grade
  -   136   -   3,525   3,661 
Non-investment grade
  9   33   174   2,423   2,639 
 
Total credit-related notes
 $9  $169  $174  $5,948  $6,300 
 
  Maximum Payout/Notional 
Credit default swaps:
                    
Investment grade
 $133,691  $466,565  $475,715  $275,434  $1,351,405 
Non-investment grade
  84,851   314,422   178,880   203,930   782,083 
 
Total
  218,542   780,987   654,595   479,364   2,133,488 
 
Total return swaps/other:
                    
Investment grade
  -   10   15,413   4,012   19,435 
Non-investment grade
  113   78   951   1,897   3,039 
 
Total
  113   88   16,364   5,909   22,474 
 
Total credit derivatives
 $218,655  $781,075  $670,959  $485,273  $2,155,962 
 
(1) 
For credit-related notes, maximum payout/notional is the same.
 
(2) 
For December 31, 2010, total credit-related note amounts have been revised from $3.6 billion (as previously reported) to $6.3 billion to reflect collateralized debt obligations and collateralized loan obligations held by certain consolidated VIEs.

143


Table of Contents

     The notional amount represents the maximum amount payable by the Corporation for most credit derivatives. However, the Corporation does not solely monitor its exposure to credit derivatives based on notional amount because this measure does not take into consideration the probability of occurrence. As such, the notional amount is not a reliable indicator of the Corporation’s exposure to these contracts. Instead, a risk framework is used to define risk tolerances and establish limits to help ensure that certain credit risk-related losses occur within acceptable, pre-defined limits.
     The Corporation economically hedges its market risk exposure to credit derivatives by entering into a variety of offsetting derivative contracts and security positions. For example, in certain instances, the Corporation may purchase credit protection with identical underlying referenced names to offset its exposure. The carrying amount and notional amount of written credit derivatives for which the Corporation held purchased credit derivatives with identical underlying referenced names and terms at June 30, 2011 was $31.4 billion and $1.1 trillion compared to $43.7 billion and $1.4 trillion at December 31, 2010.
     Credit-related notes in the table on page 143 include investments in securities issued by collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) and credit-linked note vehicles. These instruments are classified as trading securities. The carrying value of these instruments equals the Corporation’s maximum exposure to loss. The Corporation is not obligated to make any payments to the entities under the terms of the securities owned. The Corporation discloses internal categorizations (i.e., investment grade, non-investment grade) consistent with how risk is managed for these instruments.
Credit Risk Management of Derivatives and Credit-related Contingent Features
     The Corporation executes the majority of its derivative contracts in the over-the-counter (OTC) market with large, international financial institutions, including broker/dealers and, to a lesser degree, with a variety of non-financial companies. Substantially all of the derivative transactions are executed on a daily margin basis. Therefore, events such as a credit ratings downgrade (depending on the ultimate rating level) or a breach of credit covenants would typically require an increase in the amount of collateral required of the counterparty, where applicable, and/or allow the Corporation to take additional protective measures such as early termination of all trades. Further, as previously discussed on page 137, the Corporation enters into legally enforceable master netting agreements which reduce risk by permitting the closeout and netting of transactions with the same counterparty upon the occurrence of certain events.
     Substantially all of the Corporation’s derivative contracts contain credit risk related contingent features, primarily in the form of International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA) master netting agreements that enhance the creditworthiness of these instruments compared to other obligations of the respective counterparty with whom the Corporation has transacted (e.g., other debt or equity). These contingent features may be for the benefit of the Corporation as well as its counterparties with respect to changes in the Corporation’s creditworthiness. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation held cash and securities collateral of $74.4 billion and $76.0 billion, and posted cash and securities collateral of $58.5 billion and $61.2 billion in the normal course of business under derivative agreements.
     In connection with certain OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements, the Corporation could be required to provide additional collateral or to terminate transactions with certain counterparties in the event of a downgrade of the senior debt ratings of the Corporation and its subsidiaries. The amount of additional collateral required depends on the contract and is usually a fixed incremental amount and/or the market value of the exposure. If the long-term credit rating of the Corporation was incrementally downgraded by one level by all ratings agencies, the amount of additional collateral and termination payments required for such derivatives and trading agreements would have been approximately $1.5 billion at June 30, 2011 and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2010. A second incremental one-level downgrade by the ratings agencies would have required approximately $1.8 billion and $1.1 billion in additional collateral and termination payments at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Excluded from these amounts are potential additional collateral requirements due to contingent triggers applicable in certain derivative contracts primarily with structured VIEs. The Corporation is in the process of evaluating these requirements in the contracts.
     The Corporation records counterparty credit risk valuation adjustments on derivative assets in order to properly reflect the credit quality of the counterparty. These adjustments are necessary as the market quotes on derivatives do not fully reflect the credit risk of the counterparties to the derivative assets. The Corporation considers collateral and legally enforceable master netting agreements that mitigate its credit exposure to each counterparty in determining the counterparty credit risk valuation adjustment. All or a portion of these counterparty credit valuation adjustments are subsequently adjusted due to changes in the value of the derivative contract, collateral and creditworthiness of the counterparty. During

144


Table of Contents

the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, credit valuation losses of $(592) million and $(450) million ($(151) million and $(624) million, net of hedges) compared to $(752) million and $(426) million ($(302) million and $(370) million, net of hedges) for the same periods in 2010 for counterparty credit risk related to derivative assets were recognized in trading account profits. These credit valuation adjustments were primarily related to the Corporation’s monoline exposure. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the cumulative counterparty credit risk valuation adjustment reduced the derivative assets balance by $7.1 billion and $6.8 billion.
     In addition, the fair value of the Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ derivative liabilities is adjusted to reflect the impact of the Corporation’s credit quality. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation recorded DVA gains (losses) of $205 million and $(103) million ($121 million and $(236) million, net of hedges) compared to $206 million and $368 million ($77 million and $246 million, net of hedges) for the same periods in 2010 in trading account profits for changes in the Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ credit risk. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation’s cumulative DVA reduced the derivative liabilities balance by $983 million and $1.1 billion.
NOTE 5 – Securities
     The table below presents the amortized cost, gross unrealized gains and losses in accumulated OCI, and fair value of AFS debt and marketable equity securities at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                 
      Gross  Gross    
  Amortized  Unrealized  Unrealized    
(Dollars in millions)
 Cost  Gains  Losses  Fair Value 
 
Available-for-sale debt securities, June 30, 2011
                
U.S. Treasury and agency securities
 $49,874  $684  $(1,289) $49,269 
Mortgage-backed securities:
                
Agency
  180,151   3,128   (1,663)  181,616 
Agency collateralized mortgage obligations
  48,212   930   (31)  49,111 
Non-agency residential (1)
  19,564   568   (557)  19,575 
Non-agency commercial
  6,018   702   (2)  6,718 
Non-U.S. securities
  4,314   62   (16)  4,360 
Corporate bonds
  4,388   154   (4)  4,538 
Other taxable securities, substantially all asset-backed securities
  12,010   79   (66)  12,023 
 
Total taxable securities
  324,531   6,307   (3,628)  327,210 
Tax-exempt securities
  3,808   18   (165)  3,661 
 
Total available-for-sale debt securities
 $328,339  $6,325  $(3,793) $330,871 
 
Available-for-sale marketable equity securities, June 30, 2011 (2)
 $8,536  $10,445  $(19) $18,962 
 
 
                
Available-for-sale debt securities, December 31, 2010
                
U.S. Treasury and agency securities
 $49,413  $604  $(912) $49,105 
Mortgage-backed securities:
                
Agency
  190,409   3,048   (2,240)  191,217 
Agency collateralized mortgage obligations
  36,639   401   (23)  37,017 
Non-agency residential (1)
  23,458   588   (929)  23,117 
Non-agency commercial
  6,167   686   (1)  6,852 
Non-U.S. securities
  4,054   92   (7)  4,139 
Corporate bonds
  5,157   144   (10)  5,291 
Other taxable securities, substantially all asset-backed securities
  15,514   39   (161)  15,392 
 
Total taxable securities
  330,811  5,602  (4,283) 332,130 
Tax-exempt securities
  5,687   32   (222)  5,497 
 
Total available-for-sale debt securities
 $336,498  $5,634  $(4,505) $337,627 
 
Available-for-sale marketable equity securities, December 31, 2010 (2)
 $8,650  $10,628  $(13) $19,265 
 
(1) 
At June 30, 2011, includes approximately 90 percent prime bonds, nine percent Alt-A bonds and one percent subprime bonds. At December 31, 2010, includes approximately 90 percent prime bonds, eight percent Alt-A bonds and two percent subprime bonds.
 
(2) 
Classified in other assets on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.
     At June 30, 2011, the accumulated net unrealized gains on AFS debt securities included in accumulated OCI were $1.6 billion, net of the related income tax expense of $944 million. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, both the amortized cost and fair value of held-to-maturity debt securities were $181 million and $427 million. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had nonperforming AFS debt securities with a fair value of $17 million and $44 million.

145


Table of Contents

     The Corporation recorded other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) losses on AFS debt securities for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 as presented in the table below. If the fair value of an AFS debt security is less than its amortized cost, a security is determined to be impaired and an OTTI loss is recorded. For AFS debt securities that the Corporation does not intend or will not more-likely-than-not be required to sell, the OTTI loss is separated into an amount representing a credit loss and an amount representing other factors (e.g., interest rate). The credit loss portion of the OTTI loss is recorded in earnings and the remaining portion is recorded in accumulated OCI. Subsequently, the debt securities continue to be evaluated for additional credit losses until the fair value of the debt security increases to an amount greater than its amortized cost which has been adjusted for any previously recognized credit losses. If the Corporation intends or will more-likely-than-not be required to sell the AFS debt securities prior to recovery, the entire OTTI loss is recorded in earnings. For certain securities, the credit loss portion of the OTTI exceeded the total OTTI loss. In these instances, the portion of the credit losses that exceeded the OTTI loss represented an unrealized gain related to other factors and was recorded in accumulated OCI as an unrealized gain. Balances in the table exclude $3 million and $10 million of unrealized gains recorded in accumulated OCI related to these securities for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and $16 million and $49 million for the same periods in 2010.
                         
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2011
  Non-agency  Non-agency          Other    
  Residential  Commercial  Non-U.S.  Corporate  Taxable    
(Dollars in millions)
 MBS  MBS  Securities  Bonds  Securities  Total 
 
Total OTTI losses
 $(48) $-  $(12) $-  $(3) $(63)
OTTI losses recognized in accumulated OCI
  17   -   -   -   1   18 
 
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings
 $(31) $-  $(12) $-  $(2) $(45)
 
 
      Three Months Ended June 30, 2010     
   
Total OTTI losses
 $(145) $(1) $(285) $-  $(31) $(462)
OTTI losses recognized in accumulated OCI
  74   -   261   -   1   336 
 
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings
 $(71) $(1) $(24) $-  $(30) $(126)
 
 
  Six months Ended June 30, 2011 
   
Total OTTI losses
 $(142) $-  $(12) $-  $(3) $(157)
OTTI losses recognized in accumulated OCI
  23   -   -   -   1   24 
 
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings
 $(119) $-  $(12) $-  $(2) $(133)
 
 
  Six months Ended June 30, 2010 
   
Total OTTI losses
 $(463) $(1) $(975) $(2) $(342) $(1,783)
OTTI losses recognized in accumulated OCI
  119   -   780   -   157   1,056 
 
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings
 $(344) $(1) $(195) $(2) $(185) $(727)
 
     The table below presents a rollforward of the credit loss portion of OTTI losses recognized in earnings on debt securities in which a portion of the OTTI loss remains in accumulated OCI for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Balance, beginning of period
 $378  $1,084  $326  $706 
Additions for the credit component on debt securities on which OTTI losses were not previously recognized
  14   47   47   271 
Additions for the credit component on debt securities on which OTTI losses were previously recognized
  31   79   86   456 
Reductions for debt securities sold on which OTTI losses were previously recognized
  (5)  (510)  (41)  (733)
 
Balance, June 30
 $418  $700  $418  $700 
 

146


Table of Contents

     The Corporation estimates the portion of loss attributable to credit using a discounted cash flow model and estimates the expected cash flows of the underlying collateral using internal credit, interest rate and prepayment risk models that incorporate management’s best estimate of current key assumptions such as default rates, loss severity and prepayment rates. Assumptions used can vary widely from loan to loan and are influenced by such factors as loan interest rate, geographical location of the borrower, borrower characteristics and collateral type. The Corporation then uses a third-party vendor to determine how the underlying collateral cash flows will be distributed to each security issued from the structure. Expected principal and interest cash flows on an impaired debt security are discounted using the book yield of each individual impaired debt security. Significant assumptions used in the valuation of non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) were as follows at June 30, 2011.
             
      Range (1) 
    10th 90th
  Weighted-average Percentile (2) Percentile (2)
 
Prepayment speed
  8.2%  3.0%  16.0%
Loss severity
  49.6   17.3   62.1 
Life default rate
  51.8   2.2   99.1 
 
(1) 
Represents the range of inputs/assumptions based upon the underlying collateral.
 
(2) 
The value of a variable below which the indicated percentile of observations will fall.
     Additionally, annual constant prepayment speed and loss severity rates are projected considering collateral characteristics such as loan-to-value (LTV), creditworthiness of borrowers (FICO) and geographic concentrations. The weighted-average severity by collateral type was 44 percent for prime bonds, 51 percent for Alt-A bonds and 59 percent for subprime bonds. Additionally, default rates are projected by considering collateral characteristics including, but not limited to LTV, FICO and geographic concentration. Weighted-average life default rates by collateral type were 39 percent for prime bonds, 66 percent for Alt-A bonds and 69 percent for subprime bonds.

147


Table of Contents

     The table below presents the fair value and the associated gross unrealized losses on investments in securities with gross unrealized losses at June 30, 2011 and 2010, and whether these securities have had gross unrealized losses for less than twelve months or for twelve months or longer.
                         
  Less than  Twelve Months    
  Twelve Months  or Longer  Total 
      Gross      Gross      Gross 
  Fair  Unrealized  Fair  Unrealized  Fair  Unrealized 
  (Dollars in millions) Value  Losses  Value  Losses  Value  Losses 
 
Temporarily-impaired available-for-sale debt securities at June 30, 2011
                        
U.S. Treasury and agency securities
 $-  $-  $29,514  $(1,289) $29,514  $(1,289)
Mortgage-backed securities:
                        
Agency
  75,586   (1,622)  1,378   (41)  76,964   (1,663)
Agency collateralized mortgage obligations
  2,042   (7)  1,072   (24)  3,114   (31)
Non-agency residential
  4,165   (204)  2,354   (235)  6,519   (439)
Non-agency commercial
  57   (1)  8   (1)  65   (2)
Non-U.S. securities
  -   -   61   (16)  61   (16)
Corporate bonds
  -   -   100   (4)  100   (4)
Other taxable securities
  -   -   3,962   (50)  3,962   (50)
 
Total taxable securities
  81,850   (1,834)  38,449   (1,660)  120,299   (3,494)
Tax-exempt securities
  1,612   (78)  1,487   (86)  3,099   (164)
 
Total temporarily-impaired available-for-sale debt securities
  83,462   (1,912)  39,936   (1,746)  123,398   (3,658)
Temporarily-impaired available-for-sale marketable equity securities
  12   (7)  22   (12)  34   (19)
 
Total temporarily-impaired available-for-sale securities
  83,474   (1,919)  39,958   (1,758)  123,432   (3,677)
 
Other-than-temporarily impaired available-for-sale debt securities (1)
                        
Mortgage-backed securities:
                        
Non-agency residential
  175   (16)  598   (102)  773   (118)
Other taxable securities
  -   -   124   (16)  124   (16)
Tax-exempt securities
  -   -   7   (1)  7   (1)
 
Total temporarily-impaired and other-than-temporarily impaired available-for-sale securities (2)
 $83,649  $(1,935) $40,687  $(1,877) $124,336  $(3,812)
 
 
                        
Temporarily-impaired available-for-sale debt securities at December 31, 2010
                        
U.S. Treasury and agency securities
 $27,384  $(763) $2,382  $(149) $29,766  $(912)
Mortgage-backed securities:
                        
Agency
  85,517   (2,240)  -   -   85,517   (2,240)
Agency collateralized mortgage obligations
  3,220   (23)  -   -   3,220   (23)
Non-agency residential
  6,385   (205)  2,245   (274)  8,630   (479)
Non-agency commercial
  47   (1)  -   -   47   (1)
Non-U.S. securities
  -   -   70   (7)  70   (7)
Corporate bonds
  465   (9)  22   (1)  487   (10)
Other taxable securities
  3,414   (38)  46   (7)  3,460   (45)
 
Total taxable securities
  126,432   (3,279)  4,765   (438)  131,197   (3,717)
Tax-exempt securities
  2,325   (95)  568   (119)  2,893   (214)
 
Total temporarily-impaired available-for-sale debt securities
  128,757   (3,374)  5,333   (557)  134,090   (3,931)
Temporarily-impaired available-for-sale marketable equity securities
  7   (2)  19   (11)  26   (13)
 
Total temporarily-impaired available-for-sale securities
  128,764   (3,376)  5,352   (568)  134,116   (3,944)
 
Other-than-temporarily impaired available-for-sale debt securities (1)
                        
Mortgage-backed securities:
                        
Non-agency residential
  128   (11)  530   (439)  658   (450)
Other taxable securities
  -   -   223   (116)  223   (116)
Tax-exempt securities
  68   (8)  -   -   68   (8)
 
Total temporarily-impaired and other-than-temporarily impaired available-for-sale securities (2)
 $128,960  $(3,395) $6,105  $(1,123) $135,065  $(4,518)
 
(1) 
Includes AFS debt securities on which OTTI losses were recognized and a portion of the OTTI loss was recorded as a credit loss in earnings and a portion as an unrealized loss in OCI.
 
(2) 
At June 30, 2011, the amortized cost of approximately 5,300 AFS securities exceeded their fair value by $3.8 billion. At December 31, 2010, the amortized cost of approximately 8,500 AFS securities exceeded their fair value by $4.5 billion.

148


Table of Contents

     The amortized cost and fair value of the Corporation’s investment in AFS debt securities from Fannie Mae (FNMA), the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC), and U.S. Treasury securities where the investment exceeded 10 percent of consolidated shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are presented in the table below.
                 
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
  Amortized  Fair  Amortized  Fair 
  (Dollars in millions) Cost  Value  Cost  Value 
 
Fannie Mae
 $133,053  $132,917  $123,662  $123,107 
Government National Mortgage Association
  27,833   27,894   72,863   74,305 
Freddie Mac
  67,477   69,916   30,523   30,822 
U.S Treasury Securities
  46,961   46,174   46,576   46,081 
 
     The expected maturity distribution of the Corporation’s MBS and the contractual maturity distribution of the Corporation’s other AFS debt securities, and the yields on the Corporation’s AFS debt securities portfolio at June 30, 2011 are summarized in the table below. Actual maturities may differ from the contractual or expected maturities since borrowers may have the right to prepay obligations with or without prepayment penalties.
                                         
  June 30, 2011 
          Due after One  Due after Five       
  Due in One  Year through  Years through  Due after    
  Year or Less  Five Years  Ten Years  Ten Years  Total 
  (Dollars in millions) Amount  Yield (1)  Amount  Yield (1)  Amount  Yield (1)  Amount  Yield (1)  Amount  Yield (1) 
 
Amortized cost of AFS debt securities
                                        
U.S. Treasury and agency securities
 $492   4.80% $1,633   2.00% $12,290   3.30% $35,459   4.10% $49,874   3.90%
Mortgage-backed securities:
                                        
Agency
  25   4.40   67,665   4.00   43,235   4.00   69,226   3.70   180,151   3.90 
Agency-collateralized mortgage obligations
  62   0.60   17,650   3.00   13,115   4.20   17,385   3.50   48,212   3.50 
Non-agency residential
  188   7.00   3,205   5.90   1,236   5.90   14,935   4.20   19,564   4.60 
Non-agency commercial
  486   4.40   5,135   6.60   131   6.80   266   6.80   6,018   6.50 
Non-U.S. securities
  2,058   0.60   2,087   4.90   169   3.70   -   -   4,314   4.90 
Corporate bonds
  241   3.60   2,859   2.10   1,127   3.50   161   0.80   4,388   2.40 
Other taxable securities
  1,344   1.40   5,329   1.40   1,136   1.90   4,201   0.50   12,010   1.10 
                             
Total taxable securities
  4,896   2.03   105,563   3.82   72,439   3.91   141,633   3.74   324,531   3.82 
Tax-exempt securities
  89   4.30   746   4.40   856   4.50   2,117   4.60   3,808   4.50 
                             
Total amortized cost of AFS debt securities
 $4,985   2.07  $106,309   3.83  $73,295   3.92  $143,750   3.75  $328,339   3.83 
 
 
                                        
Fair value of AFS debt securities
                                        
U.S. Treasury and agency securities
 $493      $1,676      $12,694      $34,406      $49,269     
Mortgage-backed securities:
                                        
Agency
  27       69,599       43,866       68,124       181,616     
Agency-collateralized mortgage obligations
  62       17,959       13,614       17,476       49,111     
Non-agency residential
  152       3,188       1,263       14,972       19,575     
Non-agency commercial
  490       5,782       147       299       6,718     
Non-U.S. securities
  2,055       2,132       173       -       4,360     
Corporate bonds
  245       2,951       1,181       161       4,538     
Other taxable securities
  1,346       5,374       1,153       4,150       12,023     
                             
Total taxable securities
  4,870       108,661       74,091       139,588       327,210     
Tax-exempt securities
  90       739       828       2,004       3,661     
                             
Total fair value of AFS debt securities
 $4,960      $109,400      $74,919      $141,592      $330,871     
 
(1) 
Yields are calculated based on the amortized cost of the securities and exclude the impact of hedging activities.
     The gross realized gains and losses on sales of debt securities for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 are presented in the table below.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
  (Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Gross gains
 $901  $942  $1,455  $1,848 
Gross losses
  (2)  (905)  (10)  (1,077)
 
Net gains on sales of debt securities
 $899  $37  $1,445  $771 
 
Income tax expense attributable to realized net gains on sales of debt securities
 $333  $14  $535  $285 
 

149


Table of Contents

Certain Corporate and Strategic Investments
     At both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation owned 25.6 billion shares representing approximately 10 percent of China Construction Bank (CCB). Of the Corporation’s investment in CCB, 23.6 billion shares are classified as AFS. Sales restrictions on the remaining two billion CCB shares continue until August 2013 and accordingly these shares continue to be carried at cost. At June 30, 2011, the cost basis of the Corporation’s total investment in CCB was $9.2 billion, the carrying value was $19.6 billion and the fair value was $20.5 billion. At December 31, 2010, the cost basis was $9.2 billion, the carrying value was $19.7 billion and the fair value was $20.8 billion. This investment is recorded in other assets. Dividend income on this investment is recorded in equity investment income and during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, the Corporation recorded dividends of $837 million and $535 million from CCB. The Corporation remains a significant shareholder in CCB and intends to continue the important long-term strategic alliance with CCB originally entered into in 2005.
     In June 2011, the Corporation sold its remaining ownership interest of approximately 13.6 million preferred shares, or seven percent of BlackRock, Inc. The investment was recorded in other assets at cost. In connection with the sale, the Corporation recorded a pre-tax gain of $377 million.
     A joint venture was formed in 2009 with First Data Corporation (First Data) creating Banc of America Merchant Services, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, the Corporation contributed its merchant processing business to the joint venture and First Data contributed certain merchant processing contracts and personnel resources. The Corporation‘s investment in the joint venture, which was initially recorded at a fair value of $4.7 billion, is accounted for under the equity method of accounting with income recorded in equity investment income. In the three months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation recorded a $500 million impairment write-down on the joint venture. The joint venture had a carrying value at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 of $4.1 billion and $4.7 billion with the reduction in carrying value primarily the result of the impairment mentioned above.

150


Table of Contents

NOTE 6 – Outstanding Loans and Leases
     The tables below present total outstanding loans and leases and an aging analysis at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
     The Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio, as shown in the table below, is a separately managed legacy mortgage portfolio. Legacy Asset Servicing, which was created on January 1, 2011 in connection with the re-alignment of CRES, is responsible for servicing loans on its balance sheet and for others including loans held in other business segments and All Other. This includes servicing and managing the runoff and exposures related to selected residential mortgages and home equity loans, including discontinued real estate products, Countrywide PCI loans and certain loans that met a pre-defined delinquency status or probability of default threshold as of January 1, 2011. Since making the determination of the pool of loans to be included in the Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio, the criteria have not changed for this portfolio; however, the criteria will continue to be evaluated over time.
                                 
  June 30, 2011
                          Loans  
              Total Past Total Current Purchased Accounted for  
  30-59 Days 60-89 Days 90 Days or Due 30 Days or Less Than 30 Credit - Under the Fair Total
  (Dollars in millions) Past Due (1) Past Due (1) More Past Due (2) or More Days Past Due (3) impaired (4) Value Option Outstandings
 
Home loans
                                
Core portfolio
                                
Residential mortgage (5)
 $1,777  $594  $1,842  $4,213  $171,339  $-      $175,552 
Home equity
  236   148   250   634   68,537   -       69,171 
Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio
                                
Residential mortgage
  3,864   2,523   33,277   39,664   40,893   10,224       90,781 
Home equity
  882   541   1,764   3,187   45,981   12,315       61,483 
Discontinued real estate (6)
  59   31   403   493   633   10,877       12,003 
Credit card and other consumer
                                
U.S. credit card
  1,032   818   2,413   4,263   100,396   -       104,659 
Non-U.S. credit card
  363   245   607   1,215   24,822   -       26,037 
Direct/Indirect consumer (7)
  782   343   855   1,980   88,278   -       90,258 
Other consumer (8)
  53   22   28   103   2,659   -       2,762 
 
Total consumer loans
  9,048   5,265   41,439   55,752   543,538   33,416       632,706 
Consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option (9)
                         $5,194   5,194 
 
Total consumer
  9,048   5,265   41,439   55,752   543,538   33,416   5,194   637,900 
 
Commercial
                                
U.S. commercial
  568   199   1,046   1,813   174,863   1       176,677 
Commercial real estate (10)
  230   210   2,904   3,344   40,530   154       44,028 
Commercial lease financing
  29   30   28   87   21,304   -       21,391 
Non-U.S. commercial
  1   -   3   4   42,899   26       42,929 
U.S. small business commercial
  143   117   332   592   13,337   -       13,929 
 
Total commercial loans
  971   556   4,313   5,840   292,933   181       298,954 
Commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option (9)
                          4,403   4,403 
 
Total commercial
  971   556   4,313   5,840   292,933   181   4,403   303,357 
 
Total loans and leases
 $10,019  $5,821  $45,752  $61,592  $836,471  $33,597  $9,597  $941,257 
 
Percentage of outstandings
  1.06%  0.62%  4.86%  6.54%  88.87%  3.57%  1.02%    
 
(1) 
Home loans includes $3.8 billion of fully-insured loans, $745 million of nonperforming loans and $129 million of TDRs that were removed from the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio prior to the adoption of accounting guidance on PCI loans effective January 1, 2010.
 
(2) 
Home loans includes $20.0 billion of fully-insured loans and $385 million of TDRs that were removed from the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio prior to the adoption of accounting guidance on PCI loans effective January 1, 2010.
 
(3) 
Home loans includes $1.5 billion of nonperforming loans as all principal and interest are not current or are TDRs that have not demonstrated sustained repayment performance.
 
(4) 
PCI loan amounts are shown gross of the valuation allowance and exclude $1.5 billion of PCI home loans from the Merrill Lynch acquisition which are included in their appropriate aging categories.
 
(5) 
Total outstandings include non-U.S. residential mortgages of $90 million at June 30, 2011.
 
(6) 
Total outstandings include $10.7 billion of pay option loans and $1.3 billion of subprime loans at June 30, 2011. The Corporation no longer originates these products.
 
(7) 
Total outstandings include dealer financial services loans of $42.1 billion, consumer lending of $9.9 billion, U.S. securities-based lending margin loans of $21.3 billion, student loans of $6.3 billion, non-U.S. consumer loans of $8.7 billion and other consumer loans of $2.0 billion at June 30, 2011.
 
(8) 
Total outstandings include consumer finance loans of $1.8 billion, other non-U.S. consumer loans of $866 million and consumer overdrafts of $104 million at June 30, 2011.
 
(9) 
Certain consumer loans are accounted for under the fair value option and include residential mortgage loans of $1.2 billion and discontinued real estate loans of $4.0 billion at June 30, 2011. Certain commercial loans are accounted for under the fair value option and include U.S. commercial loans of $1.6 billion, non-U.S. commercial loans of $2.8 billion and commercial real estate loans of $11 million at June 30, 2011. See Note 16 – Fair Value Measurements and Note 17 – Fair Value Option for additional information.
 
(10) 
Total outstandings include U.S. commercial real estate loans of $41.7 billion and non-U.S. commercial real estate loans of $2.3 billion at June 30, 2011.

151


Table of Contents

                                 
  December 31, 2010
                          Loans  
              Total Past Total Current Purchased Accounted for  
  30-59 Days 60-89 Days 90 Days or Due 30 Days or Less Than 30 Credit - Under the Fair Total
  (Dollars in millions) Past Due (1) Past Due (1) More Past Due (2) or More Days Past Due (3) impaired (4) Value Option Outstandings
 
Home loans
                                
Core portfolio
                                
Residential mortgage (5)
 $1,160  $236  $1,255  $2,651  $164,276  $-      $166,927 
Home equity
  186   12   105   303   71,216   -       71,519 
Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio
                                
Residential mortgage
  3,999   2,879   31,985   38,863   41,591   10,592       91,046 
Home equity
  1,096   792   2,186   4,074   49,798   12,590       66,462 
Discontinued real estate (6)
  68   39   419   526   930   11,652       13,108 
Credit card and other consumer
                                
U.S. credit card
  1,398   1,195   3,320   5,913   107,872   -       113,785 
Non-U.S. credit card
  439   316   599   1,354   26,111   -       27,465 
Direct/Indirect consumer (7)
  1,086   522   1,104   2,712   87,596   -       90,308 
Other consumer (8)
  65   25   50   140   2,690   -       2,830 
 
Total consumer
  9,497   6,016   41,023   56,536   552,080   34,834       643,450 
 
Commercial
                                
U.S. commercial
  605   341   1,453   2,399   173,185   2       175,586 
Commercial real estate (9)
  535   186   3,554   4,275   44,957   161       49,393 
Commercial lease financing
  95   23   31   149   21,793   -       21,942 
Non-U.S. commercial
  25   2   6   33   31,955   41       32,029 
U.S. small business commercial
  195   165   438   798   13,921   -       14,719 
 
Total commercial loans
  1,455   717   5,482   7,654   285,811   204       293,669 
Commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option (10)
  -   -   -   -   -   -  $3,321   3,321 
 
Total commercial
  1,455   717   5,482   7,654   285,811   204   3,321   296,990 
 
Total loans and leases
 $10,952  $6,733  $46,505  $64,190  $837,891  $35,038  $3,321  $940,440 
 
Percentage of outstandings
  1.16%  0.72%  4.95%  6.83%  89.10%  3.72%  0.35%    
 
(1) 
Home loans includes $2.4 billion of fully-insured loans, $818 million of nonperforming loans and $156 million of TDRs that were removed from the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio prior to the adoption of accounting guidance on PCI loans effective January 1, 2010.
 
(2) 
Home loans includes $16.8 billion of fully-insured loans and $372 million of TDRs that were removed from the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio prior to the adoption of accounting guidance on PCI loans effective January 1, 2010.
 
(3) 
Home loans includes $1.1 billion of nonperforming loans as all principal and interest are not current or are TDRs that have not demonstrated sustained repayment performance.
 
(4) 
PCI loan amounts are shown gross of the valuation allowance and exclude $1.6 billion of PCI home loans from the Merrill Lynch acquisition which are included in their appropriate aging categories.
 
(5) 
Total outstandings include non-U.S. residential mortgages of $90 million at December 31, 2010.
 
(6) 
Total outstandings include $11.8 billion of pay option loans and $1.3 billion of subprime loans at December 31, 2010. The Corporation no longer originates these products.
 
(7) 
Total outstandings include dealer financial services loans of $43.3 billion, consumer lending of $12.4 billion, U.S. securities-based lending margin loans of $16.6 billion, student loans of $6.8 billion, non-U.S. consumer loans of $8.0 billion and other consumer loans of $3.2 billion at December 31, 2010.
 
(8) 
Total outstandings include consumer finance loans of $1.9 billion, other non-U.S. consumer loans of $803 million and consumer overdrafts of $88 million at December 31, 2010.
 
(9) 
Total outstandings include U.S. commercial real estate loans of $46.9 billion and non-U.S. commercial real estate loans of $2.5 billion at December 31, 2010.
 
(10) 
Certain commercial loans are accounted for under the fair value option and include U.S. commercial loans of $1.6 billion, non-U.S. commercial loans of $1.7 billion and commercial real estate loans of $79 million at December 31, 2010. See Note 16 – Fair Value Measurements and Note 17 – Fair Value Option for additional information.
     The Corporation mitigates a portion of its credit risk on the residential mortgage portfolio through the use of synthetic securitization vehicles. These vehicles issue long-term notes to investors, the proceeds of which are held as cash collateral. The Corporation pays a premium to the vehicles to purchase mezzanine loss protection on a portfolio of residential mortgages owned by the Corporation. Cash held in the vehicles is used to reimburse the Corporation in the event that losses on the mortgage portfolio exceed 10 basis points (bps) of the original pool balance, up to the remaining amount of purchased loss protection of $936 million and $1.1 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The vehicles are VIEs from which the Corporation purchases credit protection and in which the Corporation does not have a variable interest; and accordingly, these vehicles are not consolidated by the Corporation. Amounts due from the vehicles are recorded in other income (loss) when the Corporation recognizes a reimbursable loss, as described above. Amounts are collected when reimbursable losses are realized through the sale of the underlying collateral. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had a receivable of $445 million and $722 million from these vehicles for reimbursement of losses. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, $37.6 billion and $53.9 billion of residential mortgage loans were referenced under these agreements. The Corporation records an allowance for credit losses on these loans without regard to the existence of the purchased loss protection as the protection does not represent a guarantee of individual loans.
     In addition, the Corporation has entered into long-term credit protection agreements with FNMA and FHLMC on loans totaling $17.2 billion and $12.9 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, providing full protection on residential mortgage loans that become severely delinquent. All of these loans are individually insured and therefore the Corporation does not record an allowance for credit losses related to these loans.

152


Table of Contents

Nonperforming Loans and Leases
     The table below presents the Corporation’s nonperforming loans and leases, including nonperforming TDRs and loans accruing past due 90 days or more at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Nonperforming loans and leases exclude performing TDRs and loans accounted for under the fair value option. Nonperforming loans held-for-sale (LHFS) are excluded from nonperforming loans and leases as they are recorded at either fair value or the lower of cost or fair value. In addition, PCI loans, consumer credit card, business card loans and in general consumer loans not secured by real estate, including renegotiated loans, are not considered nonperforming and are therefore excluded from nonperforming loans and leases in the table below. See Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information on the criteria to determine if a loan is classified as nonperforming. Real estate-secured past due consumer fully-insured loans are reported as performing since the principal repayment is insured.
                      
  Nonperforming Loans and Leases Accruing Past Due 90 Days or More
  June 30 December 31 June 30 December 31
(Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Home loans
                
Core portfolio
                
Residential mortgage (1)
 $1,670  $1,510  $431  $16 
Home equity
  261   107   -   - 
Legacy Asset Servicing portfolio
                
Residential mortgage (1)
  15,056   16,181   19,616   16,752 
Home equity
  2,084   2,587   -   - 
Discontinued real estate
  324   331   -   - 
Credit card and other consumer
                
U.S. credit card
  n/a   n/a   2,413   3,320 
Non-U.S. credit card
  n/a   n/a   607   599 
Direct/Indirect consumer
  58   90   810   1,058 
Other consumer
  25   48   3   2 
 
Total consumer
  19,478   20,854   23,880   21,747 
 
Commercial
                
U.S. commercial
  2,767   3,453   83   236 
Commercial real estate
  5,051   5,829   45   47 
Commercial lease financing
  23   117   22   18 
Non-U.S. commercial
  108   233   3   6 
U.S. small business commercial
  156   204   257   325 
 
Total commercial
  8,105   9,836   410   632 
 
Total consumer and commercial
 $27,583  $30,690  $24,290  $22,379 
 
(1) 
Residential mortgage loans accruing past due 90 days or more are fully-insured loans. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, residential mortgage includes $15.7 billion and $8.3 billion of loans on which interest has been curtailed by the Federal Housing Administration, and therefore are no longer accruing interest, although principal is still insured and $4.3 billion and $8.5 billion of loans on which interest is still accruing.
 
n/a 
= not applicable
     Included in certain loan categories in nonperforming loans and leases in the table above are TDRs that are classified as nonperforming. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had $3.6 billion and $3.0 billion of residential mortgages, $468 million and $535 million of home equity, $76 million and $75 million of discontinued real estate, $348 million and $175 million of U.S. commercial, $868 million and $770 million of commercial real estate and $40 million and $7 million of non-U.S. commercial loans that were TDRs and classified as nonperforming.

153


Table of Contents

Credit Quality Indicators
     The Corporation monitors credit quality within its three portfolio segments based on primary credit quality indicators. Within the home loans portfolio segment, the primary credit quality indicators are refreshed LTV and refreshed FICO score. Refreshed LTV measures the carrying value of the loan as a percentage of the value of property securing the loan, refreshed quarterly. Home equity loans are evaluated using combined LTV which measures the carrying value of the combined loans that have liens against the property and the available line of credit as a percentage of the appraised value of the property securing the loan, refreshed quarterly. Refreshed FICO score measures the creditworthiness of the borrower based on the financial obligations of the borrower and the borrower’s credit history. At a minimum, FICO scores are refreshed quarterly, and in many cases, more frequently. Refreshed FICO score is also a primary credit quality indicator for the credit card and other consumer portfolio segment and the business card portfolio within U.S. small business commercial. The Corporation’s commercial loans are evaluated using pass rated or reservable criticized as the primary credit quality indicators. The term reservable criticized refers to those commercial loans that are internally classified or listed by the Corporation as special mention, substandard or doubtful, which are asset categories defined by regulatory authorities. These assets have an elevated level of risk and may have a high probability of default or total loss. Pass rated refers to all loans not considered criticized. In addition to these primary credit quality indicators, the Corporation uses other credit quality indicators for certain types of loans.

154


Table of Contents

     The tables below present certain credit quality indicators for the Corporation’s home loans, credit card and other consumer loans, and commercial loan portfolio segments at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                                 
Home Loans (1) 
  June 30, 2011 
      Legacy Asset                  Legacy Asset  Countrywide 
  Core Portfolio  Servicing  Countrywide  Core Portfolio  Legacy Asset  Countrywide  Servicing  Discontinued 
  Residential  Residential  Residential  Home  Servicing Home  Home Equity  Discontinued  Real Estate 
(Dollars in millions) Mortgage (2)  Mortgage (2)  Mortgage PCI  Equity (2)  Equity (2)  PCI  Real Estate (2)  PCI 
 
Refreshed LTV (3)
                                
Less than 90 percent
 $85,776  $20,459  $3,707  $46,086  $17,193  $2,236  $767  $6,678 
Greater than 90 percent but less than 100 percent
  12,094   6,322   1,589   7,787   5,137   1,033   125   1,275 
Greater than 100 percent
  18,325   26,889   4,928   15,298   26,838   9,046   234   2,924 
Fully-insured loans (4)
  59,357   26,887   -   -   -   -   -   - 
 
Total home loans
 $175,552  $80,557  $10,224  $69,171  $49,168  $12,315  $1,126  $10,877 
 
 
                                
Refreshed FICO score
                                
Less than 620
 $5,518  $20,367  $3,920  $4,111  $10,068  $3,248  $523  $6,731 
Greater than or equal to 620
  110,677   33,303   6,304   65,060   39,100   9,067   603   4,146 
Fully-insured loans (4)
  59,357   26,887   -   -   -   -   -   - 
 
Total home loans
 $175,552  $80,557  $10,224  $69,171  $49,168  $12,315  $1,126  $10,877 
 
(1) 
Excludes $5.2 billion of loans accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(2) 
Excludes Countrywide PCI loans.
 
(3) 
Refreshed LTV percentages for PCI loans were calculated using the carrying value net of the related valuation allowance.
 
(4) 
Credit quality indicators are not reported for fully-insured loans as principal repayment is insured.
                 
Credit Card and Other Consumer
  June 30, 2011
  U.S. Credit  Non-U.S.  Direct/Indirect  Other 
(Dollars in millions) Card  Credit Card  Consumer  Consumer (1) 
 
Refreshed FICO score
                
Less than 620
 $10,809  $512  $4,935  $880 
Greater than or equal to 620
  93,850   7,517   46,344   913 
Other internal credit metrics (2, 3, 4)
  -   18,008   38,979   969 
 
Total credit card and other consumer
 $104,659  $26,037  $90,258  $2,762 
 
(1) 
96 percent of the other consumer portfolio was associated with portfolios from certain consumer finance businesses that the Corporation previously exited.
 
(2) 
Other internal credit metrics may include delinquency status, geography or other factors.
 
(3) 
Direct/indirect consumer includes $29.6 billion of securities-based lending which is overcollateralized and therefore has minimal credit risk and $6.6 billion of loans the Corporation no longer originates.
 
(4) 
Non-U.S. credit card represents the select European countries’ credit card portfolios and a portion of the Canadian credit card portfolio which is evaluated using internal credit metrics, including delinquency status. At June 30, 2011, 95 percent of this portfolio was current or less than 30 days past due, two percent was 30-89 days past due and three percent was 90 days past due or more.
                     
Commercial (1)
  June 30, 2011
          Commercial      U.S. Small 
  U.S.  Commercial  Lease  Non-U.S.  Business 
(Dollars in millions) Commercial  Real Estate  Financing  Commercial  Commercial 
 
Risk Ratings
                    
Pass rated
 $164,199  $28,026  $20,390  $41,105  $2,724 
Reservable criticized
  12,478   16,002   1,001   1,824   939 
 
                    
Refreshed FICO score
                    
Less than 620
  n/a   n/a   n/a   n/a   682 
Greater than or equal to 620
  n/a   n/a   n/a   n/a   4,952 
Other internal credit metrics(2, 3)
  n/a   n/a   n/a   n/a   4,632 
 
Total commercial credit
 $176,677  $44,028  $21,391  $42,929  $13,929 
 
(1) 
Includes $181 million of PCI loans in the commercial portfolio segment and excludes $4.4 billion of loans accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(2) 
Other internal credit metrics may include delinquency status, application scores, geography or other factors.
 
(3) 
U.S. small business commercial includes business card and small business loans which are evaluated using internal credit metrics, including delinquency status. At June 30, 2011, 97 percent was current or less than 30 days past due.
 
n/a 
= not applicable

155


Table of Contents

                                 
Home Loans 
  December 31, 2010 
      Legacy Asset                  Legacy Asset  Countrywide 
  Core Portfolio  Servicing  Countrywide  Core Portfolio  Legacy Asset  Countrywide  Servicing  Discontinued 
  Residential  Residential  Residential  Home  Servicing Home  Home Equity  Discontinued  Real Estate 
(Dollars in millions) Mortgage (1)  Mortgage (1)  Mortgage PCI  Equity (1)  Equity (1)  PCI  Real Estate (1)  PCI (2) 
 
Refreshed LTV (2)
                                
Less than 90 percent
 $95,874  $21,357  $3,710  $51,555  $22,125  $2,313  $1,033  $6,713 
Greater than 90 percent but less than 100 percent
  11,581   8,234   1,664   7,534   6,504   1,215   155   1,319 
Greater than 100 percent
  14,047   29,043   5,218   12,430   25,243   9,062   268   3,620 
Fully-insured loans (3)
  45,425   21,820   -   -   -   -   -   - 
 
Total home loans
 $166,927  $80,454  $10,592  $71,519  $53,872  $12,590  $1,456  $11,652 
 
 
                                
Refreshed FICO score
                                
Less than 620
 $5,193  $22,126  $4,016  $3,932  $11,562  $3,206  $663  $7,168 
Greater than or equal to 620
  116,309   36,508   6,576   67,587   42,310   9,384   793   4,484 
Fully-insured loans (3)
  45,425   21,820   -   -   -   -   -   - 
 
Total home loans
 $166,927  $80,454  $10,592  $71,519  $53,872  $12,590  $1,456  $11,652 
 
(1) 
Excludes Countrywide PCI loans.
 
(2) 
Refreshed LTV percentages for PCI loans were calculated using the carrying value net of the related valuation allowance.
 
(3) 
Credit quality indicators are not reported for fully-insured loans as principal repayment is insured.
                 
Credit Card and Other Consumer
  December 31, 2010 
  U.S. Credit  Non-U.S.  Direct/Indirect  Other 
(Dollars in millions) Card  Credit Card  Consumer  Consumer (1) 
 
Refreshed FICO score
                
Less than 620
 $14,159  $631  $6,748  $979 
Greater than or equal to 620
  99,626   7,528   48,209   961 
Other internal credit metrics (2, 3, 4)
  -   19,306   35,351   890 
 
Total credit card and other consumer
 $113,785  $27,465  $90,308  $2,830 
 
(1) 
96 percent of the other consumer portfolio was associated with portfolios from certain consumer finance businesses that the Corporation previously exited.
 
(2) 
Other internal credit metrics may include delinquency status, geography or other factors.
 
(3) 
Direct/indirect consumer includes $24.0 billion of securities-based lending which is overcollateralized and therefore has minimal credit risk and $7.4 billion of loans the Corporation no longer originates.
 
(4) 
Non-U.S. credit card represents the select European countries’ credit card portfolios and a portion of the Canadian credit card portfolio which is evaluated using internal credit metrics, including delinquency status. At December 31, 2010, 95 percent of this portfolio was current or less than 30 days past due, three percent was 30-89 days past due and two percent was 90 days past due or more.
                     
Commercial (1)
  December 31, 2010
          Commercial      U.S. Small 
  U.S.  Commercial  Lease  Non-U.S.  Business 
(Dollars in millions) Commercial  Real Estate  Financing  Commercial  Commercial 
 
Risk Ratings
                    
Pass rated
 $160,154  $29,757  $20,754  $30,180  $3,139 
Reservable criticized
  15,432   19,636   1,188   1,849   988 
 
                    
Refreshed FICO score
                    
Less than 620
  n/a   n/a   n/a   n/a   888 
Greater than or equal to 620
  n/a   n/a   n/a   n/a   5,083 
Other internal credit metrics(2, 3)
  n/a   n/a   n/a   n/a   4,621 
 
Total commercial credit
 $175,586  $49,393  $21,942  $32,029  $14,719 
 
(1) 
Includes $204 million of PCI loans in the commercial portfolio segment and excludes $3.3 billion of loans accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(2) 
Other internal credit metrics may include delinquency status, application scores, geography or other factors.
 
(3) 
U.S. small business commercial includes business card and small business loans which are evaluated using internal credit metrics, including delinquency status. At December 31, 2010, 95 percent was current or less than 30 days past due.
 
n/a 
= not applicable
Impaired Loans and Troubled Debt Restructurings
     A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Corporation will be unable to collect all amounts due from the borrower in accordance with the contractual terms of the loan. Impaired loans include nonperforming commercial loans, all TDRs, including both commercial and consumer TDRs, and the renegotiated credit card, consumer lending and small business loan portfolios (collectively, the renegotiated portfolio). Impaired loans exclude nonperforming consumer loans unless they are classified as TDRs, all commercial leases and all loans accounted for under the fair value option. PCI loans are reported separately on page 160.

156


Table of Contents

     The following tables present impaired loans in the Corporation’s home loans and commercial loan portfolio segments at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The impaired home loans table below consists primarily of loans managed by Legacy Asset Servicing. Certain impaired home loans and commercial loans do not have a related allowance as the valuation of these impaired loans exceeded the carrying value.
                             
Impaired Loans - Home Loans 
              Three Months Ended June 30 
  June 30, 2011  2011  2010 
  Unpaid          Average  Interest  Average  Interest 
  Principal  Carrying  Related  Carrying  Income  Carrying  Income 
(Dollars in millions) Balance  Value  Allowance  Value  Recognized (1)  Value  Recognized (1) 
 
With no recorded allowance
                            
Residential mortgage
 $6,955  $5,400   n/a  $5,427  $62  $4,125  $43 
Home equity
  1,381   395   n/a   419   5   483   5 
Discontinued real estate
  324   193   n/a   216   2   220   2 
With an allowance recorded
                            
Residential mortgage
 $11,914  $10,371  $1,320  $9,828  $77  $5,058  $46 
Home equity
  1,764   1,420   723   1,439   8   1,525   7 
Discontinued real estate
  303   204   51   181   2   168   2 
 
Total
                            
Residential mortgage
 $18,869  $15,771  $1,320  $15,255  $139  $9,183  $89 
Home equity
  3,145   1,815   723   1,858   13   2,008   12 
Discontinued real estate
  627   397   51   397   4   388   4 
 
                             
              Six Months Ended June 30 
              2011  2010 
 
With no recorded allowance
                            
Residential mortgage
             $5,527  $116  $3,563  $79 
Home equity
              452   10   455   9 
Discontinued real estate
              222   4   223   4 
With an allowance recorded
                            
Residential mortgage
             $8,790  $147  $5,035  $101 
Home equity
              1,370   15   1,706   12 
Discontinued real estate
              175   3   160   3 
 
Total
                            
Residential mortgage
             $14,317  $263  $8,598  $180 
Home equity
              1,822   25   2,161   21 
Discontinued real estate
              397   7   383   7 
 
                     
              Year Ended 
  December 31, 2010  December 31, 2010 
    
With no recorded allowance
                    
Residential mortgage
 $5,493  $4,382   n/a  $4,429  $184 
Home equity
  1,411   437   n/a   493   21 
Discontinued real estate
  361   218   n/a   219   8 
With an allowance recorded
                    
Residential mortgage
 $8,593  $7,406  $1,154  $5,226  $196 
Home equity
  1,521   1,284   676   1,509   23 
Discontinued real estate
  247   177   41   170   7 
    
Total
                    
Residential mortgage
 $14,086  $11,788  $1,154  $9,655  $380 
Home equity
  2,932   1,721   676   2,002   44 
Discontinued real estate
  608   395   41   389   15 
 
(1) 
Interest income recognized includes interest accrued and collected on the outstanding balances of accruing impaired loans as well as interest cash collections on nonaccruing impaired loans for which the ultimate collectability of principal is not uncertain.
 
n/a 
= not applicable

157


Table of Contents

                             
Impaired Loans - Commercial 
              Three Months Ended June 30 
  June 30, 2011  2011  2010 
  Unpaid          Average  Interest  Average  Interest 
  Principal  Carrying  Related  Carrying  Income  Carrying  Income 
(Dollars in millions) Balance  Value  Allowance  Value  Recognized(1)  Value  Recognized (1) 
 
With no recorded allowance
                            
U.S. commercial
 $984  $696   n/a  $534  $1  $473  $- 
Commercial real estate
  2,723   1,990   n/a   1,895   1   1,703   2 
Non-U.S. commercial
  161   72   n/a   92   -   -   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
  -   -   n/a   -   -   -   - 
With an allowance recorded
                            
U.S. commercial
 $3,067  $2,255  $340  $2,463  $2  $3,882  $9 
Commercial real estate
  4,330   3,219   165   3,491   2   5,263   7 
Non-U.S. commercial
  335   85   5   66   -   221   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
  705   677   268   707   6   1,080   9 
 
Total
                            
U.S. commercial
 $4,051  $2,951  $340  $2,997  $3  $4,355  $9 
Commercial real estate
  7,053   5,209   165   5,386   3   6,966   9 
Non-U.S. commercial
  496   157   5   158   -   221   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
  705   677   268   707   6   1,080   9 
 
                             
              Six Months Ended June 30 
              2011  2010 
               
With no recorded allowance
                            
U.S. commercial
             $503  $1  $474  $1 
Commercial real estate
              1,854   2   1,572   2 
Non-U.S. commercial
              71   -   -   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
              -   -   -   - 
With an allowance recorded
                            
U.S. commercial
             $2,692  $3  $4,006  $12 
Commercial real estate
              3,709   4   5,481   10 
Non-U.S. commercial
              122   -   184   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
              762   13   1,079   18 
 
Total
                            
U.S. commercial
             $3,195  $4  $4,480  $13 
Commercial real estate
              5,563   6   7,053   12 
Non-U.S. commercial
              193   -   184   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
              762   13   1,079   18 
 
                     
              Year Ended 
  December 31, 2010  December 31, 2010 
   
With no recorded allowance
                    
U.S. commercial
 $968  $441   n/a  $547  $3 
Commercial real estate
  2,655   1,771   n/a   1,736   8 
Non-U.S. commercial
  46   28   n/a   9   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
  -   -   n/a   -   - 
With an allowance recorded
                    
U.S. commercial
 $3,891  $3,193  $336  $3,389  $36 
Commercial real estate
  5,682   4,103   208   4,813   29 
Non-U.S. commercial
  572   217   91   190   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
  935   892   445   1,028   34 
 
Total
                    
U.S. commercial
 $4,859  $3,634  $336  $3,936  $39 
Commercial real estate
  8,337   5,874   208   6,549   37 
Non-U.S. commercial
  618   245   91   199   - 
U.S. small business commercial (2)
  935   892   445   1,028   34 
 
(1) 
Interest income recognized includes interest accrued and collected on the outstanding balances of accruing impaired loans as well as interest cash collections on nonaccruing impaired loans for which the ultimate collectability of principal is not uncertain.
 
(2) 
Includes U.S. small business commercial renegotiated TDR loans and related allowance. See additional information on the U.S. small business card renegotiated TDR portfolio on page 159.
 
n/a 
= not applicable
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, remaining commitments to lend additional funds to debtors whose terms have been modified in a TDR were immaterial.
     The Corporation seeks to assist customers that are experiencing financial difficulty by renegotiating loans within the renegotiated portfolio while ensuring compliance with Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council guidelines. Substantially all modifications in the renegotiated portfolio are considered to be both TDRs and impaired loans. The renegotiated portfolio may include modifications, both short- and long-term, of interest rates or payment amounts or a

158


Table of Contents

combination thereof. The Corporation makes loan modifications, primarily utilizing internal renegotiation programs via direct customer contact, that manage customers’ debt exposures held only by the Corporation. Additionally, the Corporation makes loan modifications with consumers who have elected to work with external renegotiation agencies and these modifications provide solutions to customers’ entire unsecured debt structures. Under both internal and external programs, customers receive reduced annual percentage rates with fixed payments that amortize loan balances over a 60-month period. Under both programs, for credit card loans, a customer’s charging privileges are revoked.
     The tables below provide information on the Corporation’s primary modification programs for the renegotiated portfolio. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, all renegotiated credit card and other consumer loans were considered impaired and have a related allowance as shown in the table below. The allowance for credit card loans is based on the present value of projected cash flows discounted using the average portfolio contractual interest rate, excluding promotionally priced loans, in effect prior to restructuring and prior to any risk-based or penalty-based increase in rate on the restructured loan.
                             
Impaired Loans - Credit Card and Other Consumer 
              Three Months Ended June 30 
  June 30, 2011  2011  2010 
  Unpaid          Average  Interest  Average  Interest 
  Principal  Carrying  Related  Carrying  Income  Carrying  Income 
(Dollars in millions) Balance  Value (1)  Allowance  Value  Recognized (2)  Value  Recognized (2) 
 
With an allowance recorded
                            
U.S. credit card
 $6,867  $6,919  $2,279  $7,637  $115  $11,030  $158 
Non-U.S. credit card
  789   808   507   808   1   1,034   4 
 
Direct/Indirect consumer
  1,542   1,552   586   1,686   23   2,199   29 
 
                             
              Six Months Ended June 30 
              2011  2010 
               
With an allowance recorded
                            
U.S. credit card
             $8,100  $242  $11,170  $329 
Non-U.S. credit card
              803   3   1,154   9 
Direct/Indirect consumer
              1,763   47   2,202   57 
 
                     
              Year Ended 
  December 31, 2010  December 31, 2010 
With an allowance recorded
                    
U.S. credit card
 $8,680  $8,766  $3,458  $10,549  $621 
Non-U.S. credit card
  778   797   506   973   21 
Direct/Indirect consumer
  1,846   1,858   822   2,126   111 
 
(1) 
Includes accrued interest and fees.
 
(2) 
Interest income recognized includes interest accrued and collected on the outstanding balances of accruing impaired loans as well as interest cash collections on nonaccruing impaired loans for which the ultimate collectability of principal is not uncertain.
                                         
Renegotiated TDR Portfolio 
                                  Percent of Balances Current or 
  Internal Programs  External Programs  Other  Total  Less Than 30 Days Past Due 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Credit card and other consumer
                                        
U.S. credit card
 $5,073  $6,592  $1,707  $1,927  $139  $247  $6,919  $8,766   79.59%  77.66%
Non-U.S. credit card
  279   282   164   176   365   339   808   797   54.80   58.86 
Direct/Indirect consumer
  1,005   1,222   473   531   74   105   1,552   1,858   80.76   78.81 
           
Total consumer
  6,357   8,096   2,344   2,634   578   691   9,279   11,421   77.62   76.51 
 
Commercial
                                        
U.S. small business commercial
  468   624   52   58   1   6   521   688   67.70%  65.37%
           
Total commercial
  468   624   52   58   1   6   521   688   67.70   65.37 
 
Total renegotiated TDR loans
 $6,825  $8,720  $2,396  $2,692  $579  $697  $9,800  $12,109   77.09   75.90 
 
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had a renegotiated TDR portfolio of $9.8 billion and $12.1 billion of which $7.6 billion was current or less than 30 days past due under the modified terms at June 30, 2011. The renegotiated TDR portfolio is excluded from nonperforming loans as the Corporation generally does not classify consumer loans not secured by real estate as nonperforming as these loans are charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due.

159


Table of Contents

Purchased Credit-impaired Loans
     PCI loans are acquired loans with evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination for which it is probable at purchase date that the Corporation will be unable to collect all contractually required payments. PCI loans are pooled based on similar characteristics and evaluated for impairment on a pool basis. The Corporation estimates impairment on its PCI loan portfolio in accordance with applicable accounting guidance on contingencies which involves estimating the expected cash flows of each pool using internal credit risk, interest rate and prepayment risk models. The key assumptions used in the models include the Corporation’s estimate of default rates, loss severity and payment speeds.
     The table below presents the remaining unpaid principal balance and carrying amount, excluding the valuation allowance, for PCI loans at June 30, 2011, March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The valuation allowance for PCI loans is presented together with the allowance for loan and lease losses. See Note 7 – Allowance for Credit Losses for additional information.
             
  June 30  March 31  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2011  2010 
 
Consumer
            
Countrywide
            
Unpaid principal balance
 $38,488  $40,040  $41,446 
Carrying value excluding valuation allowance
  33,416   34,132   34,834 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  8,239   7,845   6,334 
Merrill Lynch
            
Unpaid principal balance
  1,582   1,629   1,698 
Carrying value excluding valuation allowance
  1,474   1,508   1,559 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  154   136   83 
 
Commercial
            
Merrill Lynch
            
Unpaid principal balance
 $842  $859  $870 
Carrying value excluding valuation allowance
  181   192   204 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  1   1   12 
 
     The table below shows activity for the accretable yield on PCI loans. The $118 million reclassification to nonaccretable difference for the three months ended June 30, 2011 reflects a decrease in estimated interest cash flows. The $873 million reclassification from nonaccretable difference for the six months ended June 30, 2011 reflects an increase in estimated interest cash flows resulting from lower prepayment speeds.
         
  Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
(Dollars in millions) June 30, 2011  June 30, 2011 
 
Accretable yield, beginning of period
 $6,317  $5,722 
Accretion
  (341)  (708)
Disposals/transfers
  (35)  (64)
Reclassifications (to)/from nonaccretable difference
  (118)  873 
 
Accretable yield, June 30, 2011
 $5,823  $5,823 
 
Loans Held-for-Sale
     The Corporation had LHFS of $20.1 billion and $35.1 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Proceeds from sales, securitizations and paydowns of LHFS were $99.0 billion and $150.4 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Proceeds used for originations and purchases of LHFS were $80.4 billion and $137.5 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.

160


Table of Contents

NOTE 7 – Allowance for Credit Losses
     The tables below summarize the changes in the allowance for credit losses by portfolio segment for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 
      Credit Card        
      and Other      Total 
(Dollars in millions) Home Loans  Consumer  Commercial  Allowance 
 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, April 1
 $20,097  $13,271  $6,475  $39,843 
Loans and leases charged off
  (2,603)  (3,245)  (759)  (6,607)
Recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off
  210   476   256   942 
 
Net charge-offs
  (2,393)  (2,769)  (503)  (5,665)
 
Provision for loan and lease losses
  3,249   529   (518)  3,260 
Other
  -   (100)  (26)  (126)
 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, June 30
  20,953   10,931   5,428   37,312 
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, April 1
  -   -   961   961 
Provision for unfunded lending commitments
  -   -   (5)  (5)
Other (1)
  -   -   (59)  (59)
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, June 30
  -   -   897   897 
 
Allowance for credit losses, June 30
 $20,953  $10,931  $6,325  $38,209 
 
                 
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, January 1
 $19,252  $15,463  $7,170  $41,885 
Loans and leases charged off
  (4,892)  (6,976)  (1,665)  (13,533)
Recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off
  395   966   479   1,840 
 
Net charge-offs
  (4,497)  (6,010)  (1,186)  (11,693)
 
Provision for loan and lease losses
  6,197   1,508   (529)  7,176 
Other
  1   (30)  (27)  (56)
 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, June 30
  20,953   10,931   5,428   37,312 
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, January 1
  -   -   1,188   1,188 
Provision for unfunded lending commitments
  -   -   (107)  (107)
Other (1)
  -   -   (184)  (184)
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, June 30
  -   -   897   897 
 
Allowance for credit losses, June 30
 $20,953  $10,931  $6,325  $38,209 
 
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2010 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, April 1
 $17,971  $19,683  $9,181  $46,835 
Loans and leases charged off
  (2,819)  (5,916)  (1,571)  (10,306)
Recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off
  88   505   156   749 
 
Net charge-offs
  (2,731)  (5,411)  (1,415)  (9,557)
 
Provision for loan and lease losses
  3,659   3,489   957   8,105 
Other
  (61)  (69)  2   (128)
 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, June 30
  18,838   17,692   8,725   45,255 
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, April 1
  -   -   1,521   1,521 
Other (1)
  -   -   (108)  (108)
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, June 30
  -   -   1,413   1,413 
 
Allowance for credit losses, June 30
 $18,838  $17,692  $10,138  $46,668 
 
                 
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, January 1
 $16,329  $22,243  $9,416  $47,988 
Loans and leases charged off
  (6,389)  (12,179)  (3,239)  (21,807)
Recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off
  171   1,007   275   1,453 
 
Net charge-offs
  (6,218)  (11,172)  (2,964)  (20,354)
 
Provision for loan and lease losses
  8,632   6,799   2,273   17,704 
Other
  95   (178)  -   (83)
 
Allowance for loan and lease losses, June 30
  18,838   17,692   8,725   45,255 
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, January 1
  -   -   1,487   1,487 
Provision for unfunded lending commitments
  -   -   206   206 
Other (1)
  -   -   (280)  (280)
 
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, June 30
  -   -   1,413   1,413 
 
Allowance for credit losses, June 30
 $18,838  $17,692  $10,138  $46,668 
 
(1) 
Represents primarily accretion of the Merrill Lynch purchase accounting adjustment and the impact of funding previously unfunded positions.

161


Table of Contents

     During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation recorded $412 million and $2.0 billion in provision for credit losses with a corresponding increase in the valuation reserve presented with the allowance for loan and lease losses specifically for the PCI loan portfolio. This compared to $256 million and $1.1 billion for the same periods in 2010. The amount of the allowance for loan and lease losses associated with the PCI loan portfolio was $8.4 billion, $8.0 billion and $6.4 billion at June 30, 2011, March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
     The table below presents the allowance and the carrying value of outstanding loans and leases by portfolio segment at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                 
  June 30, 2011 
      Credit Card       
      and Other       
(Dollars in millions) Home Loans  Consumer  Commercial  Total 
 
Impaired loans and troubled debt restructurings (1)
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses (2)
 $2,094  $3,372  $778  $6,244 
Carrying value
  17,983   9,279   8,994   36,256 
Allowance as a percentage of carrying value
  11.64%  36.34%  8.66%  17.22%
 
Collectively evaluated for impairment
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses
 $10,466  $7,559  $4,649  $22,674 
Carrying value (3)
  356,117   214,437   289,779   860,333 
Allowance as a percentage of carrying value (3)
  2.94%  3.53%  1.60%  2.64%
 
Purchased credit-impaired loans
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses
 $8,393   n/a  $1  $8,394 
Carrying value excluding valuation allowance
  34,890   n/a   181   35,071 
Allowance as a percentage of carrying value
  24.06%  n/a   0.39%  23.94%
 
Total
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses
 $20,953  $10,931  $5,428  $37,312 
Carrying value (3)
  408,990   223,716   298,954   931,660 
Allowance as a percentage of carrying value (3)
  5.12%  4.89%  1.82%  4.00%
 
                 
  December 31, 2010 
Impaired loans and troubled debt restructurings (1)
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses (2)
 $1,871  $4,786  $1,080  $7,737 
Carrying value
  13,904   11,421   10,645   35,970 
Allowance as a percentage of carrying value
  13.46%  41.91%  10.15%  21.51%
 
Collectively evaluated for impairment
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses
 $10,964  $10,677  $6,078  $27,719 
Carrying value (3)
  358,765   222,967   282,820   864,552 
Allowance as a percentage of carrying value (3)
  3.06%  4.79%  2.15%  3.21%
 
Purchased credit-impaired loans
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses
 $6,417   n/a  $12  $6,429 
Carrying value excluding valuation allowance
  36,393   n/a   204   36,597 
Allowance as a percentage of carrying value
  17.63%  n/a   5.76%  17.57%
 
Total
                
Allowance for loan and lease losses
 $19,252  $15,463  $7,170  $41,885 
Carrying value (3)
  409,062   234,388   293,669   937,119 
Allowance as a percentage of carrying value (3)
  4.71%  6.60%  2.44%  4.47%
 
(1) 
Impaired loans include nonperforming commercial loans and all commercial and consumer TDRs. Impaired loans exclude nonperforming consumer loans unless they are classified as TDRs, and all loans and leases that are accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(2) 
Commercial impaired allowance for loan and lease losses includes $268 million and $445 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 related to U.S. small business commercial renegotiated TDR loans.
 
(3) 
Outstanding loan and lease balances and ratios do not include loans accounted for under the fair value option. Total loans accounted for under the fair value option were $9.6 billion and $3.3 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
 
n/a 
= not applicable
NOTE 8 – Securitizations and Other Variable Interest Entities
     The Corporation utilizes VIEs in the ordinary course of business to support its own and its customers’ financing and investing needs. The Corporation routinely securitizes loans and debt securities using VIEs as a source of funding for the Corporation and as a means of transferring the economic risk of the loans or debt securities to third parties. The Corporation also administers, structures or invests in other VIEs including CDOs, investment vehicles and other entities. For additional information on the Corporation’s utilization of VIEs, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
     The following tables present the assets and liabilities of consolidated and unconsolidated VIEs at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, in situations where the Corporation has continuing involvement with transferred assets or where the Corporation otherwise has a variable interest in the VIE. The tables also present the Corporation’s maximum exposure to

162


Table of Contents

loss at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 resulting from its involvement with consolidated VIEs and unconsolidated VIEs in which the Corporation holds a variable interest. The Corporation’s maximum exposure to loss is based on the unlikely event that all of the assets in the VIEs become worthless and incorporates not only potential losses associated with assets recorded on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet but also potential losses associated with off-balance sheet commitments such as unfunded liquidity commitments and other contractual arrangements. The Corporation’s maximum exposure to loss does not include losses previously recognized, for example, through write-downs of assets on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.
     The Corporation invests in asset-backed securities (ABS) issued by third-party VIEs with which it has no other form of involvement. These securities are included in Note 3 – Trading Account Assets and Liabilities and Note 5 – Securities. In addition, the Corporation uses VIEs such as trust preferred securities trusts in connection with its funding activities. For additional information, see Note 13 – Long-term Debt to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Corporation also uses VIEs in the form of synthetic securitization vehicles to mitigate a portion of the credit risk on its residential mortgage loan portfolio, as described in Note 6 – Outstanding Loans and Leases. The Corporation uses VIEs, such as cash funds managed within Global Wealth & Investment Management (GWIM), to provide investment opportunities for clients. These VIEs, which are not consolidated by the Corporation, are not included in the tables within this Note.
     Except as described below and in Note 8 – Securitizations and Other Variable Interest Entities to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Corporation did not provide financial support to consolidated or unconsolidated VIEs during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 or the year ended December 31, 2010 that it was not previously contractually required to provide, nor does it intend to do so.
Mortgage-related Securitizations
First-lien Mortgages
     As part of its mortgage banking activities, the Corporation securitizes a portion of the first-lien residential mortgage loans it originates or purchases from third parties, generally in the form of MBS guaranteed by government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), or GNMA in the case of Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-guaranteed mortgage loans. Securitization usually occurs in conjunction with or shortly after loan closing or purchase. In addition, the Corporation may, from time to time, securitize commercial mortgages it originates or purchases from other entities. The Corporation typically services the loans it securitizes. Further, the Corporation may retain beneficial interests in the securitization trusts including senior and subordinate securities and residual tranches issued by the trusts. Except as described below and in Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees, the Corporation does not provide guarantees or recourse to the securitization trusts other than standard representations and warranties.

163


Table of Contents

     The table below summarizes select information related to first-lien mortgage securitizations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
                                         
  Residential Mortgage  
          Non-Agency  
  Agency Prime Subprime Alt-A Commercial Mortgage
          Three Months Ended June 30    
(Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Cash proceeds from new securitizations (1)
 $36,222  $61,301  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $1,802  $1,362 
Gain (loss) on securitizations, net of hedges (2)
  (227)  (402)  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   2 
Cash flows received on residual interests
  -   -   1   4   10   14   -   1   4   - 
 
                                         
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2011
  2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Cash proceeds from new securitizations (1)
 $96,976  $131,209  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $3  $1,802  $2,383 
Gain (loss) on securitizations, net of hedges (2)
  (55)  (451)  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   20 
Cash flows received on residual interests
  -   -   2   9   22   33   1   2   7   1 
 
(1) 
The Corporation sells residential mortgage loans to GSEs in the normal course of business and receives MBS in exchange which may then be sold into the market to third-party investors for cash proceeds.
 
(2) 
Substantially all of the first-lien residential mortgage loans securitized are initially classified as LHFS and accounted for under the fair value option. As such, gains are recognized on these LHFS prior to securitization. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation recognized $765 million and $1.8 billion of gains on these LHFS compared to $1.2 billion and $2.5 billion for the same periods in 2010, net of hedges.
     In addition to cash proceeds reported in the table above, the Corporation received securities with an initial fair value of $428 million in connection with agency first-lien residential mortgage securitizations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, and $436 million and $18.5 billion for the same periods in 2010. The Corporation also received securities with an initial fair value of $27 million in connection with commercial mortgage securitizations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and none for the same periods in 2010. All of these securities were initially classified as Level 2 assets within the fair value hierarchy. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, there were no changes to the initial classification.
     The Corporation recognizes consumer MSRs from the sale or securitization of first-lien mortgage loans. Servicing fee and ancillary fee income on consumer mortgage loans serviced, including securitizations where the Corporation has continuing involvement, were $1.5 billion and $3.1 billion during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $1.6 billion and $3.2 billion for the same periods in 2010. Servicing advances on consumer mortgage loans, including securitizations where the Corporation has continuing involvement, were $25.0 billion and $24.3 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The Corporation may have the option to repurchase delinquent loans out of securitization trusts, which reduces the amount of servicing advances it is required to make. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, $1.8 billion and $7.6 billion of loans were repurchased from first-lien securitization trusts as a result of loan delinquencies or in order to perform modifications compared to $4.3 billion and $8.4 billion for the same periods in 2010. The majority of these loans repurchased were FHA-insured mortgages collateralizing GNMA securities. In addition, the Corporation has retained commercial MSRs from the sale or securitization of commercial mortgage loans. Servicing fee and ancillary fee income on commercial mortgage loans serviced, including securitizations where the Corporation has continuing involvement, were a loss of $1 million and income of $2 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to a loss of $2 million and income of $2 million for the same periods in 2010. Servicing advances on commercial mortgage loans, including securitizations where the Corporation has continuing involvement, were $160 million and $156 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

164


Table of Contents

     The table below summarizes select information related to first-lien mortgage securitization trusts in which the Corporation held a variable interest at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                                         
  Residential Mortgage    
          Non-Agency    
  Agency  Prime  Subprime  Alt-A  Commercial Mortgage 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Unconsolidated VIEs
                                        
Maximum loss exposure (1)
 $42,139  $46,093  $2,477  $2,794  $439  $416  $593  $651  $1,258  $1,199 
 
On-balance sheet assets
                                        
Senior securities held (2):
                                        
Trading account assets
 $8,536  $10,693  $118  $147  $73  $126  $399  $645  $93  $146 
AFS debt securities
  33,596   35,400   2,265   2,593   204   234   190   -   976   984 
Subordinate securities held (2):
                                        
Trading account assets
  -   -   -   -   6   12   -   -   11   8 
AFS debt securities
  -   -   35   39   33   35   4   6   -   - 
Residual interests held
  7   -   6   6   8   9   -   -   123   61 
All other assets
  -   -   -   9   -   -   -   -   -   - 
 
Total retained positions
 $42,139  $46,093  $2,424  $2,794  $324  $416  $593  $651  $1,203  $1,199 
 
Principal balance outstanding (3)
 $1,311,478  $1,297,159  $67,316  $75,762  $82,730  $92,710  $108,697  $116,233  $72,765  $73,597 
 
 
                                        
Consolidated VIEs
                                        
Maximum loss exposure (1)
 $46,446  $32,746  $901  $46  $310  $42  $-  $-  $-  $- 
 
On-balance sheet assets
                                        
Loans and leases
 $46,232  $32,563  $4,172  $-  $1,022  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
 (38)  (37)  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   - 
Loans held-for-sale
  -   -   -   -   749   732   -   -   -   - 
All other assets
  252   220   224   46   40   16   -   -   -   - 
 
Total assets
 $46,446  $32,746  $4,396  $46  $1,811  $748  $-  $-  $-  $- 
 
On-balance sheet liabilities
                                        
Long-term debt
 $-  $-  $4,364  $-  $1,033  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
All other liabilities
  3   3   -   9   811   768   -   -   -   - 
 
Total liabilities
 $3  $3  $4,364  $9  $1,844  $768  $-  $-  $-  $- 
 
(1) 
Maximum loss exposure excludes the liability for representations and warranties obligations and corporate guarantees and also excludes servicing advances. For more information, see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees.
 
(2) 
As a holder of these securities, the Corporation receives scheduled principal and interest payments. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, there were no OTTI losses recorded on those securities classified as AFS debt securities.
 
(3) 
Principal balance outstanding includes loans the Corporation transferred with which the Corporation has continuing involvement, which may include servicing the loans.
     As a result of a settlement agreement with Assured Guaranty Ltd. and its subsidiaries (Assured Guaranty), the Corporation has entered into a loss-sharing reinsurance arrangement involving 21 first-lien RMBS trusts. This obligation is a variable interest that could potentially be significant to the trusts. To the extent that the Corporation services all or a majority of the loans in any of the 21 trusts, the Corporation is the primary beneficiary. At June 30, 2011, 19 of these trusts were consolidated. Assets and liabilities of the consolidated trusts and the Corporation’s maximum loss exposure to consolidated and unconsolidated trusts are included in the table above as non-agency prime and subprime trusts. For additional information, see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees.
Home Equity Loans
     The Corporation maintains interests in home equity securitization trusts to which it transferred home equity loans. These retained interests include senior and subordinate securities and residual interests. In addition, the Corporation may be obligated to provide subordinate funding to the trusts during a rapid amortization event. The Corporation also services the loans in the trusts. Except as described below and in Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees, the Corporation does not provide guarantees or recourse to the securitization trusts other than standard representations and warranties. There were no securitizations of home equity loans during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Cash flows received on residual interests were $2 million and $3 million and, as all of the home equity trusts have entered the amortization phase, there were no collections reinvested in revolving period securitizations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. Cash flows received on residual interests were $4 million and $7 million, and collections reinvested in revolving period securitizations were $9 million and $16 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010.

165


Table of Contents

     The table below summarizes select information related to home equity loan securitization trusts in which the Corporation held a variable interest at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
      Retained          Retained    
      Interests in          Interests in    
  Consolidated  Unconsolidated      Consolidated  Unconsolidated    
(Dollars in millions) VIEs  VIEs  Total  VIEs  VIEs  Total 
 
Maximum loss exposure (1)
 $2,927  $8,278  $11,205  $3,192  $9,132  $12,324 
 
On-balance sheet assets
                        
Trading account assets (2, 3)
 $-  $141  $141  $-  $209  $209 
AFS debt securities (3, 4)
  -   13   13   -   35   35 
Loans and leases
  3,219   -   3,219   3,529   -   3,529 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  (292)  -   (292)  (337)  -   (337)
 
Total
 $2,927  $154  $3,081  $3,192  $244  $3,436 
 
On-balance sheet liabilities
                        
Long-term debt
 $3,311  $-  $3,311  $3,635  $-  $3,635 
All other liabilities
  42   -   42   23   -   23 
 
Total
 $3,353  $-  $3,353  $3,658  $-  $3,658 
 
Principal balance outstanding
 $3,219  $17,905  $21,124  $3,529  $20,095  $23,624 
 
(1) 
For unconsolidated VIEs, the maximum loss exposure includes outstanding trust certificates issued by trusts in rapid amortization, net of recorded reserves, and excludes the liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees.
 
(2) 
At June 30, 2011, $116 million of the debt securities classified as trading account assets were senior securities and $25 million were subordinate securities. At December 31, 2010, $204 million of the debt securities classified as trading account assets were senior securities and $5 million were subordinate securities.
 
(3) 
As a holder of these securities, the Corporation receives scheduled principal and interest payments. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, there were no OTTI losses recorded on those securities classified as AFS debt securities.
 
(4) 
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, $13 million and $35 million represented subordinate debt securities held.
     Included in the table above are consolidated and unconsolidated home equity loan securitizations that have entered a rapid amortization period and for which the Corporation is obligated to provide subordinated funding. During this period, cash payments from borrowers are accumulated to repay outstanding debt securities and the Corporation continues to make advances to borrowers when they draw on their lines of credit. The Corporation then transfers the newly generated receivables into the securitization vehicles and is reimbursed only after other parties in the securitization have received all of the cash flows to which they are entitled. If loan losses requiring draws on monoline insurers’ policies, which protect the bondholders in the securitization, exceed a certain level, the Corporation may not receive reimbursement for all of the funds advanced to borrowers, as the senior bondholders and the monoline insurers have priority for repayment. The Corporation evaluates each of these securitizations for potential losses due to non-recoverable advances by estimating the amount and timing of future losses on the underlying loans, the excess spread available to cover such losses and potential cash flow shortfalls during rapid amortization. This evaluation, which includes the number of loans still in revolving status, the amount of available credit and when those loans will lose revolving status, is also used to determine whether the Corporation has a variable interest that is more than insignificant and must consolidate the trust. A maximum funding obligation attributable to rapid amortization cannot be calculated as a home equity borrower has the ability to pay down and re-draw balances. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, home equity loan securitization transactions in rapid amortization for which the Corporation has a subordinate funding obligation, including both consolidated and unconsolidated trusts, had $11.5 billion and $12.5 billion of trust certificates outstanding. This amount is significantly greater than the amount the Corporation expects to fund. The charges that will ultimately be recorded as a result of the rapid amortization events depend on the undrawn available credit on the home equity lines, which totaled $564 million and $639 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, as well as performance of the loans, the amount of subsequent draws and the timing of related cash flows. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the reserve for losses on expected future draw obligations on the home equity loan securitizations in rapid amortization for which the Corporation has a subordinated funding obligation was $107 million and $131 million.
     The Corporation has consumer MSRs from the sale or securitization of home equity loans. The Corporation recorded $16 million and $33 million of servicing fee income related to home equity loan securitizations during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $15 million and $41 million for the same periods in 2010. The Corporation repurchased $4 million and $5 million of loans from home equity securitization trusts in order to perform modifications during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $5 million and $11 million for the same periods in 2010.
Credit Card Securitizations
     The Corporation securitizes originated and purchased credit card loans. The Corporation’s continuing involvement with the securitization trusts includes servicing the receivables, retaining an undivided interest (seller’s interest) in the receivables, and holding certain retained interests including senior and subordinate securities, discount receivables,

166


Table of Contents

subordinate interests in accrued interest and fees on the securitized receivables, and cash reserve accounts. The seller’s interest in the trusts, which is pari passu to the investors’ interest, and the discount receivables are classified in loans and leases.
     The table below summarizes select information related to credit card securitization trusts in which the Corporation held a variable interest at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
         
  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010 
 
Consolidated VIEs
        
Maximum loss exposure
 $39,440  $36,596 
 
 
On-balance sheet assets
        
Derivative assets
 $1,445  $1,778 
Loans and leases (1)
  82,839   92,104 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  (6,004)  (8,505)
All other assets (2)
  3,957   4,259 
 
Total
 $82,237  $89,636 
 
On-balance sheet liabilities
        
Long-term debt
 $42,600  $52,781 
All other liabilities
  197   259 
 
Total
 $42,797  $53,040 
 
Trust loans
 $82,839  $92,104 
 
(1) 
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, loans and leases included $24.9 billion and $20.4 billion of seller’s interest and $2.7 billion and $3.8 billion of discount receivables.
 
(2) 
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, all other assets included restricted cash accounts and unbilled accrued interest and fees.
     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, $2.9 billion of new senior debt securities were issued to external investors from the credit card securitization trusts and none for the same periods in 2011.
     During the three and six months ended June, 30 2010, subordinate securities with a notional principal amount of $1.9 billion and $11.5 billion with a stated interest rate of zero percent were issued by certain credit card securitization trusts to the Corporation and none for the same periods in 2011. In addition, the Corporation has elected to designate a specified percentage of new receivables transferred to the trusts as “discount receivables” such that principal collections thereon are added to finance charges which increases the yield in the trust. Through the designation of newly transferred receivables as discount receivables, the Corporation has subordinated a portion of its seller’s interest to the investors’ interest. These actions, which were specifically permitted by the terms of the trust documents, were taken in an effort to address the decline in the excess spread of the U.S. and United Kingdom (U.K.) Credit Card Securitization Trusts. The issuance of subordinate securities and the discount receivables election had no impact on the Corporation’s consolidated results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.

167


Table of Contents

Other Asset-backed Securitizations
     Other asset-backed securitizations include resecuritization trusts, municipal bond trusts, and automobile and other securitization trusts. The table below summarizes select information related to other asset-backed securitizations in which the Corporation held a variable interest at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                         
                  Automobile and Other 
  Resecuritization Trusts  Municipal Bond Trusts  Securitization Trusts 
  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Unconsolidated VIEs
                        
Maximum loss exposure
 $30,821  $20,320  $3,736  $4,261  $113  $141 
 
On-balance sheet assets
                        
Senior securities held (1, 2):
                        
Trading account assets
 $644  $1,219  $182  $255  $-  $- 
AFS debt securities
  29,099   17,989   -   -   84   109 
Subordinate securities held (1, 2):
                        
Trading account assets
  1   2   -   -   -   - 
AFS debt securities
  973   1,036   -   -   -   - 
Residual interests held (3)
  104   74   -   -   -   - 
All other assets
  -   -   -   -   14   17 
 
Total retained positions
 $30,821  $20,320  $182  $255  $98  $126 
 
Total assets of VIEs
 $53,796  $39,830  $5,516  $6,108  $718  $774 
 
 
                        
Consolidated VIEs
                        
Maximum loss exposure
 $25  $-  $4,493  $4,716  $1,665  $2,061 
 
On-balance sheet assets
                        
Trading account assets
 $39  $68  $4,493  $4,716  $-  $- 
Loans and leases
  -   -   -   -   7,187   9,583 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  -   -   -   -   (10)  (29)
All other assets
  -   -   -   -   195   196 
 
Total assets
 $39  $68  $4,493  $4,716  $7,372  $9,750 
 
On-balance sheet liabilities
                        
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
 $-  $-  $4,445  $4,921  $-  $- 
Long-term debt
  14   68   -   -   5,701   7,681 
All other liabilities
  -   -   -   -   119   101 
 
Total liabilities
 $14  $68  $4,445  $4,921  $5,820  $7,782 
 
(1) 
As a holder of these securities, the Corporation receives scheduled principal and interest payments. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, there were no significant OTTI losses recorded on those securities classified as AFS debt securities.
 
(2) 
The retained senior and subordinate securities were valued using quoted market prices or observable market inputs (Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy).
 
(3) 
The retained residual interests are carried at fair value which was derived using model valuations (Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy).
Resecuritization Trusts
     The Corporation transfers existing securities, typically MBS, into resecuritization vehicles at the request of customers seeking securities with specific characteristics. The Corporation may also enter into resecuritizations of securities within its investment portfolio for purposes of improving liquidity and capital, and managing credit or interest rate risk. Generally, there are no significant ongoing activities performed in a resecuritization trust and no single investor has the unilateral ability to liquidate the trust.
     The Corporation resecuritized $21.6 billion and $23.6 billion of securities during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $27.9 billion and $68.7 billion for the same periods in 2010. Net gains on sales totaled $732 million and $735 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to net losses of $53 million and $86 million for the same periods in 2010. The Corporation consolidates a resecuritization trust if it has sole discretion over the design of the trust, including the identification of securities to be transferred in and the structure of securities to be issued, and also retains a variable interest that could potentially be significant to the trust. If one or a limited number of third-party investors share responsibility for the design of the trust and purchase a significant portion of subordinate securities, the Corporation does not consolidate the trust.
Municipal Bond Trusts
     The Corporation administers municipal bond trusts that hold highly-rated, long-term, fixed-rate municipal bonds. A majority of the bonds are rated AAA or AA and some benefit from insurance provided by third parties. The trusts obtain

168


Table of Contents

financing by issuing floating-rate trust certificates that reprice on a weekly or other basis to third-party investors. The Corporation may serve as remarketing agent and/or liquidity provider for the trusts. The floating-rate investors have the right to tender the certificates at specified dates, often with as little as seven days’ notice. Should the Corporation be unable to remarket the tendered certificates, it is generally obligated to purchase them at par under standby liquidity facilities unless the bond’s credit rating has declined below investment-grade or there has been an event of default or bankruptcy of the issuer and insurer.
     The Corporation also provides credit enhancement to investors in certain municipal bond trusts whereby the Corporation guarantees the payment of interest and principal on floating-rate certificates issued by these trusts in the event of default by the issuer of the underlying municipal bond. If a customer holds the residual interest in a trust, that customer typically has the unilateral ability to liquidate the trust at any time, while the Corporation typically has the ability to trigger the liquidation of that trust if the market value of the bonds held in the trust declines below a specified threshold. This arrangement is designed to limit market losses to an amount that is less than the customer’s residual interest, effectively preventing the Corporation from absorbing losses incurred on assets held within that trust. The weighted-average remaining life of bonds held in the trusts at June 30, 2011 was 14.6 years. There were no material write-downs or downgrades of assets or issuers during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011.
     During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation was the transferor of assets into unconsolidated municipal bond trusts and received cash proceeds from new securitizations of $348 million and $415 million compared to $369 million and $782 million for the same periods in 2010. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the principal balance outstanding for unconsolidated municipal bond securitization trusts for which the Corporation was transferor was $2.0 billion and $2.2 billion.
     The Corporation’s liquidity commitments to unconsolidated municipal bond trusts, including those for which the Corporation was transferor, totaled $3.6 billion and $4.0 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
Automobile and Other Securitization Trusts
     The Corporation transfers automobile and other loans into securitization trusts, typically to improve liquidity or manage credit risk. At June 30, 2011, the Corporation serviced assets or otherwise had continuing involvement with automobile and other securitization trusts with outstanding balances of $8.1 billion, including trusts collateralized by automobile loans of $6.1 billion, student loans of $1.2 billion, and other loans and receivables of $718 million. At December 31, 2010, the Corporation serviced assets or otherwise had continuing involvement with automobile and other securitization trusts with outstanding balances of $10.5 billion, including trusts collateralized by automobile loans of $8.4 billion, student loans of $1.3 billion, and other loans and receivables of $774 million.
Collateralized Debt Obligation Vehicles
     CDO vehicles hold diversified pools of fixed-income securities, typically corporate debt or ABS, which they fund by issuing multiple tranches of debt and equity securities. Synthetic CDOs enter into a portfolio of credit default swaps to synthetically create exposure to fixed-income securities. CLOs are a subset of CDOs which hold pools of loans, typically corporate loans or commercial mortgages. CDOs are typically managed by third-party portfolio managers. The Corporation transfers assets to these CDOs, holds securities issued by the CDOs and may be a derivative counterparty to the CDOs, including a credit default swap counterparty for synthetic CDOs. The Corporation has also entered into total return swaps with certain CDOs whereby the Corporation absorbs the economic returns generated by specified assets held by the CDO. The Corporation receives fees for structuring CDOs and providing liquidity support for super senior tranches of securities issued by certain CDOs. No third parties provide a significant amount of similar commitments to these CDOs.

169


Table of Contents

     The table below summarizes select information related to CDO vehicles in which the Corporation held a variable interest at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
(Dollars in millions) Consolidated  Unconsolidated  Total  Consolidated  Unconsolidated  Total 
 
Maximum loss exposure
 $2,714  $2,678  $5,392  $2,971  $3,828  $6,799 
 
On-balance sheet assets
                        
Trading account assets
 $2,178  $554  $2,732  $2,485  $884  $3,369 
Derivative assets
  469   744   1,213   207   890   1,097 
AFS debt securities
  251   -   251   769   338   1,107 
All other assets
  74   146   220   24   123   147 
 
Total
 $2,972  $1,444  $4,416  $3,485  $2,235  $5,720 
 
On-balance sheet liabilities
                        
Derivative liabilities
 $-  $17  $17  $-  $58  $58 
Long-term debt
  3,169   2   3,171   3,162   -   3,162 
 
Total
 $3,169  $19  $3,188  $3,162  $58  $3,220 
 
Total assets of VIEs
 $2,972  $36,427  $39,399  $3,485  $43,476  $46,961 
 
     The Corporation’s maximum loss exposure of $5.4 billion at June 30, 2011 includes $1.0 billion of super senior CDO exposure, $2.3 billion of exposure to CDO financing facilities and $2.1 billion of other non-super senior exposure. This exposure is calculated on a gross basis and does not reflect any benefit from insurance purchased from third parties. Net of this insurance but including securities retained from liquidations of CDOs, the Corporation’s net exposure to super senior CDO-related positions was $518 million at June 30, 2011. The CDO financing facilities, which are consolidated, obtain funding from third parties for CDO positions which are principally classified in trading account assets on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. The CDO financing facilities’ long-term debt at June 30, 2011 totaled $2.9 billion, all of which has recourse to the general credit of the Corporation. The Corporation’s maximum exposure to loss is significantly less than the total assets of the CDO vehicles in the table above because the Corporation typically has exposure to only a portion of the total assets.
     At June 30, 2011, the Corporation had $948 million notional amount of super senior CDO liquidity exposure, including derivatives and other exposures with third parties that hold super senior cash positions on the Corporation’s behalf and to certain synthetic CDOs through which the Corporation is obligated to purchase super senior CDO securities at par value if the CDOs need cash to make payments due under credit default swaps written by the CDO vehicles. Liquidity-related commitments also include $2.1 billion notional amount of derivative contracts with unconsolidated special purpose entities (SPEs), principally CDO vehicles, which hold non-super senior CDO debt securities or other debt securities on the Corporation’s behalf. These derivatives comprise substantially all of the $2.1 billion notional amount of derivative contracts through which the Corporation obtains funding from third-party SPEs, as described in Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies. The Corporation’s $3.0 billion of aggregate liquidity exposure to CDOs at June 30, 2011 is included in the table above to the extent that the Corporation sponsored the CDO vehicle or the liquidity exposure is more than insignificant compared to total assets of the CDO vehicle. Liquidity exposure included in the table is reported net of previously recorded losses.
Customer Vehicles
     Customer vehicles include credit-linked and equity-linked note vehicles, repackaging vehicles and asset acquisition vehicles, which are typically created on behalf of customers who wish to obtain market or credit exposure to a specific company or financial instrument.

170


Table of Contents

     The table below summarizes select information related to customer vehicles in which the Corporation held a variable interest at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010
(Dollars in millions) Consolidated  Unconsolidated  Total  Consolidated  Unconsolidated  Total 
 
Maximum loss exposure
 $4,634  $2,112  $6,746  $4,449  $2,735  $7,184 
 
On-balance sheet assets
                        
Trading account assets
 $3,932  $225  $4,157  $3,458  $876  $4,334 
Derivative assets
  -   747   747   1   722   723 
Loans held-for-sale
  672   -   672   959   -   959 
All other assets
  1,980   -   1,980   1,429   -   1,429 
 
Total
 $6,584  $972  $7,556  $5,847  $1,598  $7,445 
 
On-balance sheet liabilities
                        
Derivative liabilities
 $1  $59  $60  $1  $23  $24 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  232   -   232   -   -   - 
Long-term debt
  4,379   -   4,379   3,457   -   3,457 
All other liabilities
  1   477   478   -   140   140 
 
Total
 $4,613  $536  $5,149  $3,458  $163  $3,621 
 
Total assets of VIEs
 $6,584  $5,878  $12,462  $5,847  $6,090  $11,937 
 
     Credit-linked and equity-linked note vehicles issue notes which pay a return that is linked to the credit or equity risk of a specified company or debt instrument. The vehicles purchase high-grade assets as collateral and enter into credit default swaps or equity derivatives to synthetically create the credit or equity risk to pay the specified return on the notes. The Corporation is typically the counterparty for some or all of the credit and equity derivatives and, to a lesser extent, it may invest in securities issued by the vehicles. The Corporation may also enter into interest rate or foreign currency derivatives with the vehicles. The Corporation also had approximately $859 million of other liquidity commitments, including written put options and collateral value guarantees, with unconsolidated credit-linked and equity-linked note vehicles at June 30, 2011.
     Repackaging vehicles issue notes that are designed to incorporate risk characteristics desired by customers. The vehicles hold debt instruments such as corporate bonds, convertible bonds or ABS with the desired credit risk profile. The Corporation enters into derivatives with the vehicles to change the interest rate or foreign currency profile of the debt instruments. If a vehicle holds convertible bonds and the Corporation retains the conversion option, the Corporation is deemed to have a controlling financial interest and consolidates the vehicle.
     Asset acquisition vehicles acquire financial instruments, typically loans, at the direction of a single customer and obtain funding through the issuance of structured notes to the Corporation. At the time the vehicle acquires an asset, the Corporation enters into total return swaps with the customer such that the economic returns of the asset are passed through to the customer. The Corporation is exposed to counterparty credit risk if the asset declines in value and the customer defaults on its obligation to the Corporation under the total return swaps. The Corporation’s risk may be mitigated by collateral or other arrangements. The Corporation consolidates these vehicles because it has the power to manage the assets in the vehicles and owns all of the structured notes issued by the vehicles.
     The Corporation’s maximum exposure to loss from customer vehicles includes the notional amount of the credit or equity derivatives to which the Corporation is a counterparty, net of losses previously recorded, and the Corporation’s investment, if any, in securities issued by the vehicles. It has not been reduced to reflect the benefit of offsetting swaps with the customers or collateral arrangements.
Other Variable Interest Entities
     Other consolidated VIEs primarily include investment vehicles, a collective investment fund, leveraged lease trusts and asset acquisition conduits. Other unconsolidated VIEs primarily include investment vehicles and real estate vehicles.

171


Table of Contents

     The table below summarizes select information related to other VIEs in which the Corporation held a variable interest at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                         
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
(Dollars in millions) Consolidated  Unconsolidated  Total  Consolidated  Unconsolidated  Total 
 
Maximum loss exposure
 $8,026  $7,268  $15,294  $19,248  $8,796  $28,044 
 
On-balance sheet assets
                        
Trading account assets
 $104  $-  $104  $8,900  $-  $8,900 
Derivative assets
  353   197   550   -   228   228 
AFS debt securities
  -   61   61   1,832   73   1,905 
Loans and leases
  7,257   557   7,814   7,690   1,122   8,812 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
  (23)  (7)  (30)  (27)  (22)  (49)
Loans held-for-sale
  144   870   1,014   262   949   1,211 
All other assets
  415   5,585   6,000   937   6,440   7,377 
 
Total
 $8,250  $7,263  $15,513  $19,594  $8,790  $28,384 
 
On-balance sheet liabilities
                        
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
 $-  $-  $-  $1,115  $-  $1,115 
Long-term debt
  174   -   174   229   -   229 
All other liabilities
  697   1,451   2,148   8,683   1,666   10,349 
 
Total
 $871  $1,451  $2,322  $10,027  $1,666  $11,693 
 
Total assets of VIEs
 $8,250  $11,594  $19,844  $19,594  $13,416  $33,010 
 
Investment Vehicles
     The Corporation sponsors, invests in or provides financing to a variety of investment vehicles that hold loans, real estate, debt securities or other financial instruments and are designed to provide the desired investment profile to investors. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation’s consolidated investment vehicles had total assets of $3.3 billion and $5.6 billion. The Corporation also held investments in unconsolidated vehicles with total assets of $6.3 billion and $7.9 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The Corporation’s maximum exposure to loss associated with both consolidated and unconsolidated investment vehicles totaled $5.2 billion and $8.7 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 comprised primarily of on-balance sheet assets less non-recourse liabilities.
Collective Investment Funds
     The Corporation is trustee for certain common and collective investment funds that provide investment opportunities for eligible clients of GWIM. These funds, which had total assets of $12.8 billion at June 30, 2011, hold a variety of cash, debt and equity investments. At June 30, 2011, the Corporation does not have a variable interest in these funds. The Corporation consolidated a stable value collective investment fund with total assets of $8.1 billion at December 31, 2010, for which the Corporation had the unilateral ability to replace the fund’s asset manager. The fund was liquidated during the three months ended March 31, 2011.
Leveraged Lease Trusts
     The Corporation’s net investment in consolidated leveraged lease trusts totaled $4.9 billion and $5.2 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The trusts hold long-lived equipment such as rail cars, power generation and distribution equipment, and commercial aircraft. The Corporation structures the trusts and holds a significant residual interest. The net investment represents the Corporation’s maximum loss exposure to the trusts in the unlikely event that the leveraged lease investments become worthless. Debt issued by the leveraged lease trusts is non-recourse to the Corporation. The Corporation has no liquidity exposure to these leveraged lease trusts.
Asset Acquisition Conduits
     The Corporation administered two asset acquisition conduits which acquire assets on behalf of the Corporation or its customers. These conduits had total assets of $640 million at December 31, 2010. The conduits were liquidated during the three months ended June 30, 2011. Liquidation of the conduits did not impact the Corporation’s consolidated results of operations. For more information on the asset acquisition conduits, see Note 8 — Securitizations and Other Variable Interest Entities to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

172


Table of Contents

Real Estate Vehicles
     The Corporation held investments in unconsolidated real estate vehicles of $5.2 billion and $5.4 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, which consisted of investments in unconsolidated limited partnerships that finance the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. An unrelated third party is typically the general partner and has control over the significant activities of the partnership. The Corporation earns a return primarily through the receipt of tax credits allocated to the affordable housing projects. The Corporation’s risk of loss is mitigated by policies requiring that the project qualify for the expected tax credits prior to making its investment. The Corporation may from time to time be asked to invest additional amounts to support a troubled project. Such additional investments have not been and are not expected to be significant.
Other Asset-backed Financing Arrangements
     Prior to 2011, the Corporation transferred pools of securities to certain independent third parties and provided financing for approximately 75 percent of the purchase price under asset-backed financing arrangements. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation’s maximum loss exposure under these financing arrangements was $6.0 billion and $6.5 billion, substantially all of which was classified as loans on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. All principal and interest payments have been received when due in accordance with their contractual terms. These arrangements are not included in the table on page 172 because the purchasers are not VIEs.
NOTE 9 — Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees
Background
     The Corporation securitizes first-lien residential mortgage loans, generally in the form of MBS guaranteed by the GSEs or by GNMA in the case of FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed mortgage loans. In addition, in prior years, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries sold pools of first-lien residential mortgage loans, home equity loans and other second-lien loans as private-label securitizations (in certain of these securitizations, monolines or financial guarantee providers insured all or some of the securities), or in the form of whole loans. In connection with these transactions, the Corporation or certain subsidiaries or legacy companies made various representations and warranties. These representations and warranties, as governed by the agreements, related to, among other things, the ownership of the loan, the validity of the lien securing the loan, the absence of delinquent taxes or liens against the property securing the loan, the process used to select the loan for inclusion in a transaction, the loan’s compliance with any applicable loan criteria, including underwriting standards, and the loan’s compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws. Breaches of these representations and warranties may result in the requirement to repurchase mortgage loans or to otherwise make whole or provide other remedies to the GSEs, GNMA, whole-loan buyers, securitization trusts, monoline insurers or other financial guarantors (collectively, repurchases). In such cases, the Corporation would be exposed to any credit loss on the repurchased mortgage loans.
     Subject to the requirements and limitations of the applicable sales and securitization agreements, these representations and warranties can be enforced by the GSEs, GNMA, the whole-loan buyer, the securitization trustee or others as governed by the applicable agreement or, in certain first-lien and home equity securitizations where monoline insurers or other financial guarantee providers have insured all or some of the securities issued, by the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor at any time. In the case of loans sold to parties other than the GSEs or GNMA, the contractual liability to repurchase typically arises only if there is a breach of the representations and warranties that materially and adversely affects the interest of the investor or investors in the loan or of the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor (as applicable). Contracts with the GSEs and GNMA do not contain an equivalent requirement. The Corporation believes that the longer a loan performs prior to default, the less likely it is that an alleged underwriting breach of representations and warranties had a material impact on the loan’s performance. Historically, most demands for repurchase have occurred within the first several years after origination, generally after a loan has defaulted. However, the time horizon has lengthened due to increased repurchase claim activity across all vintages with a significant increase in claims related to loans that had defaulted more than 18 months ago in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011.
     The Corporation’s credit loss would be reduced by any recourse it may have to organizations (e.g., correspondents) that, in turn, had sold such loans to the Corporation based upon its agreements with these organizations. When a loan is originated by a correspondent or other third party, the Corporation typically has the right to seek a recovery of related repurchase losses from that originator. Many of the correspondent originators of loans in 2004 through 2008 are no longer in business and the Corporation is unable to recover valid claims. In the event a loan is originated and underwritten by a

173


Table of Contents

correspondent who obtains FHA insurance, even if they are no longer in business, any breach of FHA guidelines is the direct obligation of the correspondent, not the Corporation. At June 30, 2011, approximately 27 percent of the outstanding repurchase claims relate to loans purchased from correspondents or other parties compared to approximately 25 percent at December 31, 2010. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation experienced a decline in recoveries from correspondents and other parties; however, the actual recovery rate may vary from period to period based upon the underlying mix of correspondents and other parties (e.g., active, inactive, out-of-business originators) from which recoveries are sought.
     The Corporation structures its operations to limit the risk of repurchase and accompanying credit exposure by seeking to ensure consistent production of mortgages in accordance with its underwriting procedures and by servicing those mortgages consistent with its contractual obligations. In addition, certain securitizations include guarantees written to protect certain purchasers of the loans from credit losses up to a specified amount. The fair value of the obligations to be absorbed under the representations and warranties and guarantees provided is recorded as an accrued liability when the loans are sold. This liability for probable losses is updated by accruing a representations and warranties provision in mortgage banking income. This is done throughout the life of the loan, as necessary when additional relevant information becomes available. The methodology used to estimate the liability for representations and warranties is a function of the representations and warranties given and considers a variety of factors, which include, depending on the counterparty, actual defaults, estimated future defaults, historical loss experience, estimated home prices, other economic conditions, estimated probability that a repurchase claim will be received, including consideration of whether presentation thresholds will be met, number of payments made by the borrower prior to default and estimated probability that a loan will be required to be repurchased. The Corporation also considers bulk settlements when determining its estimated liability for representations and warranties. The estimate of the liability for representations and warranties is based upon currently available information, significant judgment, and a number of factors, including those set forth above, that are subject to change. Changes to any one of these factors could significantly impact the estimate of the liability and could have a material adverse impact on the Corporation’s results of operations for any particular period. Given that these factors vary by counterparty, the Corporation analyzes representations and warranties obligations based on the specific counterparty, or type of counterparty, with whom the sale was made. Generally the volume of unresolved repurchase claims from the FHA and VA for loans in GNMA-guaranteed securities is not significant because the requests are limited in number and are typically resolved quickly.
Settlement Actions
     The Corporation has vigorously contested any request for repurchase when it concludes that a valid basis for repurchase claim did not exist and will continue to do so in the future. However, in an effort to resolve these legacy mortgage-related issues, the Corporation has reached bulk settlements, or agreements for bulk settlements, including settlement amounts which have been material, with counterparties in lieu of a loan-by-loan review process. The Corporation may reach other settlements in the future if opportunities arise on terms determined to be advantageous to the Corporation. The following provides a summary of the larger bulk settlement actions beginning in the fourth quarter of 2010 followed by details of the Corporation’s representations and warranties liability, including claims status.
Settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee
     On June 28, 2011, the Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (BAC HLS, which was subsequently merged with and into BANA in July 2011), and its legacy Countrywide affiliates entered into a settlement agreement with the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon), as trustee (the Trustee), to resolve all outstanding and potential claims related to alleged representations and warranties breaches (including repurchase claims), substantially all historical loan servicing claims and certain other historical claims with respect to 525 legacy Countrywide first-lien and five second-lien non-GSE residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts (the Covered Trusts) containing loans principally originated between 2004 and 2008 for which BNY Mellon acts as trustee or indenture trustee (the BNY Mellon Settlement). The Covered Trusts had an original principal balance of approximately $424 billion, of which $409 billion was originated between 2004 and 2008, and total current outstanding principal and unpaid principal balance of loans that had defaulted (collectively unpaid principal balance) of approximately $220 billion, of which $217 billion was originated between 2004 and 2008.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement is supported by a group of 22 institutional investors (the Investor Group). As previously disclosed in October 2010, BAC HLS received a letter from a law firm on behalf of certain members of the Investor Group alleging a servicer event of default and asserting breaches of certain loan servicing obligations, including an

174


Table of Contents

alleged failure to provide notice to the Trustee and other parties to the pooling and servicing agreements of breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the mortgage loans included in certain of the Covered Trusts. In connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, the Corporation, BAC HLS and certain legacy Countrywide affiliates entered into an agreement with the Investor Group, which provides that, among other things, the Investor Group will use reasonable best efforts and cooperate in good faith to effectuate the BNY Mellon Settlement, including obtaining final court approval.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement provides for a cash payment of $8.5 billion (the Settlement Payment) to the Trustee for distribution to the Covered Trusts after final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement. In addition to the Settlement Payment, the Corporation is obligated to pay attorneys’ fees and costs to the Investor Group’s counsel as well as all fees and expenses incurred by the Trustee in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, which are currently estimated at $100 million. The Corporation is also obligated to pay the Investor Group’s counsel and the Trustee’s fees and expenses related to obtaining final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement and certain tax rulings.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement does not cover a small number of legacy Countrywide-issued first-lien non-GSE RMBS transactions with loans originated principally between 2004 and 2008 for various reasons, including for example, six legacy Countrywide-issued first-lien non-GSE RMBS transactions in which BNY Mellon is not the trustee. The BNY Mellon Settlement also does not cover legacy Countrywide-issued second-lien securitization transactions in which a monoline insurer or other financial guarantor provides financial guaranty insurance. In addition, because the settlement is with the Trustee on behalf of the Covered Trusts and releases rights under the governing agreements for the Covered Trusts, the settlement does not release investors’ securities law or fraud claims based upon disclosures made in connection with their decision to purchase, sell, or hold securities issued by the Covered Trusts. To date, various investors, including certain members of the Investor Group, are pursuing securities law or fraud claims related to one or more of the Covered Trusts. The Corporation is not able to determine whether any additional securities law or fraud claims will be made by investors in the Covered Trusts. For information about mortgage-related securities law or fraud claims, see Countrywide Equity and Debt Securities Matters and Mortgage-backed Securities Litigation under Litigation and Regulatory Matters in Note 14 — Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K and in Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies. For those Covered Trusts where a monoline insurer or other financial guarantor has an independent right to assert repurchase claims directly, the BNY Mellon Settlement does not release such insurer’s or guarantor’s repurchase claims.
     The BNY Mellon Settlement is subject to final court approval and other conditions. The Trustee has determined that the settlement is in the best interests of the Covered Trusts and is seeking the necessary court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement by commencing a judicial proceeding in New York State court requesting that the court approve the BNY Mellon Settlement as to all the Covered Trusts (the Article 77 Proceeding). The court has signed an order providing that notice of the BNY Mellon Settlement terms be provided to certificateholders and noteholders in the Covered Trusts. Under the court’s order, certificateholders and noteholders in the Covered Trusts have the opportunity to file objections until August 30, 2011 and responses to those objections and statements in support of the settlement until October 31, 2011. The Investor Group has filed, and the court has granted, a petition to intervene as a party to the proceeding so that it may support the BNY Mellon Settlement. The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the Trustee’s request for entry of an order approving the settlement on November 17, 2011.
     Given the number of Covered Trusts, the number of investors in those Covered Trusts and the complexity of the BNY Mellon Settlement, it is not possible to predict how many investors will seek to intervene in the court proceeding, how many of those and other investors may ultimately object to the BNY Mellon Settlement or the timing or ultimate outcome of the court approval process, which can include appeals and could take a substantial period of time. Several alleged investors outside the Investor Group have filed, and the court has granted, petitions to intervene as parties in the pending court proceeding. Certain of these intervenors have stated that they intend to object to the BNY Mellon Settlement, while others have said that they need more information in order to determine whether to object, and indicated that they therefore intend to seek discovery. In addition, it is possible that a substantial number of additional investors outside the Investor Group will also seek to intervene as parties, and some intervenors and other investors may object to the BNY Mellon Settlement. The resolutions of the objections of intervenors and/or other investors who object may delay or ultimately prevent receipt of final court approval. If final court approval is not obtained by December 31, 2015, the Corporation and legacy Countrywide may withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement, if the Trustee consents. The BNY Mellon Settlement also provides that if Covered Trusts representing unpaid principal balance exceeding a specified amount are excluded from the final BNY Mellon Settlement, based on investor objections or otherwise, the Corporation and legacy Countrywide have the option to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement pursuant to the terms of the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement.

175


Table of Contents

     In addition to final court approval, the settlement is conditioned on receipt of private letter rulings from the IRS as well as receipt of legal opinions under California and New York state tax laws and regulations. While there can be no assurance that such rulings or opinions will be obtained, the Corporation currently anticipates that the process related to these conditions will be completed during the period prior to final court approval.
     There can be no assurance that final court approval of the settlement will be obtained, that all conditions will be satisfied or, if certain conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement permitting withdrawal are met, that the Corporation and legacy Countrywide will not determine to withdraw from the settlement. If final court approval is not obtained or if the Corporation and legacy Countrywide determine to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement in accordance with its terms, the Corporation’s future representations and warranties losses could be substantially different than existing accruals and the estimated range of possible loss over existing accruals described below under Whole Loan Sales and Private-label Securitization Experience on page 183.
     In connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, BAC HLS has agreed to implement certain servicing changes, on a schedule that began with the signing of the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement, including the transfer of servicing related to certain high-risk loans to qualified subservicers and the benchmarking of loan servicing against defined industry standards regarding default-servicing timelines. The transfer of loans to subservicers will reduce the servicing fees payable to BAC HLS in the future. Failure to meet the established benchmarking standards can trigger the payment of agreed-upon fees. BAC HLS’s obligations with respect to these servicing changes will terminate if final court approval is not obtained.
     The Trustee and BAC HLS have also agreed to clarify certain servicing standards related to loss mitigation. In particular, the BNY Mellon Settlement would clarify that it is permissible to apply the same loss-mitigation strategies to the Covered Trusts as are applied to BAC HLS affiliates’ held-for-investment portfolios. This agreement, which is effective immediately, is not conditioned on final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement. If final court approval is never obtained, BAC HLS’s actions taken in accordance with this agreement could be subject to challenge if counterparties argue that they are inconsistent with the Covered Trusts’ current governing documents.
     The Corporation and legacy Countrywide also have agreed to work to resolve with the Trustee certain note and mortgage documentation issues related to the enforceability of mortgages in foreclosure (e.g., title policy and mortgage recordation issues). If certain documentation issues remain outstanding when certain specified loans reach foreclosure, the Corporation and/or legacy Countrywide is obligated to reimburse the related Covered Trust for any loss if BAC HLS is unable to foreclose on the mortgage and the Covered Trust is not made whole by a title policy because of documentation exceptions. This agreement will terminate if final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement is not obtained.
     Certain servicing and documentation obligations begin upon signing of the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement, while others, including potential payment of servicing-related fees, are conditioned on final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement. The Corporation estimates that the costs associated with additional servicing obligations under the BNY Mellon Settlement contributed $400 million to the second quarter 2011 valuation charge related to the MSR asset. The additional servicing actions are consistent with the consent orders with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve issued in April 2011.

176


Table of Contents

Settlement with Assured Guaranty
     On April 14, 2011, the Corporation, including its legacy Countrywide affiliates, entered into an agreement with Assured Guaranty Ltd. and subsidiaries (Assured Guaranty), to resolve all of the monoline insurer’s outstanding and potential repurchase claims related to alleged representations and warranties breaches involving 29 first- and second-lien RMBS trusts where Assured Guaranty provided financial guarantee insurance (the Assured Guaranty Settlement). The agreement also resolves historical loan servicing issues and other potential liabilities with respect to these trusts. The agreement covers 21 first-lien RMBS trusts and eight second-lien RMBS trusts, which had an original principal balance of approximately $35.8 billion and total unpaid principal balance of approximately $20.2 billion as of April 14, 2011. The agreement includes cash payments totaling approximately $1.1 billion to Assured Guaranty, as well as a loss-sharing reinsurance arrangement that has an expected value of approximately $470 million, and other terms, including termination of certain derivative contracts. The cash payments consist of $850 million paid on April 14, 2011, $57 million paid on June 30, 2011 and the remainder payable in three equal installments at the end of each quarter through March 31, 2012. The total cost recognized for the Assured Guaranty Settlement as of June 30, 2011 was approximately $1.6 billion. As a result of this agreement, the Corporation consolidated $5.2 billion in consumer loans and the related trust debt on its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2011, due to the establishment of reinsurance contracts at the time of the Assured Guaranty Settlement.
Government-sponsored Enterprise Agreements
     On December 31, 2010, the Corporation reached agreements with the GSEs, under which the Corporation paid $2.8 billion to resolve repurchase claims involving first-lien residential mortgage loans sold directly to the GSEs by entities related to legacy Countrywide (the GSE Agreements). The agreement with FHLMC extinguished all outstanding and potential mortgage repurchase and make-whole claims arising out of any alleged breaches of selling representations and warranties related to loans sold directly by legacy Countrywide to FHLMC through 2008, subject to certain exceptions. The agreement with FNMA substantially resolved the existing pipeline of repurchase claims outstanding as of September 20, 2010 arising out of alleged breaches of selling representations and warranties related to loans sold directly by legacy Countrywide to FNMA. These agreements with the GSEs did not cover outstanding and potential mortgage repurchase claims arising out of any alleged breaches of selling representations and warranties to legacy Bank of America first-lien residential mortgage loans sold directly to the GSEs or other loans sold directly to the GSEs other than described above, loan servicing obligations, other contractual obligations or loans contained in private-label securitizations.
 
Outstanding Claims
 
     The table below presents outstanding representations and warranties claims by counterparty and product type at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. For additional information refer to Whole Loan Sales and Private-label Securitizations on page 183 of this Note and Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies. These repurchase claims include $1.7 billion in demands from investors in the Covered Trusts received in the third quarter of 2010, but otherwise do not include any repurchase claims related to the Covered Trusts.
         
Outstanding Claims by Counterparty and Product Type      
  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010 
 
By counterparty
        
GSEs
 $5,081  $2,821 
Monolines
  3,533   4,799 
Whole loan and private-label securitization investors and other (1)
  2,966   3,067 
 
Total outstanding claims by counterparty
 $11,580  $10,687 
 
By product type
        
Prime loans
 $3,421  $2,040 
Alt-A
  1,938   1,190 
Home equity
  2,853   3,658 
Pay option
  2,478   2,889 
Subprime
  663   734 
Other
  227   176 
 
Total outstanding claims by product type
 $11,580  $10,687 
 
(1) 
Amounts for June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 include $1.7 billion in demands contained in correspondence from private-label securitizations investors in the Covered Trusts that do not have the right to demand repurchase of loans directly or the right to access loan files. For additional information, see Settlement with Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee on page 174.

177


Table of Contents

     The number of repurchase claims as a percentage of the number of loans purchased arising from loans sourced from brokers or purchased from third-party sellers is relatively consistent with the number of repurchase claims as a percentage of the number of loans originated by the Corporation or its subsidiaries or legacy companies.
Cash Payments
     As presented in the table below, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation paid $1.6 billion and $2.1 billion to resolve $1.9 billion and $2.6 billion of repurchase claims through repurchase or reimbursement to the investor or securitization trust for losses they incurred, resulting in a loss on the related loans at the time of repurchase or reimbursement of $1.0 billion and $1.4 billion. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, the Corporation paid $857 million and $1.9 billion to resolve $926 million and $2.1 billion of repurchase claims through repurchase or reimbursement to the investor or securitization trust for losses they incurred, resulting in a loss on the related loans at the time of repurchase or reimbursement of $487 million and $1.2 billion. Cash paid for loan repurchases includes the unpaid principal balance of the loan plus past due interest. The amount of loss for loan repurchases is reduced by the fair value of the underlying loan collateral. The repurchase of loans and indemnification payments related to first-lien and home equity repurchase claims generally resulted from material breaches of representations and warranties related to the loans’ material compliance with the applicable underwriting standards, including borrower misrepresentation, credit exceptions without sufficient compensating factors and non-compliance with underwriting procedures, although the actual representations and warranties made in a sales transaction and the resulting repurchase and indemnification activity can vary by transaction or investor. A direct relationship between the type of defect that causes the breach of representations and warranties and the severity of the realized loss has not been observed. Transactions to repurchase or indemnification payments related to first-lien residential mortgages primarily involved the GSEs while transactions to repurchase or indemnification payments for home equity loans primarily involved the monoline insurers. In addition to the amounts discussed above, the Corporation paid $907 million in the three months ended June 30, 2011 to Assured Guaranty as part of the Assured Guaranty Settlement.
     The table below presents first-lien and home equity loan repurchases and indemnification payments for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
                         
Loan Repurchases and Indemnification Payments   
  Three Months Ended June 30 
  2011  2010 
  Unpaid  Cash Paid      Unpaid  Cash Paid    
  Principal  for      Principal  for    
(Dollars in millions) Balance  Repurchases  Loss  Balance  Repurchases  Loss 
 
First-lien
                        
Repurchases
 $860  $970  $419  $573  $627  $267 
Indemnification payments
  958   539   539   291   166   165 
 
Total first-lien
  1,818   1,509   958   864   793   432 
 
Home equity
                        
Repurchases
  3   3   -   24   28   19 
Indemnification payments
  45   48   48   38   36   36 
 
Total home equity
  48   51   48   62   64   55 
 
Total first-lien and home equity
 $1,866  $1,560  $1,006  $926  $857  $487 
 
                         
  Six Months Ended June 30
  2011  2010 
      
First-lien
                        
Repurchases
 $1,194  $1,333  $552  $1,209  $1,325  $627 
Indemnification payments
  1,292   699   699   801   462   462 
 
Total first-lien
  2,486   2,032   1,251   2,010   1,787   1,089 
 
Home equity
                        
Repurchases
  18   18   14   42   48   29 
Indemnification payments
  85   87   87   79   76   76 
 
Total home equity
  103   105   101   121   124   105 
 
Total first-lien and home equity
 $2,589  $2,137  $1,352  $2,131  $1,911  $1,194 
 

178


Table of Contents

Liability for Representations and Warranties and Corporate Guarantees
     The liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities and the related provision is included in mortgage banking income. The table below presents a rollforward of the liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees and includes the provision and related payments made for recent settlements.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30  Six Months Ended June 30 
(Dollars in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 
Liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees, beginning of period
 $6,220  $3,325  $5,438  $3,507 
Additions for new sales
  3   8   10   16 
Charge-offs
  (2,480)  (642)  (2,718)  (1,360)
Provision
  14,037   1,248   15,050   1,774 
Other
  -   -   -   2 
 
Liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees, June 30
 $17,780  $3,939  $17,780  $3,939 
 
     The liability for representations and warranties is established when those obligations are both probable and reasonably estimable. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the provision for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees was $14.0 billion and $15.1 billion compared to $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion for the same periods in 2010. Of the $14.0 billion provision recorded in the three months ended June 30, 2011, $8.6 billion was attributable to the BNY Mellon Settlement. In addition, the BNY Mellon Settlement led to the determination that the Corporation has sufficient experience to record a liability related to its exposure on certain other private-label securitizations. This determination combined with higher estimated GSE repurchase rates in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, was the driver of the balance of the provision. GSE repurchase rates increased driven by higher than expected claims during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, including claims on loans that defaulted more than 18 months ago and on loans where the borrower has made a significant number of payments (e.g., at least 25), in each case in numbers that were not expected based on historical claims.
Estimated Range of Possible Loss
Government-sponsored Enterprises
     The Corporation’s estimated liability for obligations under representations and warranties given to the GSEs considers, among other things, higher estimated repurchase rates based on higher than expected claims from the GSEs during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. It also considers the GSE Agreements and their expected impact on the repurchase rates on future repurchase claims the Corporation might receive on loans that have defaulted or that it estimates will default. The Corporation’s provision with respect to the GSEs is necessarily dependent on, and limited by, its historical claims experience with the GSEs and may materially change in the future based on factors beyond its control. The Corporation believes its predictive repurchase models, utilizing its historical repurchase experience with the GSEs while considering current developments, including the GSE Agreements and recent GSE behavior, projections of future defaults, as well as certain other assumptions regarding economic conditions, home prices and other matters, allow it to reasonably estimate the liability for obligations under representations and warranties on loans sold to the GSEs, and its estimate of the liability for these obligations has been accounted for in the recorded liability for representations and warranties for these loans. However, future provisions associated with obligations under representations and warranties made to the GSEs may be materially impacted if actual results are different from the Corporation’s assumptions regarding economic conditions, home prices and other matters, including the repurchase request behavior of the GSEs and the estimated repurchase rates. While the Corporation has an established history of working with the GSEs on repurchase claims, its experience with them continues to evolve and impact the Corporation’s estimated repurchase rates and liability. In addition, the recent FNMA announcement regarding mortgage insurance rescissions, cancellations and claim denials could result in increased repurchase requests from FNMA that exceed the repurchase requests contemplated by the estimated liability.
     The Corporation is not able to anticipate changes in the behavior of the GSEs from the Corporation’s past experiences. Therefore, it is not possible to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss with respect to any such potential impact in excess of current accruals on future GSE provisions if the behavior of the GSEs changes from past experience.

179


Table of Contents

Counterparties other than Government-sponsored Enterprises
     The population of private-label securitizations included in the BNY Mellon Settlement encompasses almost all legacy Countrywide first-lien private-label securitizations including loans originated principally in the 2004 through 2008 vintage. For the remainder of the population of private-label securitizations, although the Corporation believes it is probable that other claimants may come forward with claims that meet the requirements of the terms of the securitizations, the Corporation has experienced limited activity that has met the standards required. The Corporation believes that the provisions recorded in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement and the additional non-GSE representations and warranties provisions recorded in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, have provided for a substantial portion of the Corporation’s non-GSE representations and warranties exposures. However, it is reasonably possible that future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of the amounts recorded for these exposures. In addition, as discussed below, the Corporation has not recorded any representations and warranties liability for certain potential monoline exposures and certain potential whole loan and other private-label securitization exposures. The Corporation currently estimates that the range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of June 30, 2011, could be up to $5 billion over existing accruals. This estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties does not represent a probable loss, is based on currently available information, significant judgment, and a number of assumptions, including those set forth below, that are subject to change.
     The methodology used to estimate the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss considers a variety of factors including the Corporation’s experience related to actual defaults, estimated future defaults and historical loss experience. Among the factors that impact the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss are: (1) contractual loss causation requirements, (2) the representations and warranties provided, and (3) the requirement to meet certain presentation thresholds. The first factor is based on the Corporation’s belief that a non-GSE contractual liability to repurchase a loan generally arises only if the counterparties prove there is a breach of representations and warranties that materially and adversely affects the interest of the investor or all investors, or the monoline insurer (as applicable), in a securitization trust and, accordingly, the Corporation believes that the repurchase claimants must prove that the alleged representations and warranties breach was the cause of the loss. The second factor is related to the fact that non-GSE securitizations include different types of representations and warranties than those provided to the GSEs. The Corporation believes the non-GSE securitizations’ representations and warranties are less rigorous and actionable than the comparable agreements with the GSEs. The third factor is related to the fact that certain presentation thresholds need to be met in order for any repurchase claim to be asserted under the non-GSE agreements. A securitization trustee may investigate or demand repurchase on its own action, and most agreements contain a threshold, for example 25 percent of the voting rights per trust, that allows investors to declare a servicing event of default under certain circumstances or to request certain action, such as requesting loan files, that the trustee may choose to accept and follow, exempt from liability, provided the trustee is acting in good faith. If there is an uncured servicing event of default, and the trustee fails to bring suit during a 60-day period, then, under most agreements, investors may file suit. In addition to this, most agreements also allow investors to direct the securitization trustee to investigate loan files or demand the repurchase of loans, if security holders hold a specified percentage, for example, 25 percent, of the voting rights of each tranche of the outstanding securities.
     The methodology used to estimate the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss was updated in the second quarter of 2011 to consider the implied repurchase experience based on the BNY Mellon Settlement and assumes that the conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement are satisfied. It also considers the Corporation’s assumptions regarding economic conditions, including estimated second quarter 2011 home prices. Since the non-GSE transactions that were included in the BNY Mellon Settlement differ from those that were not included in the BNY Mellon Settlement, the Corporation adjusted the experience implied in the settlement in order to determine the estimated non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss. The judgmental adjustments made include consideration of the differences in the mix of products in the securitizations, loan originator, likelihood of claims differences, the differences in the number of payments that the borrower has made prior to default, and the sponsor of the securitization. Although the Corporation continues to believe that presentation thresholds, as described above, are a factor in the determination of probable loss, given the BNY Mellon Settlement, the upper end of the estimated range of possible loss assumes that the presentation threshold can be met for all of the non-GSE securitization transactions.
     Future provisions and/or ranges of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties may be significantly impacted if actual results are different from the Corporation’s assumptions in its predictive models, including, without limitation, those regarding the ultimate resolution of the BNY Mellon Settlement, estimated repurchase rates, economic conditions, home prices, consumer and counterparty behavior, and a variety of judgmental factors. Adverse developments with respect to one or more of the assumptions underlying the liability for representations and warranties and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss could result in significant increases to future provisions

180


Table of Contents

and/or the estimated range of loss. For example, if courts were to disagree with the Corporation’s interpretation that the underlying agreements require a claimant to prove that the representations and warranties breach was the cause of the loss, it could significantly impact this estimated range of possible loss. Additionally, if recent court rulings related to monoline litigation, including one related to the Corporation, that have allowed sampling of loan files instead of a loan-by-loan review to determine if a representations and warranties breach has occurred are followed generally by the courts, private-label securitization investors may view litigation as a more attractive alternative as compared to a loan-by-loan review. Finally, although the Corporation believes that the representations and warranties typically given in non-GSE transactions are less rigorous and actionable than those given in GSE transactions, the Corporation does not have significant loan-level experience to measure the impact of these differences on the probability that a loan will be repurchased.
     The liability for obligations under representations and warranties with respect to GSE and non-GSE exposures and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties exposures do not include any losses related to litigation matters disclosed in Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies, nor do they include any separate foreclosure costs and related costs and assessments or any possible losses related to potential claims for breaches of performance of servicing obligations, potential securities law or fraud claims or potential indemnity or other claims against the Corporation. The Corporation is not able to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss with respect to any such servicing, securities law (except to the extent reflected in the aggregate range of possible loss for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed in Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies), fraud or other claims against the Corporation; however, such loss could be material.
Government-sponsored Enterprises Experience
     The Corporation and its subsidiaries have an established history of working with the GSEs on repurchase claims. However, the behavior of the GSEs continues to evolve. Notably in recent periods, the Corporation has been experiencing elevated levels of new claims, including claims on default vintages and loans in which borrowers have made a significant number of payments (e.g., at least 25 payments), in each case, in numbers that were not expected based on historical experience. Additionally, the criteria by which the GSEs are ultimately willing to resolve claims have become more rigid over time. Generally, the Corporation first becomes aware that a GSE is evaluating a particular loan for repurchase when the Corporation receives a request from a GSE to review the underlying loan file (file request). Upon completing its review, the GSE may submit a repurchase claim to the Corporation. As soon as practicable after receiving a repurchase claim from either of the GSEs, the Corporation evaluates the claim and takes appropriate action. Claim disputes are generally handled through loan-level negotiations with the GSEs and the Corporation seeks to resolve the repurchase claim within 90 to 120 days of the receipt of the claim although tolerances exist for claims that remain open beyond this timeframe. Experience with the GSEs continues to evolve and any disputes are generally related to areas including reasonableness of stated income, occupancy, undisclosed liabilities and the validity of mortgage insurance claim rescissions or denials in the vintages with the highest default rates. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, outstanding GSE claims increased substantially, primarily attributable to an increase in new claims submitted on both legacy Countrywide originations not covered by the GSE Agreements and Bank of America originations, combined with an increase in the volume of claims appealed by the Corporation and awaiting review and response from one of the GSEs.
Monoline Insurers Experience
     Unlike the repurchase protocols and experience established with GSEs, experience with most of the monoline insurers has been varied and the protocols and experience with these counterparties has not been as predictable as with the GSEs. The timetable for the loan file request, the repurchase claim, if any, response and resolution vary by monoline. Where a breach of representations and warranties given by the Corporation or subsidiaries or legacy companies is confirmed on a given loan, settlement is generally reached as to that loan within 60 to 90 days.
     Properly presented repurchase claims for the monolines are generally reviewed on a loan-by-loan basis. As part of an ongoing claims process, if the Corporation does not believe a claim is valid, it will deny the claim and generally indicate the reason for the denial to facilitate meaningful dialogue with the counterparty although it is not contractually obligated to do so. When there is disagreement as to the resolution of a claim, meaningful dialogue and negotiation is generally necessary between the parties to reach conclusion on an individual claim. Although the Assured Guaranty Settlement does not cover all securitizations where Assured Guaranty and subsidiaries provided insurance, it covers the transactions that

181


Table of Contents

resulted in repurchase requests from this monoline. As a result, the on-going claims process with counterparties with a more consistent repurchase experience is substantially complete.
     The remaining monolines have instituted litigation against legacy Countrywide and Bank of America. When claims from these counterparties are denied, the Corporation does not indicate its reason for denial as it is not contractually obligated to do so. In the Corporation’s experience, the monolines have been generally unwilling to withdraw repurchase claims, regardless of whether and what evidence was offered to refute a claim.
     The pipeline of unresolved monoline claims where the Corporation believes a valid defect has not been identified which would constitute an actionable breach of representations and warranties decreased during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 as a result of the Assured Guaranty Settlement. Through June 30, 2011, approximately 30 percent of monoline claims that the Corporation initially denied have subsequently been resolved through the Assured Guaranty Settlement, nine percent through repurchase or make-whole payments and one percent have been resolved through rescission. When a claim has been denied and there has not been communication with the counterparty for six months, the Corporation views these claims as inactive; however, they remain in the outstanding claims balance until resolution.
     A liability for representations and warranties has been established for repurchase claims based on valid identified loan defects and for repurchase claims that are in the process of review based on historical repurchase experience with specific monoline insurers to the extent such experience provides a reasonable basis on which to estimate incurred losses from repurchase activity. In prior periods, a liability was established for Assured Guaranty related to repurchase claims subject to negotiation and unasserted claims to repurchase current and future defaulted loans. The Assured Guaranty Settlement resolved this representations and warranties liability with the liability for the related loss sharing reinsurance arrangement being recorded in other accrued liabilities. With respect to the other monoline insurers, the Corporation has had limited experience in the repurchase process as these monoline insurers have instituted litigation against legacy Countrywide and Bank of America, which limits the Corporation’s ability to enter into constructive dialogue with these monolines to resolve the open claims. For these monolines, in view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of those repurchase claims where a valid defect has not been identified or in predicting future claim requests and the related outcome in the case of unasserted claims to repurchase loans from the securitization trusts in which these monolines have insured all or some of the related bonds, the Corporation cannot reasonably estimate the eventual outcome through the repurchase process. In addition, the timing of the ultimate resolution or the eventual loss through the repurchase process, if any, related to those repurchase claims cannot be reasonably estimated. Thus, with respect to these monolines, a liability for representations and warranties has not been established related to repurchase claims where a valid defect has not been identified, or in the case of any unasserted claims to repurchase loans from the securitization trusts in which such monolines have insured all or some of the related bonds. For additional information related to the monolines, see Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies.
Monoline Outstanding Claims
     At June 30, 2011, for loans originated between 2004 and 2008, the unpaid principal balance of loans related to unresolved repurchase claims previously received from monolines was $3.5 billion, including $3.0 billion in repurchase claims that have been reviewed where it is believed a valid defect has not been identified which would constitute an actionable breach of representations and warranties and $547 million in repurchase claims that are in the process of review. As noted above, a portion of the repurchase claims that are initially denied are ultimately resolved through bulk settlement, repurchase or make-whole payments, after additional dialogue and negotiation with the monoline insurer. At June 30, 2011, the unpaid principal balance of loans in these vintages for which the monolines had requested loan files for review but for which no repurchase claim had been received was $6.1 billion, excluding loans that had been paid in full and file requests for loans included in the trusts settled with Assured Guaranty. There will likely be additional requests for loan files in the future leading to repurchase claims. Such claims may relate to loans that are currently in securitization trusts or loans that have defaulted and are no longer included in the unpaid principal balance of the loans in the trusts. However, it is unlikely that a repurchase claim will be received for every loan in a securitization or every file requested or that a valid defect exists for every loan repurchase claim. In addition, amounts paid on repurchase claims from a monoline are paid to the securitization trust and may be used by the securitization trust to repay any outstanding monoline advances or reduce future advances from the monolines. To the extent that a monoline has not advanced funds or does not anticipate that it will be required to advance funds to the securitization trust, the likelihood of receiving a repurchase claim from a monoline may be reduced as the monoline would receive limited or no benefit from the payment of repurchase claims. Moreover, some monolines are not currently performing their obligations under the financial guaranty policies they issued which may, in certain circumstances, impact their ability to present repurchase claims.

182


Table of Contents

Whole Loan Sales and Private-label Securitizations Experience
     The majority of the repurchase claims that the Corporation has received outside of the GSEs and monolines are from third-party whole-loan investors. In connection with these transactions, the Corporation provided representations and warranties and the whole-loan investors may retain those rights even when the loans were aggregated with other collateral into private-label securitizations sponsored by the whole-loan investors. Properly presented repurchase claims for these whole loans are reviewed on a loan-by-loan basis. If, after the Corporation’s review, it does not believe a claim is valid, it will deny the claim and generally indicate a reason for the denial. When the counterparty agrees with the Corporation’s denial of the claim, the counterparty may rescind the claim. When there is disagreement as to the resolution of the claim, meaningful dialogue and negotiation between the parties is generally necessary to reach conclusion on an individual claim. Generally, a whole loan sale claimant is engaged in the repurchase process and the Corporation and the claimant reach resolution, either through loan-by-loan negotiation or at times, through a bulk settlement. Through June 30, 2011, 16 percent of the whole-loan claims that the Corporation initially denied have subsequently been resolved through repurchase or make-whole payments and 50 percent have been resolved through rescission or repayment in full by the borrower. Although the timeline for resolution varies, once an actionable breach is identified on a given loan, settlement is generally reached as to that loan within 60 to 90 days. When a claim has been denied and the Corporation does not have communication with the counterparty for six months, the Corporation views these claims as inactive; however, they remain in the outstanding claims balance until resolution.
     The Corporation and its subsidiaries have limited experience with loan-level private-label securitization repurchases as the number of valid repurchase claims received has been limited as shown in the outstanding claims table on page 177. In private-label securitizations certain presentation thresholds need to be met in order for any repurchase claim to be asserted by investors. The representations and warranties, as governed by the private-label securitization agreements, generally require that counterparties have the ability to both assert a claim and actually prove that a loan has an actionable defect under the applicable contracts. While the Corporation believes the agreements for private-label securitizations generally contain less rigorous representations and warranties and place higher burdens on investors seeking repurchases than the comparable agreements with the GSEs and GNMA, the agreements generally include a representation that underwriting practices were prudent and customary.
     During the third quarter of 2010, the Corporation received claim demands totaling $1.7 billion from private-label securitization investors in the Covered Trusts. Non-GSE investors generally do not have the contractual right to demand repurchase of the loans directly or the right to access loan files. The inclusion of the $1.7 billion in outstanding claims, as reflected in the table on page 177, does not mean that the Corporation believes these claims have satisfied the contractual thresholds required for the private-label securitization investors to direct the securitization trustee to take action or that these claims are otherwise procedurally or substantively valid. One of these claimants has filed litigation against the Corporation relating to certain of these demands; the claims in this litigation would be extinguished if there is final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement.

183


Table of Contents

NOTE 10 – Goodwill and Intangible Assets
Goodwill
     The table below presents goodwill balances by business segment at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The reporting units utilized for goodwill impairment tests are the operating segments or one level below. The Corporation performs its annual goodwill impairment test during the three months ending September 30, based on June 30 information.
         
  June 30  December 31 
(Dollars in millions)
 2011  2010 
 
Deposits
 $17,875  $17,875 
Global Card Services
  11,896   11,889 
Consumer Real Estate Services
  -   2,796 
Global Commercial Banking
  20,668   20,656 
Global Banking & Markets
  10,673   10,671 
Global Wealth & Investment Management
  9,928   9,928 
All Other
  34   46 
 
Total goodwill
 $71,074  $73,861 
 
     In connection with the sale of Balboa Insurance Company’s lender-placed insurance business that closed on June 1, 2011, the Corporation allocated $193 million of CRES goodwill to the business in determining the gain on sale based upon the relative fair value of the business sold.
     During the three months ended June 30, 2011, as a consequence of the BNY Mellon Settlement entered into by the Corporation on June 28, 2011, the adverse impact of the incremental mortgage-related charges recorded during the three months ended June 30, 2011, and the continued economic slowdown in the mortgage business, the Corporation performed an impairment test for theCRES reporting unit on the remaining goodwill balance of $2.6 billion. Based on the results of step one of the impairment test, the Corporation determined that a step two analysis was necessary. In step two, the Corporation compared the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill and concluded that the remaining balance of goodwill of $2.6 billion was impaired as of June 30, 2011. Accordingly, the Corporation recorded a non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $2.6 billion to reduce the carrying value of the goodwill in CRES to zero during the three months ended June 30, 2011.
     On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule which will be effective October 1, 2011 that establishes debit card interchange fees in connection with the Durbin Amendment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In light of the issuance of the final rules, the Corporation performed an updated impairment analysis for the Global Card Servicesreporting unit during the three months ended June 30, 2011.
     In step one of the goodwill impairment test, the fair value of Global Card Services was estimated using the income approach. The significant assumptions under the income approach included the discount rate, terminal value, cash flow estimates and expected new account growth. The step one fair value estimate also included the impact of the Federal Reserve’s final rule on debit card interchange fees. At June 30, 2011, the carrying amount, fair value and goodwill for the Global Card Services reporting unit were $24.8 billion, $37.3 billion and $11.9 billion, respectively. The estimated fair value as a percent of the carrying amount was 150 percent. Although, the fair value exceeded the carrying amount in step one of the Global Card Servicesgoodwill impairment test indicating no impairment, to further substantiate the value of goodwill, the Corporation also performed step two for this reporting unit. Under step two of the goodwill impairment test, significant assumptions in measuring the fair value of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit, including discount rates, loss rates and interest rates were updated to reflect the current economic conditions. The results of step two of the goodwill impairment test indicated that the remaining balance of goodwill of $11.9 billion was not impaired as of June 30, 2011. Given the recent Federal Reserve rulemaking and improved economic environment, the uncertainty concerning the recoverability of Global Card Services goodwill has been significantly reduced.

184


Table of Contents

Intangible Assets
     The table below presents the gross carrying amounts and accumulated amortization related to intangible assets at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                 
  June 30, 2011 December 31, 2010
  Gross Accumulated Gross Accumulated
(Dollars in millions) Carrying Value Amortization Carrying Value Amortization
 
Purchased credit card relationships
 $7,179  $4,372  $7,162  $4,085 
Core deposit intangibles
  5,394   4,253   5,394   4,094 
Customer relationships
  4,229   1,440   4,232   1,222 
Affinity relationships
  1,649   969   1,647   902 
Other intangibles
  3,091   1,332   3,087   1,296 
 
Total intangible assets
 $21,542  $12,366  $21,522  $11,599 
 
     None of the intangible assets were impaired at June 30, 2011 or December 31, 2010.
     Amortization of intangibles expense was $382 million and $767 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $439 million and $885 million for the same periods in 2010. The Corporation estimates aggregate amortization expense will be approximately $370 million for each of the remaining quarters of 2011, and $1.3 billion, $1.2 billion, $1.0 billion, $890 million and $785 million for 2012 through 2016, respectively.
NOTE 11 – Commitments and Contingencies
     In the normal course of business, the Corporation enters into a number of off-balance sheet commitments. These commitments expose the Corporation to varying degrees of credit and market risk and are subject to the same credit and market risk limitation reviews as those instruments recorded on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. For additional information on commitments and contingencies, see Note 14 — Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Credit Extension Commitments
     The Corporation enters into commitments to extend credit such as loan commitments, standby letters of credit (SBLCs) and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of its customers. The table on page 186 shows the notional amount of unfunded legally binding lending commitments net of amounts distributed (e.g., syndicated) to other financial institutions of $20.4 billion and $23.3 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. At June 30, 2011, the carrying amount of these commitments, excluding commitments accounted for under the fair value option, was $925 million, including deferred revenue of $28 million and a reserve for unfunded lending commitments of $897 million. At December 31, 2010, the comparable amounts were $1.2 billion, $29 million and $1.2 billion, respectively. The carrying amount of these commitments is classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

185


Table of Contents

     The table below also includes the notional amount of commitments of $28.0 billion and $27.3 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 that are accounted for under the fair value option. However, the table below excludes fair value adjustments of $773 million and $866 million on these commitments, which are classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities. For information regarding the Corporation’s loan commitments accounted for under the fair value option, see Note 17 — Fair Value Option.
                     
  June 30, 2011
      Expire after 1 Expire after 3    
  Expire in 1 Year through Years through Expire after 5  
(Dollars in millions) Year or Less 3 Years 5 Years Years Total
 
Notional amount of credit extension commitments
                    
Loan commitments
 $116,408  $113,690  $78,377  $19,966  $328,441 
Home equity lines of credit
  1,523   5,387   19,973   45,260   72,143 
Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees (1)
  34,382   18,419   6,710   3,220   62,731 
Letters of credit (2)
  4,350   103   3   166   4,622 
 
Legally binding commitments
  156,663   137,599   105,063   68,612   467,937 
Credit card lines (3)
  488,460   -   -   -   488,460 
 
Total credit extension commitments
 $645,123  $137,599  $105,063  $68,612  $956,397 
 
 
                    
 
 December 31, 2010
Notional amount of credit extension commitments
                    
Loan commitments
 $152,926  $144,461  $43,465  $16,172  $357,024 
Home equity lines of credit
  1,722   4,290   18,207   55,886   80,105 
Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees (1)
  35,275   18,940   4,144   5,897   64,256 
Letters of credit (2)
  3,698   110   -   874   4,682 
 
Legally binding commitments
  193,621   167,801   65,816   78,829   506,067 
Credit card lines (3)
  497,068   -   -   -   497,068 
 
Total credit extension commitments
 $690,689  $167,801  $65,816  $78,829  $1,003,135 
 
(1) 
The notional amounts of SBLCs and financial guarantees classified as investment-grade and non-investment grade based on the credit quality of the underlying reference name within the instrument were $40.5 billion and $21.0 billion at June 30, 2011 and $41.1 billion and $22.4 billion at December 31, 2010. Amount includes consumer letters of credit of $794 million and other letters of credit of $362 million at June 30, 2011.
 
(2) 
Amount includes $109 million and $849 million of consumer letters of credit and $4.5 billion and $3.8 billion of commercial letters of credit at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.
 
(3) 
Includes business card unused lines of credit.
     Legally binding commitments to extend credit generally have specified rates and maturities. Certain of these commitments have adverse change clauses that help to protect the Corporation against deterioration in the borrower’s ability to pay.
Other Commitments
Global Principal Investments and Other Equity Investments
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had unfunded equity investment commitments of approximately $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion. In light of proposed Basel regulatory capital changes related to unfunded commitments, the Corporation has actively reduced these commitments in a series of transactions involving its private equity fund investments. For more information on these Basel regulatory capital changes, see Note 18 – Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. In 2010, the Corporation completed the sale of its exposure to certain private equity funds. For more information on these transactions, see Note 5 – Securities to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Other Commitments
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had commitments to purchase loans (e.g., residential mortgage and commercial real estate) of $3.5 billion and $2.6 billion, which upon settlement will be included in loans or LHFS.
     At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had commitments to enter into forward-dated resale and securities borrowing agreements of $86.1 billion and $39.4 billion. In addition, the Corporation had commitments to enter into forward-dated repurchase and securities lending agreements of $72.9 billion and $33.5 billion. All of these commitments expire within the next 12 months.

186


Table of Contents

     The Corporation is a party to operating leases for certain of its premises and equipment. Commitments under these leases are approximately $1.6 billion, $2.9 billion, $2.4 billion, $1.8 billion and $1.5 billion for the remainder of 2011 through 2015, respectively, and $7.1 billion in the aggregate for all years thereafter.
     The Corporation has entered into agreements with providers of market data, communications, systems consulting and other office-related services. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the minimum fee commitments over the remaining terms of these agreements totaled $2.0 billion and $2.1 billion.
Other Guarantees
Bank-owned Life Insurance Book Value Protection
     The Corporation sells products that offer book value protection to insurance carriers who offer group life insurance policies to corporations, primarily banks. The book value protection is provided on portfolios of intermediate investment-grade fixed-income securities and is intended to cover any shortfall in the event that policyholders surrender their policies and market value is below book value. To manage its exposure, the Corporation imposes significant restrictions on surrenders and the manner in which the portfolio is liquidated and the funds are accessed. In addition, investment parameters of the underlying portfolio are restricted. These constraints, combined with structural protections, including a cap on the amount of risk assumed on each policy, are designed to provide adequate buffers and guard against payments even under extreme stress scenarios. These guarantees are recorded as derivatives and carried at fair value in the trading portfolio. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $15.9 billion and $15.8 billion and the Corporation’s maximum exposure related to these guarantees totaled $5.1 billion and $5.0 billion with estimated maturity dates between 2030 and 2040.
Employee Retirement Protection
     The Corporation sells products that offer book value protection primarily to plan sponsors of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governed pension plans, such as 401(k) plans and 457 plans. The book value protection is provided on portfolios of intermediate/short-term investment-grade fixed-income securities and is intended to cover any shortfall in the event that plan participants continue to withdraw funds after all securities have been liquidated and there is remaining book value. The Corporation retains the option to exit the contract at any time. If the Corporation exercises its option, the purchaser can require the Corporation to purchase high-quality fixed-income securities, typically government or government-backed agency securities, with the proceeds of the liquidated assets to assure the return of principal. To manage its exposure, the Corporation imposes significant restrictions and constraints on the timing of the withdrawals, the manner in which the portfolio is liquidated and the funds are accessed, and the investment parameters of the underlying portfolio. These constraints, combined with structural protections, are designed to provide adequate buffers and guard against payments even under extreme stress scenarios. These guarantees are recorded as derivatives and carried at fair value in the trading portfolio. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $31.8 billion and $33.8 billion with estimated maturity dates up to 2014 if the exit option is exercised on all deals.
Merchant Services
     During 2009, the Corporation contributed its merchant processing business to a joint venture in exchange for a 46.5 percent ownership interest in the joint venture. During the three months ended June 30, 2010, the joint venture purchased the interest held by one of the three initial investors bringing the Corporation’s ownership interest up to 49 percent. For additional information on the joint venture agreement, see Note 5 – Securities.
     In accordance with credit and debit card association rules, the Corporation sponsors merchant processing servicers that process credit and debit card transactions on behalf of various merchants. In connection with these services, a liability may arise in the event of a billing dispute between the merchant and a cardholder that is ultimately resolved in the cardholder’s favor and the merchant defaults on its obligation to reimburse the cardholder. A cardholder, through its issuing bank, generally has until the later of up to six months after the date a transaction is processed or the delivery of the product or service to present a chargeback to the merchant processor. The sponsored entities are primarily liable for any losses on

187


Table of Contents

covered transactions. However, if the sponsored entities fail to meet their obligation to reimburse the cardholder for disputed transactions, then the Corporation, as the sponsor, could be held liable for the disputed amount. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the sponsored entities processed and settled $109.9 billion and $194.8 billion of sponsored transactions and recorded losses of $3 million and $5 million. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, the sponsored entities processed and settled $82.8 billion and $161.9 billion of sponsored transactions and recorded losses of $5 million and $8 million. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation held as collateral $29 million and $25 million of merchant escrow deposits which may be used to offset amounts due from the individual merchants.
     The Corporation believes that the maximum potential exposure is not representative of the actual potential loss exposure. The Corporation believes the maximum potential exposure for chargebacks would not exceed the total amount of merchant transactions processed through Visa, MasterCard and Discover for the last six months, which represents the claim period for the cardholder, plus any outstanding delayed-delivery transactions. As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the maximum potential exposure for sponsored transactions totaled approximately $158.6 billion and $139.5 billion. The Corporation does not expect to make material payments in connection with these guarantees.
Other Derivative Contracts
     The Corporation funds selected assets, including securities issued by CDOs and CLOs, through derivative contracts, typically total return swaps, with third parties and SPEs that are not consolidated on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the total notional amount of these derivative contracts was approximately $5.1 billion and $4.3 billion with commercial banks and $2.1 billion and $1.7 billion with SPEs. The underlying securities are senior securities and substantially all of the Corporation’s exposures are insured. Accordingly, the Corporation’s exposure to loss consists principally of counterparty risk to the insurers. In certain circumstances, generally as a result of ratings downgrades, the Corporation may be required to purchase the underlying assets, which would not result in additional gain or loss to the Corporation as such exposure is already reflected in the fair value of the derivative contracts.
Other Guarantees
     The Corporation sells products that guarantee the return of principal to investors at a preset future date. These guarantees cover a broad range of underlying asset classes and are designed to cover the shortfall between the market value of the underlying portfolio and the principal amount on the preset future date. To manage its exposure, the Corporation requires that these guarantees be backed by structural and investment constraints and certain pre-defined triggers that would require the underlying assets or portfolio to be liquidated and invested in zero-coupon bonds that mature at the preset future date. The Corporation is required to fund any shortfall between the proceeds of the liquidated assets and the purchase price of the zero-coupon bonds at the preset future date. These guarantees are recorded as derivatives and carried at fair value in the trading portfolio. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $374 million and $666 million. These guarantees have various maturities ranging from two to five years. As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Corporation had not made a payment under these products and has assessed the probability of payments under these guarantees as remote.
     The Corporation has entered into additional guarantee agreements and commitments, including lease-end obligation agreements, partial credit guarantees on certain leases, real estate joint venture guarantees, sold risk participation swaps, divested business commitments and sold put options that require gross settlement. The maximum potential future payment under these agreements was approximately $3.2 billion and $3.4 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The estimated maturity dates of these obligations extend up to 2033. The Corporation has made no material payments under these guarantees.
     In addition, the Corporation has guaranteed the payment obligations of certain subsidiaries of Merrill Lynch on certain derivative transactions. The aggregate notional amount of such derivative liabilities was approximately $2.4 billion and $2.1 billion at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. In the normal course of business, the Corporation periodically guarantees the obligations of its affiliates in a variety of transactions including ISDA-related transactions and non ISDA-related transactions such as commodities trading, repurchase agreements, prime brokerage agreements and other transactions.

188


Table of Contents

Payment Protection Insurance Claims Matter
     In the U.K., the Corporation sells payment protection insurance (PPI) through its Global Card Services business to credit card customers and has previously sold this insurance to consumer loan customers. PPI covers a consumer’s loan or debt repayment if certain events occur such as loss of job or illness. In response to an elevated level of customer complaints of misleading sales tactics across the industry, heightened media coverage and pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.K. Financial Services Authority (FSA) investigated and raised concerns about the way some companies have handled complaints relating to the sale of these insurance policies. In August 2010, the FSA issued a policy statement (the FSA Policy Statement) on the assessment and remediation of PPI claims that is applicable to the Corporation’s U.K. consumer businesses and is intended to address concerns among consumers and regulators regarding the handling of PPI complaints across the industry. The FSA Policy Statement sets standards for the sale of PPI that apply to current and prior sales, and in the event a company does not or did not comply with the standards, it is alleged that the insurance was incorrectly sold, giving the customer rights to remedies. The FSA Policy Statement also requires companies to review their sales practices and to proactively remediate non-complaining customers if evidence of a systematic breach of the newly articulated sales standards is discovered, which could include refunding premiums paid.
     In October 2010, the British Bankers’ Association (BBA), on behalf of its members, including the Corporation, challenged the provisions of the FSA Policy Statement and their retroactive application to sales of PPI to U.K. consumers through a judicial review process against the FSA and the U.K. Financial Ombudsman Service. On April 20, 2011, the U.K. court issued a judgment upholding the FSA Policy Statement as promulgated and dismissing the BBA’s challenge. The BBA will not appeal the decision. Following the conclusion of the judicial review and the subsequent completion of the detailed root cause analysis as required by the FSA Policy Statement, the Corporation re-assessed its reserve for PPI claims resulting in an increase in the reserve of $77 million bringing the total accrued liability as of June 30, 2011 to $769 million.
Litigation and Regulatory Matters
     The following supplements the disclosure in Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K and inNote 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (collectively, the prior commitments and contingencies disclosures).
     In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are routinely defendants in or parties to many pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. These actions and proceedings are generally based on alleged violations of consumer protection, securities, environmental, banking, employment and other laws. In some of these actions and proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Corporation and its subsidiaries.
     In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are also subject to regulatory examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries and investigations. Certain subsidiaries of the Corporation are registered broker/dealers or investment advisors and are subject to regulation by the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the New York Stock Exchange, the FSA and other domestic, international and state securities regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by those agencies, such subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities.
     In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such litigation and regulatory matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Corporation generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be.
     In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Corporation establishes an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Corporation does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Corporation, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that

189


Table of Contents

would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable. Once the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Corporation will establish an accrued liability with respect to such loss contingency and record a corresponding amount of litigation-related expense. The Corporation continues to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established. Excluding fees paid to external legal service providers, litigation-related expense was $2.3 billion and $3.2 billion during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to $102 million and $690 million for the same periods in 2010.
     For a limited number of the matters disclosed in this Note, and in the prior commitments and contingencies disclosure, for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible in future periods, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Corporation is able to estimate a range of possible loss. In determining whether it is possible to provide an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, the Corporation reviews and evaluates its material litigation and regulatory matters on an ongoing basis, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. These may include information learned through the discovery process, rulings on dispositive motions, settlement discussions, and other rulings by courts, arbitrators or others. In cases in which the Corporation possesses sufficient appropriate information to develop an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed below. There may be other disclosed matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but such an estimate may not be possible. For those matters where an estimate is possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of possible loss is $0 to $2.3 billion in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range. Therefore, this estimated range of possible loss represents what the Corporation believes to be an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent the Corporation’s maximum loss exposure. Information is provided below, or in the prior commitments and contingencies disclosure, regarding the nature of all of these contingencies and, where specified, the amount of the claim associated with these loss contingencies. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, including the matters described herein and in the prior commitments and contingencies disclosure, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Corporation. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond the Corporation’s control, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Corporation’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
     On May 24, 2011, the Multi-District Litigation transferee court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement.
Countrywide Bond Insurance Litigation
MBIA
     On June 30, 2011, the appellate court issued a decision on the parties’ cross-appeals in MBIA Insurance Corporation, Inc. v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al. The appellate court dismissed MBIA Insurance Corporation’s breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, which reversed the trial court ruling on that claim, and otherwise affirmed the trial court’s decisions.
Syncora
     The trial is set to commence during or after the second quarter of 2012.
FGIC
     The trial is set to commence during or after the fourth quarter of 2012.

190


Table of Contents

Fontainebleau Las Vegas Litigation
     On June 9, 2009, Fontainebleau Las Vegas, LLC, then a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (FBLV), commenced an adversary proceeding, entitled Fontainebleau Las Vegas, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch Capital Corporation, et al. (FBLV action), against a group of lenders, including BANA and Merrill Lynch Capital Corporation (MLCC). The action was originally filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida but is now before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On April 12, 2010, FBLV’s Chapter 11 case was converted to a Chapter 7 case and a Trustee was appointed. On July 15, 2010, the district court entered an order substituting the Trustee as plaintiff in this action. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants breached an agreement to lend their respective committed amounts under an $800 million revolving loan facility, of which BANA and MLCC had each committed $100 million, in connection with the construction of a resort and casino development in Las Vegas. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $3 billion and a “turnover” order under Section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code requiring the lenders to fund their respective commitments. On September 21, 2010, the court entered an order dismissing the breach of contract and turnover claims in order to allow the plaintiff to pursue an immediate appeal of the court’s August 2009 decision denying partial summary judgment of certain of FBLV’s claims. The Trustee filed a notice of appeal on October 18, 2010. That appeal is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
     On June 9, 2009, a related lawsuit, Avenue CLO Fund Ltd., et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch Capital Corporation, et al. (the Avenue action), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada by certain project lenders. On September 21, 2009, another related lawsuit, ACP Master, Ltd., et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch Capital Corporation, et al. (the ACP action), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the purported successors-in-interest to certain project lenders. These two actions were subsequently transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for coordinated pretrial proceedings with the FBLV action. Plaintiffs in the Avenue and ACP actions (the Term Lenders) allege that BANA, MLCC and the other defendants breached their revolving loan facility commitments to FBLV. In addition, they allege that BANA breached its duties as disbursement agent under a separate agreement governing the disbursement of loaned funds to FBLV. The Term Lenders seek unspecified money damages on their claims. On May 28, 2010, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the revolving loan facility commitment claims, but denied BANA’s motion to dismiss the disbursement agent claims. On January 13, 2011, the district court granted the Term Lenders’ motion for entry of a partial final judgment on their revolving loan facility commitment claims. The Term Lenders filed a notice of appeal with respect to those claims on January 19, 2011.
     On April 19, 2011, the district court dismissed the disbursement agent claims against BANA in the ACP action after the Avenue action plaintiffs represented that they had acquired the claims belonging to the ACP action plaintiffs and would be pursuing those claims in the Avenue action.
Interchange and Related Litigation
     On May 16, 2011, a proceeding parallel to Watson v. Bank of America Corporation, containing substantially the same allegations was commenced in Ontario Superior Court under the captionBancroft-Snell v. Visa Canada Corp. et. al.
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Litigation
     On June 4, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint, and on July 27, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. Certain of the allegations in the complaint that purported to support the Section 11 claim against the underwriter defendants were dismissed; others were not dismissed relating to alleged misstatements regarding Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.’s leverage and financial condition, risk management and risk concentrations.
Lehman Setoff Litigation
     On May 20, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered final judgment in the matter. BANA noticed its appeal on May 23, 2011.
MBIA Insurance Corporation CDO Litigation
     On July 11, 2011, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation, which did not require any payment by Merrill Lynch.

191


Table of Contents

Merrill Lynch Acquisition-related Matters
Securities Actions
     On July 29, 2011, the court in the securities class actions in In re Banc of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation granted in part and denied in part the Corporation’s and its co-defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Among other rulings, the court: (i) dismissed plaintiffs’ claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the Corporation and individual defendants committed securities fraud in connection with the failure to disclose the Corporation’s discussions with government officials in December 2008 regarding the possibility of obtaining government assistance in completing the Merrill Lynch acquisition; (ii) dismissed the claims of certain holders of the Corporation’s preferred shares, purchasers of the Corporation’s bonds, and owners of call options on the ground that such securities holders lacked standing to pursue a claim against the Corporation and the individual defendants; and (iii) sustained plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) claim alleging the Corporation failed to disclose the financial condition and 2008 fourth-quarter losses experienced by Merrill Lynch. On August 2, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) claim alleging that the Corporation failed to make an interim disclosure of its 2008 fourth-quarter losses.
Mortgage-backed Securities Litigation
     The Corporation and its affiliates, Countrywide entities and their affiliates, and Merrill Lynch entities and their affiliates have been named as defendants in several cases relating to their various roles as issuer, originator, seller, depositor, sponsor, underwriter and/or controlling entity in MBS offerings, pursuant to which the MBS investors were entitled to a portion of the cash flow from the underlying pools of mortgages. These cases generally include purported class action suits and actions by individual MBS purchasers. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the registration statements, prospectuses and prospectus supplements for securities issued by securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions, in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or state securities laws and other state statutory and common laws.
     These cases generally involve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding: (i) the process by which the properties that served as collateral for the mortgage loans underlying the MBS were appraised; (ii) the percentage of equity that mortgage borrowers had in their homes; (iii) the borrowers’ ability to repay their mortgage loans; and (iv) the underwriting practices by which those mortgage loans were originated (collectively MBS Claims). In addition, several of the cases discussed below assert claims related to the ratings given to the different tranches of MBS by rating agencies. Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified costs and legal fees and, in some instances, seek rescission.
     On May 24, 2011, Countrywide filed with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation a motion to centralize federal court cases involving Countrywide MBS Claims in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which is pending.
Luther Litigation and Related Actions
     On May 6, 2011, the court held, in Maine State Retirement System vs. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. (Maine State), that the plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the specific MBS tranches that they purchased, and that the applicable statute of limitations could be tolled by the filing of the Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. (Luther) action only with respect to the specific tranches of MBS that the Luther plaintiffs purchased. On June 6, 2011, the Maine State plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that asserts claims in connection with nine MBS tranches and moved for certification of the case as a class action. On June 15, 2011, the court denied the Maine State plaintiffs’ motion to permit immediate interlocutory appeal of the court’s orders on standing, tolling of the statute of limitations, and successor liability.
     On May 18, 2011, in Luther, the California Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Countrywide filed a petition for further review by the California Supreme Court.
IndyMac Litigation
     On June 21, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend to add MLPF&S and Countrywide Securities Corporation as defendants.

192


Table of Contents

Merrill Lynch MBS Litigation
     On June 15, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Federal Home Loan Bank Litigation
     In Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al., plaintiff filed an amended complaint that adds Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, BANA, and CFC as defendants and adds additional claims for alleged successor liability against the Corporation. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 27, 2011.
     The Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis filed a complaint against the Corporation, BAS, Banc of America Mortgage Securities Inc, CFC and CWMBS Inc., in the Superior Court of Indiana, Marion County, entitled Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis v. Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased MBS issued by or underwritten by certain of the defendants from February 2005 to June 2007.
     On June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss in theFederal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. UBS Securities LLC, et al.; Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Countrywide Securities Corp., et al.; Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Banc of AmericaSecurities LLC, et al. and Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al. actions.
Allstate Litigation
     On June 14, 2011, the court granted CFC’s motion and transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where it has been assigned to the same judge before whom the Maine State action is pending.
Dexia Litigation
     Dexia Holdings, Inc. and others filed an action on January 24, 2011 against CFC, the Corporation and several of their affiliates, among others, in the New York Supreme Court, entitledDexia Holdings, Inc., et al., v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased MBS issued by CFC-related entities in 142 public offerings and six private placements between April 2004 and August 2007. Defendants filed a motion to remove and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and a motion to dismiss.
Western & Southern Litigation
     The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and others filed an action on April 27, 2011 against CFC, the Corporation, several of their subsidiaries and several individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, entitled The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et al., v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased MBS issued by CFC-related entities in 32 public offerings between March 2005 and July 2007.
Regulatory Investigations
     The Corporation has received a number of subpoenas and other requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities regarding MBS and other mortgage-related matters, including inquiries and investigations related to a number of transactions involving the Corporation’s underwriting and issuance of MBS and its participation in certain CDO offerings. These inquiries and investigations include, among others: an investigation by the SEC related to Merrill Lynch’s risk control, valuation, structuring, marketing and purchase of CDOs. The Corporation has provided documents and testimony and continues to cooperate fully with these inquiries and investigations.

193


Table of Contents

Mortgage Servicing Investigations and Litigation
     On April 13, 2011, the Corporation entered into a consent order with the Federal Reserve and BANA entered into a consent order with the OCC to address the regulators’ concerns about residential mortgage servicing practices and foreclosure processes. Also on this date, the other 13 largest mortgage servicers separately entered into consent orders with their respective federal bank regulators related to residential mortgage servicing practices and foreclosure processes. The orders resulted from an interagency horizontal review conducted by federal bank regulators of major residential mortgage servicers. While federal bank regulators found that loans foreclosed upon had been generally considered for other alternatives (such as loan modifications) and were seriously delinquent, and that servicers could support their standing to foreclose, several areas for process improvement requiring timely and comprehensive remediation across the industry were also identified. The Corporation identified most of these areas for process improvement after its own review in late 2010 and continues to make significant progress in these areas. The federal bank regulator consent orders with the mortgage servicers do not assess civil monetary penalties. However, the consent orders do not preclude the assertion of civil monetary penalties and a federal bank regulator has stated publicly that it believes monetary penalties are appropriate.
     The consent order with the OCC requires servicers to make several enhancements to their servicing operations, including implementation of a single point of contact model for borrowers throughout the loss mitigation and foreclosure processes; adoption of measures designed to ensure that foreclosure activity is halted once a borrower has been approved for a modification unless the borrower fails to make payments under the modified loan; and implementation of enhanced controls over third-party vendors that provide default servicing support services. In addition, the consent order required that servicers retain an independent consultant, approved by the OCC, in order to conduct a review of all foreclosure actions pending, or foreclosure sales that occurred between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 and submit a plan to the OCC to remediate all financial injury to borrowers caused by any deficiencies identified through the review. The OCC accepted the independent consultant that the Corporation retained to conduct the foreclosure review. Additionally, the Corporation has submitted an action plan to the OCC which will undergo a period of review by the OCC. The OCC may require changes to the action plan, and may consider the ongoing negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and other federal and state authorities regarding foreclosure and servicing practices discussed below in its review of the plan.
     In addition, law enforcement authorities in all 50 states and the DOJ and other federal agencies continue to investigate alleged irregularities in the foreclosure practices of residential mortgage servicers, including the Corporation. Authorities have publicly stated that the scope of the investigations extends beyond foreclosure documentation practices to mortgage loan modification and loss mitigation practices, including compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements related to FHA-insured loans. The Corporation continues to cooperate with these investigations and is dedicating significant resources to address these issues. The Corporation and the other largest mortgage servicers continue to engage in ongoing negotiations regarding these matters with law enforcement authorities and federal agencies. The negotiations continue to focus on the amount of any settlement payment and settlement terms, including principal forgiveness, servicing standards, enforcement mechanisms and releases. Although the Corporation cannot be certain as to the ultimate outcome that may result from these negotiations or the timing of such outcome, the parties continue to make progress toward achieving a resolution of these matters.
     The Corporation continues to be subject to additional borrower and non-borrower litigation and governmental and regulatory scrutiny related to the Corporation’s past and current foreclosure activities. This scrutiny may extend beyond its pending foreclosure matters to issues arising out of alleged irregularities with respect to previously completed foreclosure activities.
     The current environment of heightened regulatory scrutiny has the potential to subject the Corporation to inquiries or investigations that could significantly adversely affect its reputation. Such investigations by state and federal authorities, as well as any other governmental or regulatory scrutiny of the Corporation’s foreclosure processes, could result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies, additional default servicing requirements and process changes, or other enforcement actions, and could result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations and additional litigation.
Ocala Litigation
     On April 4, 2011, BANA filed a first amended complaint in the October 1, 2010 action against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to include, among other things, certain additional facts disclosed during the course of federal criminal proceedings brought against the management of Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation and Colonial Bank.

194


Table of Contents

     On June 22, 2011, BANA filed third-party complaints in BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of America, N.A. and Deutsche Bank AG v. Bank of America, N.A. seeking contribution from affiliates of the plaintiffs which were the note dealers and placement agents for the Ocala notes. BANA alleges that, if plaintiffs suffered any losses as a result of the nonpayment of the Ocala notes, these losses were due in whole or in part to actions by the third-party defendants.
Parmalat
     On May 27, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the Food Holdings Ltd., et al. v. Bank of America Corp, et al. action. On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied on July 19, 2011.
NOTE 12 – Shareholders’ Equity
Common Stock
     In May 2011, the Corporation’s Board of Directors (the Board) declared a second quarter cash dividend of $0.01 per common share which was paid on June 24, 2011 to common shareholders of record on June 3, 2011. In January 2011, the Board declared a first quarter cash dividend of $0.01 per common share which was paid on March 25, 2011 to common shareholders of record on March 4, 2011.
     There is no existing Board authorized share repurchase program. In connection with employee stock plans, the Corporation issued approximately 48 million shares and repurchased approximately 28 million shares to satisfy tax withholding obligations during the six months ended June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2011, the Corporation had reserved 1.5 billion unissued shares of common stock for future issuances under employee stock plans, common stock warrants, convertible notes and preferred stock.
     During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation issued approximately 196 million RSUs to certain employees under the Key Associate Stock Plan and the Merrill Lynch Employee Stock Compensation Plan. The majority of these awards generally vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from the grant date; however, certain awards are earned based on the achievement of specified performance criteria. Vested RSUs may be settled in cash or in shares of common stock depending on the terms of the applicable award. In early 2011, approximately 129 million of these RSUs were authorized to be settled in shares of common stock. Certain awards contain clawback provisions which permit the Corporation to cancel all or a portion of the award under specified circumstances. The compensation cost for cash-settled awards and awards subject to certain clawback provisions is accrued over the vesting period and adjusted to fair value based upon changes in the share price of the Corporation’s common stock. The compensation cost for the remaining awards is fixed and based on the share price of the Corporation’s common stock on the date of grant, or the date upon which settlement in common stock has been authorized. The Corporation hedges a portion of its exposure to variability in the expected cash flows for certain unvested awards using a combination of economic and cash flow hedges as described in Note 4 – Derivatives.
Preferred Stock
     During the three months ended March 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011, the dividends declared on preferred stock were $310 million and $301 million or a total of $611 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011.

195


Table of Contents

NOTE 13 – Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
     The table below presents the changes in accumulated OCI for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, net-of-tax.
                         
  Available-for-  Available-for-              
  sale Debt  sale Marketable      Employee  Foreign    
(Dollars in millions)
 Securities  Equity Securities  Derivatives  Benefit Plans  Currency (1)  Total 
 
Balance, December 31, 2009
 $(628) $2,129  $(2,535) $(4,092) $(493) $(5,619)
Cumulative adjustment for new consolidation guidance
  (116)  -   -   -   -   (116)
Net change in fair value recorded in accumulated OCI
  3,678   (1,294)  (746)  -   (112)  1,526 
Net realized (gains) losses reclassified into earnings
  (28)  (836)  241   127   258   (238)
 
Balance, June 30, 2010
 $2,906  $(1) $(3,040) $(3,965) $(347) $(4,447)
 
Balance, December 31, 2010
 $714  $6,659  $(3,236) $(3,947) $(256) $(66)
Net change in fair value recorded in accumulated OCI
  1,701   (101)  (580)  -   28   1,048 
Net realized (gains) losses reclassified into earnings
  (827)  (19)  514   138   5   (189)
 
Balance, June 30, 2011
 $1,588  $6,539  $(3,302) $(3,809) $(223) $793 
 
(1) 
Net change in fair value represents only the impact of changes in spot foreign exchange rates on the Corporation’s net investment in non-U.S. operations and related hedges.
NOTE 14 – Earnings Per Common Share
     The calculation of earnings per common share (EPS) and diluted EPS for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 is presented below. See Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information on the calculation of EPS.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
(Dollars in millions, except per share information; shares in thousands) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Earnings (loss) per common share
                
Net income (loss)
 $(8,826) $3,123  $(6,777) $6,305 
Preferred stock dividends
  (301)  (340)  (611)  (688)
 
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders
 $(9,127) $2,783  $(7,388) $5,617 
Dividends and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities
  -   (42)  (1)  (286)
 
Net income (loss) allocated to common shareholders
 $(9,127) $2,741  $(7,389) $5,331 
 
Average common shares issued and outstanding
  10,094,928   9,956,773   10,085,479   9,570,166 
 
Earnings (loss) per common share
 $(0.90) $0.28  $(0.73) $0.56 
 
 
                
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share
                
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders
 $(9,127) $2,783  $(7,388) $5,617 
Dividends and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities
  -   (42)  (1)  (79)
 
Net income (loss) allocated to common shareholders
 $(9,127) $2,741  $(7,389) $5,538 
 
Average common shares issued and outstanding
  10,094,928   9,956,773   10,085,479   9,570,166 
Dilutive potential common shares (1)
  -   73,003   -   450,760 
 
Total diluted average common shares issued and outstanding
  10,094,928   10,029,776   10,085,479   10,020,926 
 
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share
 $(0.90) $0.27  $(0.73) $0.55 
 
(1) 
Includes incremental shares from RSUs, restricted stock shares, stock options and warrants.
     Due to the net loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, no dilutive potential common shares were included in the calculations of diluted EPS because they would have been antidilutive.
     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, average options to purchase 215 million and 223 million shares of common stock were outstanding but not included in the computation of EPS because they were antidilutive under the treasury stock method compared to 269 million and 277 million for the same periods in 2010. For both the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, average warrants to purchase 272 million shares of common stock were outstanding but not included in the computation of EPS because they were antidilutive under the treasury stock method compared to 122 million for the same periods in 2010. For both the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, 67 million average dilutive potential common shares associated with the 7.25% Non-cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock, Series L (Series L Preferred Stock) were excluded from the diluted share count because the result would have been antidilutive under the “if-converted” method. For both the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, 117 million average dilutive potential common shares associated with the Series L Preferred Stock and the Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock Series 2 and Series 3 were excluded from the diluted share count because the result would have been antidilutive under the “if-converted” method. For purposes of computing basic EPS, Common Equivalent Securities were considered to be participating securities prior to February 24, 2010.

196


Table of Contents

NOTE 15 – Pension and Postretirement Plans
     The Corporation sponsors noncontributory trusteed pension plans that cover substantially all officers and employees, a number of noncontributory nonqualified pension plans, and postretirement health and life plans. Additional information on these plans is presented in Note 19 – Employee Benefit Plans to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
     As a result of the Merrill Lynch acquisition, the Corporation assumed the obligations related to the plans of Merrill Lynch. These plans include a terminated U.S. pension plan, non-U.S. pension plans, nonqualified pension plans and postretirement plans. The non-U.S. pension plans vary based on the country and local practices. In 1988, Merrill Lynch purchased a group annuity contract that guarantees the payment of benefits vested under the terminated U.S. pension plan. The Corporation, under a supplemental agreement, may be responsible for, or benefit from actual experience and investment performance of the annuity assets. The Corporation made no contributions for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, under this agreement. Contributions may be required in the future under this agreement.

197


Table of Contents

     Net periodic benefit cost of the Corporation’s plans for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 included the following components.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2011
          Nonqualified and  Postretirement
  Qualified Pension Non-U.S. Pension Other Pension Health and Life
(Dollars in millions)
 Plans Plans Plans (1) Plans
 
Components of net periodic benefit cost
                
Service cost
 $104  $10  $1  $3 
Interest cost
  185   23   37   19 
Expected return on plan assets
  (324)  (27)  (35)  (2)
Amortization of transition obligation
  -   -   -   8 
Amortization of prior service cost (credits)
  4   -   (2)  - 
Amortization of net actuarial loss (gain)
  93   -   3   (10)
Recognized termination and settlement benefit cost
  -   -   3   - 
 
Net periodic benefit cost
 $62  $6  $7  $18 
 
 
                
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2011
Components of net periodic benefit cost
                
Service cost
 $212  $21  $1  $7 
Interest cost
  373   48   76   40 
Expected return on plan assets
  (649)  (56)  (70)  (4)
Amortization of transition obligation
  -   -   -   16 
Amortization of prior service cost (credits)
  10   -   (4)  2 
Amortization of net actuarial loss (gain)
  194   -   8   (9)
Recognized termination and settlement benefit cost
  -   -   3   - 
 
Net periodic benefit cost
 $140  $13  $14  $52 
 
 
                
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
Components of net periodic benefit cost
                
Service cost
 $95  $7  $1  $3 
Interest cost
  187   20   44   23 
Expected return on plan assets
  (315)  (23)  (34)  (3)
Amortization of transition obligation
  -   -   -   8 
Amortization of prior service cost (credits)
  7   -   (2)  3 
Amortization of net actuarial loss (gain)
  92   -   3   (17)
Recognized termination and settlement benefit cost
  -   -   3   - 
 
Net periodic benefit cost
 $66  $4  $15  $17 
 
 
                
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
Components of net periodic benefit cost
                
Service cost
 $198  $14  $2  $7 
Interest cost
  374   40   85   45 
Expected return on plan assets
  (631)  (45)  (69)  (5)
Amortization of transition obligation
  -   -   -   16 
Amortization of prior service cost (credits)
  14   -   (4)  3 
Amortization of net actuarial loss (gain)
  181   -   3   (25)
Recognized termination and settlement benefit cost
  -   -   13   - 
 
Net periodic benefit cost
 $136  $9  $30  $41 
 
(1) 
Includes nonqualified pension plans and the terminated Merrill Lynch U.S. pension plan.
     In 2011, the Corporation expects to contribute approximately $101 million to its non-U.S. pension plans, $103 million to its nonqualified and other pension plans and $121 million to its postretirement health and life plans. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation contributed $79 million, $66 million and $61 million, respectively, to these plans. The Corporation does not expect to be required to contribute to its qualified pension plans during 2011.

198


Table of Contents

NOTE 16 – Fair Value Measurements
     Under applicable accounting guidance, fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The Corporation determines the fair values of its financial instruments based on the fair value hierarchy established under applicable accounting guidance which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. There are three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value. For more information regarding the fair value hierarchy and how the Corporation measures fair value, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles and Note 22 – Fair Value Measurements to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Corporation accounts for certain corporate loans and loan commitments, LHFS, structured reverse repurchase agreements, long-term deposits and long-term debt under the fair value option. For more information, see Note 17 – Fair Value Option.

199


Table of Contents

Recurring Fair Value
     Assets and liabilities carried at fair value on a recurring basis at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, including financial instruments which the Corporation accounts for under the fair value option, are summarized in the following tables.
                     
  June 30, 2011
  Fair Value Measurements    
              Netting Assets/Liabilities
(Dollars in millions) Level 1 (1) Level 2 (1) Level 3 Adjustments (2) at Fair Value
 
Assets
                    
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell
 $-  $95,115  $-  $-  $95,115 
Trading account assets:
                    
U.S. government and agency securities
  26,141   19,827   -   -   45,968 
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
  1,165   40,692   7,452   -   49,309 
Equity securities
  28,057   9,082   662   -   37,801 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  35,309   11,023   391   -   46,723 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   11,619   5,519   -   17,138 
 
Total trading account assets
  90,672   92,243   14,024   -   196,939 
Derivative assets (3)
  3,262   1,410,699   15,214   (1,362,577)  66,598 
AFS debt securities:
                    
U.S. Treasury securities and agency securities
  46,402   2,867   -   -   49,269 
Mortgage-backed securities:
                    
Agency
  -   181,616   -   -   181,616 
Agency-collateralized mortgage obligations
  -   49,056   55   -   49,111 
Non-agency residential
  -   18,481   1,094   -   19,575 
Non-agency commercial
  -   6,700   18   -   6,718 
Non-U.S. securities
  2,114   2,158   88   -   4,360 
Corporate/Agency bonds
  -   4,314   224   -   4,538 
Other taxable securities
  20   1,629   10,374   -   12,023 
Tax-exempt securities
  -   2,052   1,609   -   3,661 
 
Total AFS debt securities
  48,536   268,873   13,462   -   330,871 
Loans and leases
  -   -   9,597   -   9,597 
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   12,372   -   12,372 
Loans held-for-sale
  -   11,131   4,012   -   15,143 
Other assets
  29,988   31,670   4,495   -   66,153 
 
Total assets
 $172,458  $1,909,731  $73,176  $(1,362,577) $792,788 
 
Liabilities
                    
Interest-bearing deposits in U.S. offices
 $-  $3,334  $-  $-  $3,334 
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase
  -   42,453   -   -   42,453 
Trading account liabilities:
                    
U.S. government and agency securities
  22,164   3,388   -   -   25,552 
Equity securities
  12,993   3,431   -   -   16,424 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  19,659   2,403   -   -   22,062 
Corporate securities and other
  277   10,611   63   -   10,951 
 
Total trading account liabilities
  55,093   19,833   63   -   74,989 
Derivative liabilities (3)
  2,445   1,388,183   9,796   (1,346,010)  54,414 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  -   4,121   744   -   4,865 
Accrued expenses and other liabilities
  23,157   1,464   777   -   25,398 
Long-term debt
  -   57,413   3,324   -   60,737 
 
Total liabilities
 $80,695  $1,516,801  $14,704  $(1,346,010) $266,190 
 
(1) 
Gross transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 were approximately $400 million during the six months ended June 30, 2011.
 
(2) 
Amounts represent the impact of legally enforceable master netting agreements and also cash collateral held or placed with the same counterparties.
 
(3) 
For further disaggregation of derivative assets and liabilities, see Note 4 – Derivatives.

200


Table of Contents

                     
  December 31, 2010
  Fair Value Measurements    
              Netting Assets/Liabilities
(Dollars in millions) Level 1 (1) Level 2 (1) Level 3 Adjustments (2) at Fair Value
 
Assets
                    
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell
 $-  $78,599  $-  $-  $78,599 
Trading account assets:
                    
U.S. government and agency securities (3)
  28,237   32,574   -   -   60,811 
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
  732   40,869   7,751   -   49,352 
Equity securities
  23,249   8,257   623   -   32,129 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  24,934   8,346   243   -   33,523 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   11,948   6,908   -   18,856 
 
Total trading account assets
  77,152   101,994   15,525   -   194,671 
Derivative assets (4)
  2,627   1,516,244   18,773   (1,464,644)  73,000 
AFS debt securities:
                    
U.S. Treasury securities and agency securities
  46,003   3,102   -   -   49,105 
Mortgage-backed securities:
                    
Agency
  -   191,213   4   -   191,217 
Agency-collateralized mortgage obligations
  -   37,017   -   -   37,017 
Non-agency residential
  -   21,649   1,468   -   23,117 
Non-agency commercial
  -   6,833   19   -   6,852 
Non-U.S. securities
  1,440   2,696   3   -   4,139 
Corporate/Agency bonds
  -   5,154   137   -   5,291 
Other taxable securities
  20   2,354   13,018   -   15,392 
Tax-exempt securities
  -   4,273   1,224   -   5,497 
 
Total AFS debt securities
  47,463   274,291   15,873   -   337,627 
Loans and leases
  -   -   3,321   -   3,321 
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   14,900   -   14,900 
Loans held-for-sale
  -   21,802   4,140   -   25,942 
Other assets
  32,624   31,051   6,856   -   70,531 
 
Total assets
 $159,866  $2,023,981  $79,388  $(1,464,644) $798,591 
 
Liabilities
                    
Interest-bearing deposits in U.S. offices
 $-  $2,732  $-  $-  $2,732 
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase
  -   37,424   -   -   37,424 
Trading account liabilities:
                    
U.S. government and agency securities
  23,357   5,983   -   -   29,340 
Equity securities
  14,568   914   -   -   15,482 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  14,748   1,065   -   -   15,813 
Corporate securities and other
  224   11,119   7   -   11,350 
 
Total trading account liabilities
  52,897   19,081   7   -   71,985 
Derivative liabilities (4)
  1,799   1,492,963   11,028   (1,449,876)  55,914 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  -   6,472   706   -   7,178 
Accrued expenses and other liabilities
  31,470   931   828   -   33,229 
Long-term debt
  -   47,998   2,986   -   50,984 
 
Total liabilities
 $86,166  $1,607,601  $15,555  $(1,449,876) $259,446 
 
(1) 
Gross transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 were approximately $1.3 billion during the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
(2) 
Amounts represent the impact of legally enforceable master netting agreements and also cash collateral held or placed with the same counterparties.
 
(3) 
Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation.
 
(4) 
For further disaggregation of derivative assets and liabilities, see Note 4 – Derivatives.

201


Table of Contents

     The following tables present a reconciliation of all assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, including net realized and unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings and accumulated OCI.
                                             
Level 3 – Fair Value Measurements
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2011
          Gains  Gains                  Gross  Gross    
  Balance      (Losses)  (Losses)                  Transfers  Transfers  Balance 
  April 1  Consolidation  Included in  Included in  Gross  into  out of  June 30 
(Dollars in millions) 2011 (1)  of VIEs  Earnings  OCI  Purchases  Sales  Issuances  Settlements  Level 3 (1)  Level 3 (1)  2011 (1) 
 
Trading account assets:
                                            
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $7,578  $-  $181  $-  $2,030  $(2,187) $-  $(338) $246  $(58) $7,452 
Equity securities
  734   -   24   -   75   (136)  -   (115)  81   (1)  662 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  252   -   80   -   74   (11)  -   (3)  3   (4)  391 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  6,697   -   80   -   1,066   (2,160)  -   (164)  -   -   5,519 
 
Total trading account assets
  15,261   -   365   -   3,245   (4,494)  -   (620)  330   (63)  14,024 
Net derivative assets (2)
  6,419   -   1,807   -   384   (512)  -   (2,390)  33   (323)  5,418 
AFS debt securities:
                                            
Mortgage-backed securities:
                                            
Agency-collateralized mortgage obligations
  56   -   -   -   -   -   -   (1)  -   -   55 
Non-agency residential
  1,203   -   (29)  (6)  2   (53)  -   (27)  4   -   1,094 
Non-agency commercial
  19   -   -   -   -   -   -   (1)  -   -   18 
Non-U.S. securities
  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   88   -   88 
Corporate/Agency bonds
  133   -   -   (2)  86   -   -   -   7   -   224 
Other taxable securities
  11,024   -   23   5   898   (1)  -   (1,573)  -   (2)  10,374 
Tax-exempt securities
  1,146   -   9   (39)  683   (23)  -   (205)  38   -   1,609 
 
Total AFS debt securities
  13,581   -   3   (42)  1,669   (77)  -   (1,807)  137   (2)  13,462 
Loans and leases (3, 4)
  3,619   5,194   37   -   21   (267)  1,821   (828)  -   -   9,597 
Mortgage servicing rights (4)
  15,282   -   (2,447)  -   -   (234)  410   (639)  -   -   12,372 
Loans held-for-sale (3)
  4,259   -   7   -   92   (70)  -   (469)  219   (26)  4,012 
Other assets (5)
  4,193   -   180   -   95   (243)  -   (105)  375   -   4,495 
Trading account liabilities – Corporate securities and other
  (102)  -   -   -   69   (30)  -   -   -   -   (63)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (3)
  (726)  -   (36)  -   -   -   -   18   -   -   (744)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (3)
  (689)  -   (79)  -   -   -   (9)  -   -   -   (777)
Long-term debt (3)
  (3,138)  -   5   -   131   (55)  (206)  149   (393)  183   (3,324)
 
(1) 
Assets (liabilities). For assets, increase / (decrease) to Level 3 and for liabilities, (increase) / decrease to Level 3.
 
(2) 
Net derivatives at June 30, 2011 include derivative assets of $15.2 billion and derivative liabilities of $9.8 billion.
 
(3) 
Amounts represent items which are accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(4) 
Issuances represent loan originations and mortgage servicing rights retained following securitizations or whole loan sales.
 
(5) 
Other assets is primarily comprised of AFS marketable equity securities.
     During the three months ended June 30, 2011, there were no significant transfers into or out of Level 3.

202


Table of Contents

                             
Level 3 – Fair Value Measurements
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
      Gains  Gains  Purchases,  Gross  Gross    
  Balance  (Losses)  (Losses)  Sales,  Transfers  Transfers  Balance 
  April 1  Included in  Included in  Issuances and  into  out of  June 30 
(Dollars in millions) 2010 (1)  Earnings  OCI  Settlements  Level 3 (1)  Level 3 (1)  2010 (1) 
 
Trading account assets:
                            
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $10,646  $(52) $-  $(854) $715  $(582) $9,873 
Equity securities
  721   (39)  -   4   41   (1)  726 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  1,064   (73)  -   (52)  16   (3)  952 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  7,832   182   -   (640)  367   (233)  7,508 
 
Total trading account assets
  20,263   18   -   (1,542)  1,139   (819)  19,059 
Net derivative assets (2)
  8,597   3,588   -   (2,555)  (520)  292   9,402 
AFS debt securities:
                            
Non-agency MBS:
                            
Residential
  5,376   (282)  65   (3,594)  599   (188)  1,976 
Commercial
  138   -   -   -   -   (88)  50 
Non-U.S. securities
  284   (3)  (79)  (25)  56   -   233 
Corporate/Agency bonds
  639   -   14   (341)  11   (19)  304 
Other taxable securities
  16,192   28   (56)  (2,702)  439   (1)  13,900 
Tax-exempt securities
  1,430   (48)  (17)  (69)  -   (59)  1,237 
 
Total AFS debt securities
  24,059   (305)  (73)  (6,731)  1,105   (355)  17,700 
Loans and leases (3)
  4,007   (256)  -   147   -   -   3,898 
Mortgage servicing rights
  18,842   (3,998)  -   (99)  -   -   14,745 
Loans held-for-sale (3)
  5,984   131   -   (371)  237   -   5,981 
Other assets (4)
  7,774   998   -   (1,050)  -   (20)  7,702 
Trading account liabilities:
                            
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  (369)  2   -   (9)  -   369   (7)
Corporate securities and other
  (30)  (5)  -   8   (46)  -   (73)
 
Total trading account liabilities
  (399)  (3)  -   (1)  (46)  369   (80)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (3)
  (696)  (30)  -   26   -   -   (700)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (3)
  (694)  (23)  -   (201)  -   -   (918)
Long-term debt (3)
  (4,560)  586   -   188   (560)  256   (4,090)
 
(1) 
Assets (liabilities). For assets, increase / (decrease) to Level 3 and for liabilities, (increase) / decrease to Level 3.
 
(2) 
Net derivatives at June 30, 2010 include derivative assets of $22.7 billion and derivative liabilities of $13.3 billion.
 
(3) 
Amounts represent instruments which are accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(4) 
Other assets is primarily comprised of AFS marketable equity securities.
     During the three months ended June 30, 2010, the more significant transfers into Level 3 included $1.1 billion of trading account assets, $1.1 billion of AFS debt securities and $520 million of net derivative contracts. Transfers into Level 3 for trading account assets were driven by reduced price transparency as a result of lower levels of trading activity for certain corporate debt securities as well as a change in valuation methodology for certain ABS to a discounted cash flow model. Transfers into Level 3 for AFS debt securities were due to an increase in the number of non-agency RMBS and other taxable securities priced using a discounted cash flow model. Transfers into Level 3 for net derivative contracts primarily related to a lack of price observability for certain credit default and total return swaps.
     During the three months ended June 30, 2010, the more significant transfers out of Level 3 were $819 million of trading account assets, driven by increased price verification of certain mortgage-backed and corporate debt securities and increased price observability of index floaters based on the Bond Market Association (BMA) curve held in corporate securities, trading loans and other.

203


Table of Contents

                                             
Level 3 – Fair Value Measurements 
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 
          Gains  Gains                  Gross  Gross    
  Balance      (Losses)  (Losses)                  Transfers  Transfers  Balance 
  January 1  Consolidation  Included in  Included in  Gross  into  out of  June 30 
(Dollars in millions) 2011 (1)  of VIEs  Earnings  OCI  Purchases  Sales  Issuances  Settlements  Level 3 (1)  Level 3 (1)  2011 (1) 
 
Trading account assets:
                                            
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $7,751  $-  $675  $-  $3,580  $(4,537) $-  $(519) $815  $(313) $7,452 
Equity securities
  623   -   67   -   175   (206)  -   (115)  120   (2)  662 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  243   -   85   -   122   (15)  -   (3)  3   (44)  391 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  6,908   -   642   -   1,832   (3,246)  -   (228)  1   (390)  5,519 
 
Total trading account assets
  15,525   -   1,469   -   5,709   (8,004)  -   (865)  939   (749)  14,024 
Net derivative assets (2)
  7,745   -   2,245   -   886   (1,260)  -   (4,060)  340   (478)  5,418 
AFS debt securities:
                                            
Mortgage-backed securities:
                                            
Agency
  4   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (4)  - 
Agency-collateralized mortgage obligations
  -   -   -   -   56   -   -   (1)  -   -   55 
Non-agency residential
  1,468   -   (45)  (28)  2   (290)  -   (289)  276   -   1,094 
Non-agency commercial
  19   -   -   -   -   -   -   (1)  -   -   18 
Non-U.S. securities
  3   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   88   (3)  88 
Corporate/Agency bonds
  137   -   2   (1)  86   (7)  -   -   7   -   224 
Other taxable securities
  13,018   -   52   62   1,450   (53)  -   (4,155)  2   (2)  10,374 
Tax-exempt securities
  1,224   -   6   (33)  683   (72)  -   (237)  38   -   1,609 
 
Total AFS debt securities
  15,873   -   15   -   2,277   (422)  -   (4,683)  411   (9)  13,462 
Loans and leases (3, 4)
  3,321   5,194   209   -   21   (376)  2,667   (1,444)  5   -   9,597 
Mortgage servicing rights (4)
  14,900   -   (2,200)  -   -   (234)  1,251   (1,345)  -   -   12,372 
Loans held-for-sale (3)
  4,140   -   185   -   123   (243)  -   (592)  441   (42)  4,012 
Other assets (5)
  6,856   -   302   -   172   (1,184)  -   (393)  375   (1,633)  4,495 
Trading account liabilities – Corporate securities and other
  (7)  -   -   -   76   (132)  -   -   -   -   (63)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (3)
  (706)  -   (82)  -   -   -   -   44   -   -   (744)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (3)
  (828)  -   64   -   -   (4)  (9)  -   -   -   (777)
Long-term debt (3)
  (2,986)  -   (143)  -   215   (55)  (249)  388   (1,030)  536   (3,324)
 
(1) 
Assets (liabilities). For assets, increase / (decrease) to Level 3 and for liabilities, (increase) / decrease to Level 3.
 
(2) 
Net derivatives at June 30, 2011 include derivative assets of $15.2 billion and derivative liabilities of $9.8 billion.
 
(3) 
Amounts represent items which are accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(4) 
Issuances represent loan originations and mortgage servicing rights retained following securitizations or whole loan sales.
 
(5) 
Other assets is primarily comprised of AFS marketable equity securities.
     During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the more significant transfers into Level 3 included $939 million of trading account assets and $1.0 billion of long-term debt accounted for under the fair value option. Transfers into Level 3 for trading account assets were primarily driven by certain CLOs which were transferred into Level 3 due to a lack of pricing transparency. Transfers into Level 3 for long-term debt were the result of an increase in unobservable inputs used in the pricing of certain equity-linked structured notes.
     During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the more significant transfers out of Level 3 included $749 million of trading account assets and $1.6 billion of other assets. Transfers out of Level 3 for trading account assets were primarily driven by increased price observability on certain RMBS and consumer ABS portfolios. Transfers out of Level 3 for other assets were the result of an initial public offering of an equity investment which occurred in the first quarter of 2011.

204


Table of Contents

                                 
Level 3 – Fair Value Measurements
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
          Gains  Gains  Purchases,  Gross  Gross    
  Balance      (Losses)  (Losses)  Sales,  Transfers  Transfers  Balance 
  January 1  Consolidation  Included in  Included in  Issuances and  into  out of  June 30 
(Dollars in millions) 2010 (1)  of VIEs  Earnings  OCI  Settlements  Level 3 (1)  Level 3 (1)  2010 (1) 
 
Trading account assets:
                                
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $11,080  $117  $354  $-  $(2,798) $2,189  $(1,069) $9,873 
Equity securities
  1,084   -   (33)  -   (326)  75   (74)  726 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  1,143   -   (155)  -   (80)  103   (59)  952 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  7,770   175   157   -   (586)  389   (397)  7,508 
 
Total trading account assets
  21,077   292   323   -   (3,790)  2,756   (1,599)  19,059 
Net derivative assets (2)
  7,863   -   4,991   -   (4,451)  768   231   9,402 
AFS debt securities:
                                
Non-agency MBS:
                                
Residential
  7,216   (96)  (515)  (310)  (5,829)  1,698   (188)  1,976 
Commercial
  258   -   (13)  (31)  (128)  52   (88)  50 
Non-U.S. securities
  468   -   (124)  (89)  (78)  56   -   233 
Corporate/Agency bonds
  927   -   (3)  35   (666)  30   (19)  304 
Other taxable securities
  9,854   5,812   19   (119)  (2,742)  1,119   (43)  13,900 
Tax-exempt securities
  1,623   -   (25)  (9)  (561)  316   (107)  1,237 
 
Total AFS debt securities
  20,346   5,716   (661)  (523)  (10,004)  3,271   (445)  17,700 
Loans and leases (3)
  4,936   -   (140)  -   (898)  -   -   3,898 
Mortgage servicing rights
  19,465   -   (4,696)  -   (24)  -   -   14,745 
Loans held-for-sale (3)
  6,942   -   67   -   (1,427)  399   -   5,981 
Other assets (4)
  7,821   -   1,537   -   (1,421)  -   (235)  7,702 
Trading account liabilities:
                                
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  (386)  -   23   -   (24)  -   380   (7)
Corporate securities and other
  (10)  -   (5)  -   (9)  (52)  3   (73)
 
Total trading account liabilities
  (396)  -   18   -   (33)  (52)  383   (80)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (3)
  (707)  -   (41)  -   48   -   -   (700)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (3)
  (891)  -   50   -   (77)  -   -   (918)
Long-term debt (3)
  (4,660)  -   788   -   (264)  (897)  943   (4,090)
 
(1) 
Assets (liabilities). For assets, increase / (decrease) to Level 3 and for liabilities, (increase) / decrease to Level 3.
 
(2) 
Net derivatives at June 30, 2010 include derivative assets of $22.7 billion and derivative liabilities of $13.3 billion.
 
(3) 
Amounts represent instruments which are accounted for under the fair value option.
 
(4) 
Other assets is primarily comprised of AFS marketable equity securities.
     During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the more significant transfers into Level 3 included $2.8 billion of trading account assets, $3.3 billion of AFS debt securities and $768 million of net derivative contracts. Transfers into Level 3 for trading account assets were driven by reduced price transparency as a result of lower levels of trading activity for certain municipal auction rate securities and corporate debt securities as well as a change in valuation methodology for certain ABS to a discounted cash flow model. Transfers into Level 3 for AFS debt securities were due to an increase in the number of non-agency RMBS and other taxable securities priced using a discounted cash flow model. Transfers into Level 3 for net derivative contracts primarily related to a lack of price observability for certain credit default and total return swaps.
     During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the more significant transfers out of Level 3 were $1.6 billion of trading account assets, driven by increased price verification of certain mortgage-backed and corporate debt securities and increased price observability of index floaters based on the BMA curve held in corporate securities, trading loans and other.

205


Table of Contents

     The following tables summarize gains (losses) due to changes in fair value, including both realized and unrealized gains (losses), recorded in earnings for Level 3 assets and liabilities during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. These amounts include gains (losses) on loans, LHFS, loan commitments and structured notes which are accounted for under the fair value option.
                     
Level 3 – Total Realized and Unrealized Gains (Losses) Included in Earnings
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2011
  Equity  Trading  Mortgage       
  Investment  Account  Banking  Other    
  Income  Profits  Income  Income    
(Dollars in millions) (Loss)  (Losses)  (Loss) (1)  (Loss)  Total 
 
Trading account assets:
                    
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $-  $181  $-  $-  $181 
Equity securities
  -   24   -   -   24 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   80   -   -   80 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   80   -   -   80 
 
Total trading account assets
  -   365   -   -   365 
Net derivative assets
  -   556   1,251   -   1,807 
AFS debt securities:
                    
Non-agency residential MBS
  -   -   -   (29)  (29)
Other taxable securities
  -   -   -   23   23 
Tax-exempt securities
  -   -   -   9   9 
 
Total AFS debt securities
  -   -   -   3   3 
Loans and leases (2)
  -   -   (13)  50   37 
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   (2,447)  -   (2,447)
Loans held-for-sale (2)
  -   -   (13)  20   7 
Other assets
  192   -   (12)  -   180 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (2)
  -   -   (36)  -   (36)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (2)
  -   (2)  74   (151)  (79)
Long-term debt (2)
  -   (10)  -   15   5 
 
Total
 $192  $909  $(1,196) $(63) $(158)
 
 
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
 
Trading account assets:
                    
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $-  $(52) $-  $-  $(52)
Equity securities
  -   (39)  -   -   (39)
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   (73)  -   -   (73)
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   182   -   -   182 
 
Total trading account assets
  -   18   -   -   18 
Net derivative assets
  -   193   3,395   -   3,588 
AFS debt securities:
                    
Non-agency residential MBS
  -   -   -   (282)  (282)
Non-U.S. securities
  -   -   -   (3)  (3)
Other taxable securities
  -   -   -   28   28 
Tax-exempt securities
  -   -   -   (48)  (48)
 
Total AFS debt securities
  -   -   -   (305)  (305)
Loans and leases (2)
  -   -   -   (256)  (256)
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   (3,998)  -   (3,998)
Loans held-for-sale (2)
  -   -   44   87   131 
Other assets
  1,033   -   (35)  -   998 
Trading account liabilities:
                    
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   2   -   -   2 
Corporate securities and other
  -   (5)  -   -   (5)
 
Total trading account liabilities
  -   (3)  -   -   (3)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (2)
  -   -   (30)  -   (30)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (2)
  -   (12)  -   (11)  (23)
Long-term debt (2)
  -   472   -   114   586 
 
Total
 $1,033  $668  $(624) $(371) $706 
 
(1) 
Mortgage banking income does not reflect the impact of Level 1 and Level 2 hedges on MSRs.
 
(2) 
Amounts represent instruments which are accounted for under the fair value option.

206


Table of Contents

                     
Level 3– Total Realized and Unrealized Gains (Losses) Included in Earnings
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2011
  Equity  Trading  Mortgage       
  Investment  Account  Banking  Other    
  Income  Profits  Income  Income    
(Dollars in millions) (Loss)  (Losses)  (Loss) (1)  (Loss)  Total 
 
Trading account assets:
                    
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $-  $675  $-  $-  $675 
Equity securities
  -   67   -   -   67 
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   85   -   -   85 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   642   -   -   642 
 
Total trading account assets
  -   1,469   -   -   1,469 
Net derivative assets
  -   97   2,148   -   2,245 
AFS debt securities:
                    
Non-agency residential MBS
  -   -   -   (45)  (45)
Corporate/Agency bonds
  -   -   -   2   2 
Other taxable securities
  -   12   -   40   52 
Tax-exempt securities
  -   (3)  -   9   6 
 
Total AFS debt securities
  -   9   -   6   15 
Loans and leases (2)
  -   -   (13)  222   209 
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   (2,200)  -   (2,200)
Loans held-for-sale (2)
  -   -   (11)  196   185 
Other assets
  314   -   (12)  -   302 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (2)
  -   -   (82)  -   (82)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (2)
  -   (10)  74   -   64 
Long-term debt (2)
  -   (102)  -   (41)  (143)
 
Total
 $314  $1,463  $(96) $383  $2,064 
 
 
                    
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
 
Trading account assets:
                    
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $-  $354  $-  $-  $354 
Equity securities
  -   (33)  -   -   (33)
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   (155)  -   -   (155)
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   157   -   -   157 
 
Total trading account assets
  -   323   -   -   323 
Net derivative assets
  -   (334)  5,325   -   4,991 
AFS debt securities:
                    
Non-agency MBS:
                    
Residential
  -   -   (13)  (502)  (515)
Commercial
  -   -   -   (13)  (13)
Non-U.S. securities
  -   -   -   (124)  (124)
Corporate/Agency bonds
  -   -   -   (3)  (3)
Other taxable securities
  -   -   -   19   19 
Tax-exempt securities
  -   23   -   (48)  (25)
 
Total AFS debt securities
  -   23   (13)  (671)  (661)
Loans and leases (2)
  -   -   -   (140)  (140)
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   (4,696)  -   (4,696)
Loans held-for-sale (2)
  -   -   59   8   67 
Other assets
  1,569   -   (32)  -   1,537 
Trading account liabilities:
                    
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   23   -   -   23 
Corporate securities and other
  -   (5)  -   -   (5)
 
Total trading account liabilities
  -   18   -   -   18 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (2)
  -   -   (41)  -   (41)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (2)
  -   (10)  -   60   50 
Long-term debt (2)
  -   595   -   193   788 
 
Total
 $1,569  $615  $602  $(550) $2,236 
 
(1) 
Mortgage banking income does not reflect the impact of Level 1 and Level 2 hedges on MSRs.
 
(2) 
Amounts represent instruments which are accounted for under the fair value option.

207


Table of Contents

     The following tables summarize changes in unrealized gains (losses) recorded in earnings during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 for Level 3 assets and liabilities that were still held at June 30, 2011 and 2010. These amounts include changes in fair value on loans, LHFS, loan commitments and structured notes which are accounted for under the fair value option.
                     
Level 3 – Changes in Unrealized Gains (Losses) Relating to Assets and Liabilities Still Held at Reporting Date
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2011
  Equity  Trading  Mortgage       
  Investment  Account  Banking  Other    
  Income  Profits  Income  Income    
   (Dollars in millions) (Loss)  (Losses)  (Loss) (1)  (Loss)  Total 
 
Trading account assets:
                    
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $-  $(20) $-  $-  $(20)
Equity securities
  -   (40)  -   -   (40)
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   67   -   -   67 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   (40)  -   -   (40)
 
Total trading account assets
  -   (33)  -   -   (33)
Net derivative assets
  -   460   166   -   626 
AFS debt securities:
                    
Non-agency residential MBS
  -   -   -   (29)  (29)
 
Total AFS debt securities
  -   -   -   (29)  (29)
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   (2,869)  -   (2,869)
Loans held-for-sale (2)
  -   -   (36)  3   (33)
Other assets
  150   -   (12)  -   138 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (2)
  -   -   (28)  -   (28)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (2)
  -   -   -   (174)  (174)
Long-term debt (2)
  -   (10)  -   3   (7)
 
Total
 $150  $417  $(2,779) $(197) $(2,409)
 
                     
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
 
Trading account assets:
                    
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $-  $(136) $-  $-  $(136)
Equity securities
  -   (33)  -   -   (33)
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   (73)  -   -   (73)
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   173   -   -   173 
 
Total trading account assets
  -   (69)  -   -   (69)
Net derivative assets
  -   453   2,187   -   2,640 
AFS debt securities:
                    
Non-agency residential MBS
  -   -   -   (44)  (44)
Other taxable securities
  -   -   -   (20)  (20)
 
Total AFS debt securities
  -   -   -   (64)  (64)
Loans and leases (2)
  -   -   -   (95)  (95)
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   (4,477)  -   (4,477)
Loans held-for-sale (2)
  -   -   16   (17)  (1)
Other assets
  716   -   (11)  -   705 
Trading account liabilities – Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   2   -   -   2 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (2)
  -   -   (16)  -   (16)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (2)
  -   -   -   (271)  (271)
Long-term debt (2)
  -   384   -   113   497 
 
Total
 $716  $770  $(2,301) $(334) $(1,149)
 
(1) 
Mortgage banking income does not reflect the impact of Level 1 and Level 2 hedges on MSRs.
 
(2) 
Amounts represent instruments which are accounted for under the fair value option.

208


Table of Contents

                     
Level 3 – Changes in Unrealized Gains (Losses) Relating to Assets and Liabilities Still Held at Reporting Date
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2011
  Equity  Trading  Mortgage       
  Investment  Account  Banking  Other    
  Income  Profits  Income  Income    
(Dollars in millions) (Loss)  (Losses)  (Loss) (1)  (Loss)  Total 
 
Trading account assets:
                    
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $-  $286  $-  $-  $286 
Equity securities
  -   (21)  -   -   (21)
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   70   -   -   70 
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   278   -   -   278 
 
Total trading account assets
  -   613   -   -   613 
Net derivative assets
  -   247   192   -   439 
AFS debt securities:
                    
Non-agency residential MBS
  -   -   -   (99)  (99)
 
Total AFS debt securities
  -   -   -   (99)  (99)
Loans and leases (2)
  -   -   -   127   127 
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   (2,933)  -   (2,933)
Loans held-for-sale (2)
  -   -   (48)  91   43 
Other assets
  137   -   (11)  -   126 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (2)
  -   -   (61)  -   (61)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (2)
  -   -   -   (90)  (90)
Long-term debt (2)
  -   (102)  -   (53)  (155)
 
Total
 $137  $758  $(2,861) $(24) $(1,990)
 
 
                    
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 
 
Trading account assets:
                    
Corporate securities, trading loans and other
 $-  $705  $-  $-  $705 
Equity securities
  -   (49)  -   -   (49)
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   (156)  -   -   (156)
Mortgage trading loans and ABS
  -   106   -   -   106 
 
Total trading account assets
  -   606   -   -   606 
Net derivative assets
  -   377   3,013   -   3,390 
AFS debt securities:
                    
Non-agency MBS:
                    
Residential
  -   -   -   (139)  (139)
Commercial
  -   -   -   (30)  (30)
Non-U.S. securities
  -   -   -   (121)  (121)
Other taxable securities
  -   -   -   (14)  (14)
 
Total AFS debt securities
  -   -   -   (304)  (304)
Loans and leases (2)
  -   -   -   45   45 
Mortgage servicing rights
  -   -   (5,708)  -   (5,708)
Loans held-for-sale (2)
  -   -   6   (102)  (96)
Other assets
  635   -   (13)  -   622 
Trading account liabilities:
                    
Non-U.S. sovereign debt
  -   23   -   -   23 
Corporate securities and other
  -   (38)  -   -   (38)
 
Total trading account liabilities
  -   (15)  -   -   (15)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings (2)
  -   -   (16)  -   (16)
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (2)
  -   -   -   (201)  (201)
Long-term debt (2)
  -   494   -   191   685 
 
Total
 $635  $1,462  $(2,718) $(371) $(992)
 
(1) 
Mortgage banking income does not reflect the impact of Level 1 and Level 2 hedges on MSRs.
 
(2) 
Amounts represent instruments which are accounted for under the fair value option.

209


Table of Contents

Nonrecurring Fair Value
     Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis and are not included in the previous tables in this Note. These assets and liabilities primarily include LHFS, unfunded loan commitments held-for-sale and foreclosed properties. The amounts below represent only balances measured at fair value during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, and still held as of the reporting date.
                 
Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis
  June 30, 2011  Gains (Losses) 
          Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
(Dollars in millions) Level 2  Level 3  June 30, 2011  June 30, 2011 
 
Assets
                
Loans held-for-sale
 $1,049  $1,779  $(12) $52 
Loans and leases (1)
  17   9,437   (1,679)  (3,097)
Foreclosed properties (2)
  -   2,405   (75)  (147)
Other assets
  -   96   (19)  (23)
 
                 
  June 30, 2010  Gains (Losses) 
          Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
(Dollars in millions) Level 2  Level 3  June 30, 2010  June 30, 2010 
 
Assets
                
Loans held-for-sale
 $1,501  $8,070  $307  $123 
Loans and leases (1)
  45   10,817   (1,736)  (3,921)
Foreclosed properties (2)
  10   1,251   (59)  (113)
Other assets
  4   16   (3)  (3)
 
(1) 
Gains (losses) represent charge-offs on real estate-secured loans.
 
(2) 
Amounts are included in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and represent fair value and related losses on foreclosed properties that were written down subsequent to their initial classification as foreclosed properties.
NOTE 17 – Fair Value Option
     The Corporation elected to account for certain financial instruments under the fair value option. For additional information on the primary financial instruments for which the fair value option elections have been made, see Note 23 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
     The table below provides information about the fair value carrying amount and the contractual principal outstanding of assets or liabilities accounted for under the fair value option at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
                         
Fair Value Option Elections 
  June 30, 2011  December 31, 2010 
          Fair Value          Fair Value 
          Carrying          Carrying 
  Fair Value  Contractual  Amount  Fair Value  Contractual  Amount 
  Carrying  Principal  Less Unpaid  Carrying  Principal  Less Unpaid 
(Dollars in millions) Amount  Outstanding  Principal  Amount  Outstanding  Principal 
Corporate loans
 $9,597  $14,039  $(4,442) $3,269  $3,638  $(369)
Loans held-for-sale
  15,143   17,262   (2,119)  25,942   28,370   (2,428)
Securities financing agreements
  137,568   137,196   372   116,023   115,053   970 
Other assets
  237   n/a   n/a   310   n/a   n/a 
Long-term deposits
  3,334   3,187   147   2,732   2,692   40 
Asset-backed secured financings
  744   1,313   (569)  706   1,356   (650)
Unfunded loan commitments
  773   n/a   n/a   866   n/a   n/a 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  4,121   4,121   -   6,472   6,472   - 
Long-term debt
  60,737   67,119   (6,382)  50,984   54,656   (3,672)
 
n/a = not applicable

210


Table of Contents

     The tables below provide information about where changes in the fair value of assets or liabilities accounted for under the fair value option are included in the Consolidated Statement of Income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
                 
Gains (Losses) Relating to Assets and Liabilities Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2011
  Trading  Mortgage       
  Account  Banking  Other    
  Profits  Income  Income    
(Dollars in millions) (Losses)  (Loss)  (Loss)  Total 
 
Corporate loans
 $-  $-  $33  $33 
Loans held-for-sale
  2   1,511   31   1,544 
Securities financing agreements
  -   -   98   98 
Other assets
  -   -   1   1 
Long-term deposits
  -   -   (40)  (40)
Asset-backed secured financings
  -   (36)  -   (36)
Unfunded loan commitments
  -   -   (76)  (76)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  37   -   -   37 
Long-term debt
  (178)  -   214   36 
 
Total
 $(139) $1,475  $261  $1,597 
 
 
                
  Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
   
Corporate loans
 $-  $-  $(44) $(44)
Loans held-for-sale
  -   3,198   96   3,294 
Securities financing agreements
  -   -   56   56 
Other assets
  -   -   49   49 
Long-term deposits
  -   -   (54)  (54)
Asset-backed secured financings
  -   (30)  -   (30)
Unfunded loan commitments
  -   -   (254)  (254)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  (151)  -   -   (151)
Long-term debt
  1,797   -   1,175   2,972 
 
Total
 $1,646  $3,168  $1,024  $5,838 
 

211


Table of Contents

                 
Gains (Losses) Relating to Assets and Liabilities Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2011
  Trading Mortgage    
  Account Banking Other  
  Profits Income Income  
  (Dollars in millions) (Losses) (Loss) (Loss) Total
 
Corporate loans
 $-  $-  $128  $128 
Loans held-for-sale
  2   2,383   252   2,637 
Securities financing agreements
  -   -   (13)  (13)
Other assets
  -   -   30   30 
Long-term deposits
  -   -   (35)  (35)
Asset-backed secured financings
  -   (82)  -   (82)
Unfunded loan commitments
  -   -   56   56 
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  93   -   -   93 
Long-term debt
  (113)  -   (372)  (485)
 
Total
 $(18) $2,301  $46  $2,329 
 
                 
  Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
Corporate loans
 $2  $-  $46  $48 
Loans held-for-sale
  -   5,127   252   5,379 
Securities financing agreements
  -   -   98   98 
Other assets
  -   -   46   46 
Long-term deposits
  -   -   (112)  (112)
Asset-backed secured financings
  -   (41)  -   (41)
Unfunded loan commitments
  -   -   (67)  (67)
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings
  (195)  -   -   (195)
Long-term debt
  876   -   1,401   2,277 
 
Total
 $683  $5,086  $1,664  $7,433 
 
NOTE 18 – Fair Value of Financial Instruments
     The fair values of financial instruments have been derived using methodologies described in Note 22 — Fair Value Measurements to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The following disclosures include financial instruments where only a portion of the ending balances at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 is carried at fair value on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Short-term Financial Instruments
     The carrying value of short-term financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, time deposits placed, federal funds sold and purchased, resale and certain repurchase agreements, commercial paper and other short-term investments and borrowings approximates the fair value of these instruments. These financial instruments generally expose the Corporation to limited credit risk and have no stated maturities or have short-term maturities and carry interest rates that approximate market. The Corporation elected to account for certain structured reverse repurchase agreements under the fair value option.

212


Table of Contents

Loans
     Fair values for loans were generally determined by discounting both principal and interest cash flows expected to be collected using an observable discount rate for similar instruments with adjustments that the Corporation believes a market participant would consider in determining fair value. The Corporation estimates the cash flows expected to be collected using internal credit risk, interest rate and prepayment risk models that incorporate the Corporation’s best estimate of current key assumptions, such as default rates, loss severity and prepayment speeds for the life of the loan. The carrying value of loans is presented net of the applicable allowance for loan and lease losses and excludes leases. The Corporation elected to account for certain large corporate loans which exceeded the Corporation’s single name credit risk concentration guidelines under the fair value option.
Deposits
     The fair value for certain deposits with stated maturities was determined by discounting contractual cash flows using current market rates for instruments with similar maturities. The carrying value of non-U.S. time deposits approximates fair value. For deposits with no stated maturities, the carrying value was considered to approximate fair value and does not take into account the significant value of the cost advantage and stability of the Corporation’s long-term relationships with depositors. The Corporation accounts for certain long-term fixed-rate deposits which are economically hedged with derivatives under the fair value option.
Long-term Debt
     The Corporation uses quoted market prices, when available, to estimate fair value for its long-term debt. When quoted market prices are not available, fair value is estimated based on current market interest rates and credit spreads for debt with similar terms and maturities. The Corporation accounts for certain structured notes under the fair value option.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
     The carrying values and fair values of certain financial instruments that are not carried at fair value at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are presented in the table below.
                 
  June 30, 2011 December 31, 2010
  Carrying Fair Carrying Fair
  (Dollars in millions) Value Value Value Value
 
Financial assets
                
Loans
 $882,653  $862,646  $876,739  $861,695 
Financial liabilities
                
Deposits
  1,038,408   1,038,436   1,010,430   1,010,460 
Long-term debt
  426,659   426,645   448,431   441,672 
 

213


Table of Contents

NOTE 19 – Mortgage Servicing Rights
     The Corporation accounts for consumer MSRs at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Income in mortgage banking income. The Corporation economically hedges these MSRs with certain derivatives and securities including MBS and U.S. Treasuries. The securities that economically hedge the MSRs are classified in other assets with changes in the fair value of the securities and the related interest income recorded in mortgage banking income.
     The table below presents activity for residential first-lien MSRs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Commercial and residential reverse MSRs, which are carried at the lower of cost or market value and accounted for using the amortization method, totaled $270 million and $278 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and are not included in the tables in this Note.
                 
  Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
  June 30 June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Balance, beginning of period
 $15,282  $18,842  $14,900  $19,465 
Net additions
  176   882   1,017   2,013 
Impact of customer payments (1)
  (639)  (981)  (1,345)  (2,037)
Impact of changes in interest rates and other market factors (2)
  (1,094)  (3,817)  (385)  (4,000)
Model and other cash flow assumption changes: (3)
                
Projected cash flows, primarily due to increases in cost to service loans
  (1,501)  (524)  (2,029)  (1,076)
Impact of changes in the Home Price Index
  212   (34)  434   (34)
Impact of changes to the prepayment model
  303   385   126   427 
Other model changes
  (367)  (8)  (346)  (13)
 
Balance, June 30
 $12,372  $14,745  $12,372  $14,745 
 
Mortgage loans serviced for investors (in billions)
 $1,578  $1,706  $1,578  $1,706 
 
(1) 
Represents the change in the market value of the MSR asset due to the impact of customer payments received during the period.
 
(2) 
These amounts reflect the changes in modeled MSR market value largely due to observed changes in interest rates, volatility, spreads and the shape of the forward swap curve.
 
(3) 
These amounts reflect periodic adjustments to the valuation model, as well as changes in certain cash flow assumptions, such as costs to service and ancillary income per loan.
     The Corporation uses an option-adjusted spread (OAS) valuation approach to determine the fair value of MSRs which factors in prepayment risk. This approach consists of projecting servicing cash flows under multiple interest rate scenarios and discounting these cash flows using risk-adjusted discount rates. The key economic assumptions used in determining the fair value of MSRs at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are presented below.
                 
  June 30, 2011 December 31, 2010
  (Dollars in millions) Fixed Adjustable Fixed Adjustable
 
Weighted-average OAS
  2.28 %  2.21 %  2.21 %  3.25 %
Weighted-average life, in years
  4.86   2.47   4.85   2.29 
 

214


Table of Contents

     The table below presents the sensitivity of the weighted-average lives and fair value of MSRs to changes in modeled assumptions. These sensitivities are hypothetical and should be used with caution. As the amounts indicate, changes in fair value based on variations in assumptions generally cannot be extrapolated because the relationship of the change in assumption to the change in fair value may not be linear. Also, the effect of a variation in a particular assumption on the fair value of MSRs that continue to be held by the Corporation is calculated without changing any other assumption. In reality, changes in one factor may result in changes in another, which might magnify or counteract the sensitivities. The below sensitivities do not reflect any hedge strategies that may be undertaken to mitigate such risk.
              
  June 30, 2011
  Change in  
  Weighted-average Lives  
    Change in
  (Dollars in millions) Fixed Adjustable Fair Value
 
Prepayment rates
             
Impact of 10% decrease
  0.30 years  0.17 years $800  
Impact of 20% decrease
  0.65   0.37   1,696  
 
             
Impact of 10% increase
  (0.27)  (0.15)  (719) 
Impact of 20% increase
  (0.52)  (0.28)  (1,370) 
 
OAS level
             
Impact of 100 bps decrease
  n/a   n/a  $740  
Impact of 200 bps decrease
  n/a   n/a   1,551  
 
             
Impact of 100 bps increase
  n/a   n/a   (677) 
Impact of 200 bps increase
  n/a   n/a   (1,298) 
 
n/a = not applicable
NOTE 20 – Business Segment Information
     The Corporation reports the results of its operations through six business segments:Deposits, Global Card Services, Consumer Real Estate Services, Global Commercial Banking, Global Banking & Markets and Global Wealth & Investment Management, with the remaining operations recorded in All Other. For more information on each business segment, seeNote 26 — Business Segment Information to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
Basis of Presentation
 
     The management accounting and reporting process derives segment and business results by utilizing allocation methodologies for revenue and expense. The net income derived for the businesses is dependent upon revenue and cost allocations using an activity-based costing model, funds transfer pricing, and other methodologies and assumptions management believes are appropriate to reflect the results of the business.
     Total revenue, net of interest expense, includes net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent (FTE) basis and noninterest income. The adjustment of net interest income to a FTE basis results in a corresponding increase in income tax expense. The segment results also reflect certain revenue and expense methodologies that are utilized to determine net income. The net interest income of the businesses includes the results of a funds transfer pricing process that matches assets and liabilities with similar interest rate sensitivity and maturity characteristics. For presentation purposes, in segments where the total of liabilities and equity exceeds assets, which are generally deposit-taking segments, the Corporation allocates assets to match liabilities. Net interest income of the business segments also includes an allocation of net interest income generated by the Corporation’s ALM activities.
     The Corporation’s ALM activities include an overall interest rate risk management strategy that incorporates the use of interest rate contracts to manage fluctuations in earnings that are caused by interest rate volatility. The Corporation’s goal is to manage interest rate sensitivity so that movements in interest rates do not significantly adversely affect net interest income. The Corporation’s ALM activities are allocated to the business segments and fluctuate based on performance. ALM activities include external product pricing decisions including deposit pricing strategies, the effects of the Corporation’s internal funds transfer pricing process and the net effects of other ALM activities.

215


Table of Contents

     Certain expenses not directly attributable to a specific business segment are allocated to the segments. The most significant of these expenses include data and item processing costs and certain centralized or shared functions. Data processing costs are allocated to the segments based on equipment usage. Item processing costs are allocated to the segments based on the volume of items processed for each segment. The costs of certain centralized or shared functions are allocated based on methodologies that reflect utilization.
     The following tables present total revenue, net of interest expense, on a FTE basis and net income (loss) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, and total assets at June 30, 2011 and 2010 for each business segment, as well as All Other.
                         
  Business Segments
  Three Months Ended June 30
  Total Corporation (1)  Deposits  Global Card Services 
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Net interest income (2)
 $11,493  $13,197  $2,281  $2,144  $3,611  $4,442 
Noninterest income
  1,990   16,253   1,020   1,551   1,925   2,506 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  13,483   29,450   3,301   3,695   5,536   6,948 
Provision for credit losses
  3,255   8,105   31   61   481   3,796 
Amortization of intangibles
  382   439   39   49   183   203 
Other noninterest expense
  22,474   16,814   2,560   2,523   1,699   1,649 
 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (12,628)  4,092   671   1,062   3,173   1,300 
Income tax expense (benefit) (2)
  (3,802)  969   241   388   1,138   474 
 
Net income (loss)
 $(8,826) $3,123  $430  $674  $2,035  $826 
 
Period-end total assets
 $2,261,319  $2,368,384  $449,123  $439,770  $161,756  $184,213 
 
 
  Consumer Real  Global Commercial  Global Banking & 
  Estate Services  Banking  Markets 
  2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Net interest income (2)
 $579  $992  $1,827  $2,097  $1,791  $2,002 
Noninterest income (loss)
  (11,894)  1,712   983   786   5,005   3,902 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  (11,315)  2,704   2,810   2,883   6,796   5,904 
Provision for credit losses
  1,507   2,390   (417)  623   (82)  (133)
Amortization of intangibles
  4   13   15   18   29   37 
Other noninterest expense
  8,643   2,725   1,053   956   4,684   4,698 
 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (21,469)  (2,424)  2,159   1,286   2,165   1,302 
Income tax expense (benefit) (2)
  (6,949)  (882)  778   471   607   404 
 
Net income (loss)
 $(14,520) $(1,542) $1,381  $815  $1,558  $898 
 
Period-end total assets
 $185,398  $223,998  $280,289  $306,234  $691,249  $718,563 
 
 
  Global Wealth &    
  Investment Management  All Other 
  2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Net interest income (2)
 $1,571  $1,443  $(167) $77 
Noninterest income
  2,919   2,746   2,032   3,050 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  4,490   4,189   1,865   3,127 
Provision for credit losses
  72   122   1,663   1,246 
Amortization of intangibles
  112   117   -   2 
Other noninterest expense
  3,519   3,152   316   1,111 
 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  787   798   (114)  768 
Income tax expense (benefit) (2)
  281   469   102   (355)
 
Net income (loss)
 $506  $329  $(216) $1,123 
 
Period-end total assets
 $284,294  $252,507  $209,210  $243,099 
 
 
(1) 
There were no material intersegment revenues.
 
(2) 
FTE basis

216


Table of Contents

                         
  Business Segments
  Six Months Ended June 30
  Total Corporation (1)  Deposits  Global Card Services 
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Net interest income (2)
 $23,890  $27,267  $4,486  $4,319  $7,358  $9,262 
Noninterest income
  16,688   34,473   2,004   3,094   3,865   4,576 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  40,578   61,740   6,490   7,413   11,223   13,838 
Provision for credit losses
  7,069   17,910   64   98   1,442   7,331 
Amortization of intangibles
  767   885   78   98   367   407 
Other noninterest expense
  42,372   34,143   5,113   5,041   3,484   3,257 
 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (9,630)  8,802   1,235   2,176   5,930   2,843 
Income tax expense (benefit) (2)
  (2,853)  2,497   450   804   2,160   1,049 
 
Net income (loss)
 $(6,777) $6,305  $785  $1,372  $3,770  $1,794 
 
Period-end total assets
 $2,261,319  $2,368,384  $449,123  $439,770  $161,756  $184,213 
 
                         
  Consumer Real  Global Commercial  Global Banking & 
  Estate Services  Banking  Markets 
  2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Net interest income (2)
 $1,475  $2,199  $3,677  $4,290  $3,828  $4,172 
Noninterest income (loss)
  (10,727)  4,038   1,784   1,685   10,854   11,425 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  (9,252)  6,237   5,461   5,975   14,682   15,597 
Provision for credit losses
  2,605   5,990   (338)  1,559   (284)  103 
Amortization of intangibles
  11   25   29   37   59   73 
Other noninterest expense
  13,437   5,960   2,145   1,968   9,376   8,951 
 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  (25,305)  (5,738)  3,625   2,411   5,531   6,470 
Income tax expense (benefit) (2)
  (8,370)  (2,119)  1,321   891   1,839   2,333 
 
Net income (loss)
 $(16,935) $(3,619) $2,304  $1,520  $3,692  $4,137 
 
Period-end total assets
 $185,398  $223,998  $280,289  $306,234  $691,249  $718,563 
 
 
                 
  Global Wealth &    
  Investment Management  All Other 
  2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Net interest income (2)
 $3,140  $2,907  $(74) $118 
Noninterest income
  5,842   5,323   3,066   4,332 
 
Total revenue, net of interest expense
  8,982   8,230   2,992   4,450 
Provision for credit losses
  118   363   3,462   2,466 
Amortization of intangibles
  223   233   -   12 
Other noninterest expense
  7,007   6,135   1,810   2,831 
 
Income (loss) before income taxes
  1,634   1,499   (2,280)  (859)
Income tax expense (benefit) (2)
  595   731   (848)  (1,192)
 
Net income (loss)
 $1,039  $768  $(1,432) $333 
 
Period-end total assets
 $284,294  $252,507  $209,210  $243,099 
 
 
 
(1) 
There were no material intersegment revenues.
 
(2) 
FTE basis

217


Table of Contents

     The tables below present a reconciliation of the six business segments’ total revenue, net of interest expense, on a FTE basis, and net income to the Consolidated Statement of Income, and total assets to the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The adjustments presented in the tables below include consolidated income, expense and asset amounts not specifically allocated to individual business segments.
                 
  Three Months Ended June 30 Six Months Ended June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010 2011 2010
 
Segments’ total revenue, net of interest expense (1)
 $11,618  $26,323  $37,586  $57,290 
Adjustments:
                
ALM activities
  1,145   976   910   1,726 
Equity investment income
  1,139   2,253   2,547   2,765 
Liquidating businesses
  62   444   112   1,048 
FTE basis adjustment
  (247)  (297)  (465)  (618)
Other
  (481)  (546)  (577)  (1,089)
 
Consolidated revenue, net of interest expense
 $13,236  $29,153  $40,113  $61,122 
 
 
Segments’ net income (loss)
 $(8,610) $2,000  $(5,345) $5,972 
Adjustments, net-of-tax:
                
ALM activities
  (535)  (452)  (1,945)  (479)
Equity investment income
  718   1,419   1,605   1,742 
Liquidating businesses
  (9)  103   (44)  272 
Merger and restructuring charges
  101   320   228   648 
Other
  (491)  (267)  (1,276)  (1,850)
 
Consolidated net income (loss)
 $(8,826) $3,123  $(6,777) $6,305 
 
(1) 
FTE basis
         
  June 30
  (Dollars in millions) 2011 2010
 
Segments’ total assets
 $2,052,109  $2,125,285 
Adjustments:
        
ALM activities, including securities portfolio
  639,220   586,609 
Equity investments
  30,995   35,450 
Liquidating businesses
  10,078   33,026 
Elimination of segment excess asset allocations to match liabilities
  (629,621)  (603,543)
Other
  158,538   191,557 
 
Consolidated total assets
 $2,261,319  $2,368,384 
 

218


Table of Contents

Part II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
     See Litigation and Regulatory Matters in Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements, which is incorporated by reference in this Item 1, for litigation and regulatory disclosure that supplements the disclosure in Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K and in Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
     There are no material changes from the risk factors set forth under Part 1, Item 1A. Risk Factors in the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K, other than the addition of the following risk factors.
Mortgage and Housing Related Risk
     We have been, and expect to continue to be, required to repurchase mortgage loans and/or reimburse the GSEs and monolines for losses due to claims related to representations and warranties made in connection with sales of RMBS and mortgage loans, and have received similar claims, and may receive additional claims, from whole loan purchasers, private-label securitization investors and private-label securitization trustees, monolines and others. We have recorded provisions for certain of these exposures and have settled others on a bulk basis. However, the ultimate resolution of these exposures could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.
     In connection with loans sold to GSEs and investors other than GSEs, we or our subsidiaries or legacy companies made various representations and warranties. Breaches of these representations and warranties may result in a requirement that we repurchase mortgage loans, or indemnify or provide other remedies to counterparties. Bank of America and legacy Countrywide sold approximately $1.1 trillion of loans originated from 2004 through 2008 to the GSEs. In addition, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries sold loans originated from 2004 through 2008 with an original principal balance of $963 billion to investors other than GSEs.
     The amount of our total unresolved repurchase claims from all sources totaled approximately $11.6 billion at June 30, 2011. These repurchase claims include $1.7 billion in demands from investors (none of whom are in the Investor Group) in the Covered Trusts received in the third quarter of 2010, but otherwise do not include any repurchase claims related to the Covered Trusts. The total amount of our recorded liability related to representations and warranties repurchase exposure was $17.8 billion at June 30, 2011. We recorded a provision of $14.0 billion in the three months ended June 30, 2011, of which $8.6 billion was for the BNY Mellon Settlement and $5.4 billion was for non-GSE and to a lesser extent GSE exposures.
     It is reasonably possible that future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of the amounts recorded for non-GSE exposures. Our estimated liability and range of possible loss with respect to non-GSE transactions is necessarily dependent on, and limited by, our historical claims experience with non-GSE investors and may materially change in the future based on factors beyond our control. Future provisions and/or estimated ranges of possible loss associated with representations and warranties made in non-GSE transactions may be materially impacted if actual results are different from our assumptions in our predictive models, including, without limitation, those regarding ultimate resolution of the BNY Mellon Settlement, estimated repurchase rates, economic conditions, home prices, consumer and counterparty behavior, and a variety of judgmental factors. In addition, we have not recorded any representations and warranties liability for certain potential monoline exposures and certain potential whole loan and other private-label exposures. After giving effect to the BNY Mellon Settlement and the additional representations and warranties provisions recorded in the three months ended June 30, 2011, we currently estimate that the range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure could be up to $5 billion over existing accruals at June 30, 2011. This estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties does not represent a probable loss, is based on currently available information, significant judgment and a number of other assumptions that are subject to change, including the assumption that the conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement are satisfied. Adverse developments with respect to one or more of the assumptions underlying the liability for non-GSE representations and warranties and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss could result in significant increases to future provisions and/or this range of possible loss estimate. For example, if courts were to disagree with our interpretation that the underlying agreements require a claimant to prove that the representations and warranties breach was the cause of the loss, it could significantly impact this estimated range of possible loss. Additionally, if recent court rulings

219


Table of Contents

related to monoline litigation, including one related to us, that have allowed sampling of loan files instead of a loan-by-loan review to determine if a representations and warranties breach has occurred are followed generally by the courts, private-label securitization investors may view litigation as a more attractive alternative as compared to a loan-by-loan review. If these or other developments cause our actual future experience to differ materially from the assumptions underlying this estimated range of possible loss, the resolution of our non-GSE representations and warranties exposure could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.
     Our estimated liability with respect to the GSEs is necessarily dependent on, and limited by, our historical claims experience with the GSEs and may materially change in the future based on factors beyond our control. Future provisions associated with representations and warranties made to the GSEs may be materially impacted if actual results are different from the Corporation’s assumptions regarding economic conditions, home prices and other matters, including the repurchase behavior of the GSEs and our estimated repurchase rates (including changes related to the announcement in the second quarter of 2011 by Fannie Mae regarding mortgage insurance rescissions, cancellations and claim denials with respect to loans sold to it). We are not able to anticipate changes in the behavior of the GSEs from our past experiences. Therefore, it is not possible to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss with respect to any such potential impact in excess of current accruals on future GSE provisions if the behavior of the GSEs changes from past experience; however, any such loss could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.
     The liability for obligations under representations and warranties with respect to GSE and non-GSE exposures and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposures do not include any losses related to litigation matters disclosed in Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements, nor do they include any separate foreclosure costs and related costs and assessments or any possible losses related to potential claims for breaches of performance of servicing obligations, potential securities law or fraud claims or potential indemnity or other claims against us. We are not able to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss with respect to any such servicing, securities law (except to the extent reflected in the aggregate range of possible loss for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed in Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements), fraud or other claims against us; however, such loss could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.
     For additional information about our representations and warranties exposure, see Recent Events – Private-label Securitization Settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon in the MD&A on page 8, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties in the MD&A on page 51 and Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
     If final court approval is not obtained with respect to the BNY Mellon Settlement to resolve nearly all of the legacy Countrywide-issued first-lien non-GSE RMBS repurchase exposures of the 2004-2008 vintages, or if the Corporation and legacy Countrywide determine to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement in accordance with its terms, the Corporation’s future representations and warranties losses could be substantially different than existing accruals and the estimated range of possible loss over existing accruals, and consequently could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.
     Given the number of Covered Trusts under the BNY Mellon Settlement, the number of investors in those Covered Trusts and the complexity of the settlement with a trustee for multiple trusts, it is not possible to predict how many investors will seek to intervene in the court proceeding, how many of those and other investors may ultimately object to the BNY Mellon Settlement or the timing or ultimate outcome of the court approval process. Several alleged investors outside the Investor Group have filed, and the court has granted, petitions to intervene as parties in the pending court proceeding. Certain of these intervenors have stated that they intend to object to the BNY Mellon Settlement, while others have said that they need more information in order to determine whether to object and indicated that they therefore intend to seek discovery. In addition, it is possible that a substantial number of additional investors outside the Investor Group will also seek to intervene as parties, and some intervenors and other investors may object to the BNY Mellon Settlement. The resolutions of the objections of intervenors and/or other investors who object may materially delay or prevent receipt of final court approval. There can be no assurance that final court approval of the settlement will be obtained, that all conditions will be satisfied (including the receipt of private letter rulings from the IRS and other tax rulings and opinions) or that, if certain conditions in the BNY Mellon Settlement permitting withdrawal are met, the Corporation and legacy Countrywide will not determine to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement.
     If final court approval is not obtained with respect to the BNY Mellon Settlement or if the Corporation and legacy Countrywide determine to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement in accordance with its terms, the

220


Table of Contents

provision recorded in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, and the additional representations and warranties provisions recorded in the three months ended June 30, 2011, could be insufficient to provide for a substantial portion of the Corporation’s non-GSE representations and warranties exposures. In those circumstances, the Corporation’s future representations and warranties losses with respect to non-GSEs could substantially exceed our non-GSE reserve, together with estimated reasonably possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure of up to $5 billion over existing accruals at June 30, 2011. Developments with respect to one or more of the assumptions underlying the estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties (including the timing and ultimate outcome of the court approval process relating to the BNY Mellon Settlement) could result in significant increases in our non-GSE reserve and/or to this estimated range of possible loss, and such increases could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.
Credit Risk and Market Risk
     A downgrade in the U.S. government’s sovereign credit rating, or in the credit ratings of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by related institutions, agencies or instrumentalities, could result in risks to the Corporation and general economic conditions that we are not able to predict. In addition, uncertainty about the financial stability of several countries in the European Union (EU), the increasing risk that those countries may default on their sovereign debt and related stresses on financial markets could have a significant adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, which in turn could adversely affect our stock price.
     On July 13, 2011, Moody’s placed the U.S. government under review for a possible credit ratings downgrade, and on August 2, 2011, Moody’s confirmed the U.S. government’s existing sovereign rating, but stated that the rating outlook is negative. On July 14, 2011, S&P placed its sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government on CreditWatch with negative implications. On August 2, 2011, Fitch affirmed its existing sovereign rating of the U.S. government, but stated that the rating is under review. There continues to be the perceived risk of a sovereign credit ratings downgrade of the U.S. government, including the rating of U.S. Treasury securities. It is foreseeable that the ratings and perceived creditworthiness of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by institutions, agencies or instrumentalities directly linked to the U.S. government could also be correspondingly affected by any such downgrade. Instruments of this nature are key assets on the balance sheets of financial institutions, including the Corporation, and are widely used as collateral by financial institutions to meet their day-to-day cash flows in the short-term debt market. A downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government and perceived creditworthiness of U.S. government-related obligations could impact our ability to obtain funding that is collateralized by affected instruments, as well as affecting the pricing of that funding when it is available. A downgrade may also adversely affect the market value of such instruments. We cannot predict if, when or how any changes to the credit ratings or perceived creditworthiness of these organizations will affect economic conditions. Such ratings actions could result in a significant adverse impact to the Corporation. In addition, the Corporation presently delivers a material portion of the residential mortgage loans it originates into the government-sponsored institutions, agencies or instrumentalities (or instruments insured or guaranteed thereby). We cannot predict if, when or how any changes to the credit ratings of these organizations will affect their ability to finance residential mortgage loans. Such ratings actions, if any, could result in a significant change to the business operations ofCRES.
     A downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government or the credit ratings of related institutions, agencies or instrumentalities would significantly exacerbate the other risks to which the Corporation is subject and any related adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including those described under Risk Factors – Credit Risk – “We could suffer losses as a result of the actions of or deterioration in the commercial soundness of our counterparties and other financial services institutions,” Risk Factors – Market Risk – “Our businesses and results of operations have been, and may continue to be, significantly adversely affected by changes in the levels of market volatility and by other financial or capital market conditions” and Risk Factors – Liquidity Risk – “Our liquidity, cash flows, financial condition and results of operations, and competitive position may be significantly adversely affected if we are unable to access capital markets, continue to raise deposits, sell assets on favorable terms, or if there is an increase in our borrowing costs” in the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
     In 2010, a financial crisis emerged in Europe, triggered by high budget deficits and rising direct and contingent sovereign debt in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, which created concerns about the ability of these EU “peripheral nations” to continue to service their sovereign debt obligations. These conditions impacted financial markets and resulted in high and volatile bond yields on the sovereign debt of many EU nations. Certain European nations continue to experience varying degrees of financial stress, and yields on government-issued bonds in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain have risen and remain volatile. Despite assistance packages to Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the creation of a joint EU-IMF European Financial Stability Facility in May 2010, and a recently announced plan to expand financial assistance to Greece, uncertainty over the outcome of the EU governments’ financial support programs and worries about sovereign finances persist. Market concerns over the direct and indirect exposure of European banks and insurers to the EU peripheral nations has resulted in a widening of credit spreads and increased costs of funding for some European financial institutions.

221


Table of Contents

     Risks and ongoing concerns about the debt crisis in Europe could have a detrimental impact on the global economic recovery, sovereign and non-sovereign debt in these countries and the financial condition of European financial institutions. Market and economic disruptions have affected, and may continue to affect, consumer confidence levels and spending, personal bankruptcy rates, levels of incurrence and default on consumer debt and home prices, among other factors. There can be no assurance that the market disruptions in Europe, including the increased cost of funding for certain governments and financial institutions, will not spread, nor can there be any assurance that future assistance packages will be available or, even if provided, will be sufficient to stabilize the affected countries and markets in Europe or elsewhere. To the extent uncertainty regarding the economic recovery continues to negatively impact consumer confidence and consumer credit factors, our business and results of operations could be significantly and adversely affected. For example, global economic uncertainty, regulatory initiatives and reform have impacted, and will likely continue to impact, non-U.S. credit and trading portfolios. Our regional Risk Committee, a subcommittee of our Credit Risk Committee, will continue to monitor and manage this risk but there can be no assurance our efforts in this respect will be sufficient or successful. For a further discussion of our direct sovereign and non-sovereign exposures in Europe, see Second Quarter 2011 Economic and Business Environment on page 7 of the MD&A and Non-U.S. Portfolio on page 103 of the MD&A.
Liquidity Risk
     Adverse changes to our credit ratings from the major credit ratings agencies could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, cash flows, competitive position, financial condition and results of operations by significantly limiting our access to the funding or capital markets, increasing our borrowing costs, or triggering additional collateral or funding requirements.
     Our borrowing costs and ability to obtain funding are directly impacted by our credit ratings. In addition, credit ratings may be important to customers or counterparties when we compete in certain markets and when we seek to engage in certain transactions, including OTC derivatives. Credit ratings and outlooks are opinions on our creditworthiness and that of our obligations or securities, including long-term debt, short-term borrowings, preferred stock and other securities, including asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities. Our credit ratings are subject to ongoing review by the rating agencies and thus may change from time to time based on a number of factors, including our own financial strength and operations, as well as factors not under our control, such as rating agency specific criteria or frameworks for our industry or certain security types, which are subject to revision from time to time, and conditions affecting the financial services industry generally. There can be no assurance that we will maintain our current credit ratings.
     On June 2, 2011, Moody’s placed our ratings on review for possible downgrade from negative outlook due to its view that the current level of U.S. government support incorporated into our ratings may no longer be appropriate. The ratings agencies have indicated that, as a systemically important financial institution, our credit ratings currently reflect their expectation that, if necessary, we would receive significant support from the U.S. government. All three ratings agencies have indicated they will reevaluate, and could reduce the uplift they include in our ratings for government support, for reasons arising from financial services regulatory reform proposals or legislation.
     Currently, our long-term senior debt ratings and outlooks expressed by the ratings agencies are as follows: A2 (review for possible downgrade) by Moody’s; A (negative) by S&P; and A+ (Rating Watch Negative) by Fitch. A reduction in certain of our credit ratings would likely have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, access to credit markets, the related cost of funds, our businesses and on certain trading revenues, particularly in those businesses where counterparty creditworthiness is critical. If our short-term credit ratings, or those of our bank or broker-dealer subsidiaries, were downgraded by one or more levels, the potential loss of short-term funding sources such as commercial paper or repo financing, and the effect on our incremental cost of funds would be material. While certain potential impacts of a downgrade are contractual and quantifiable, the full scope of consequences to a credit rating downgrade is inherently uncertain, as it depends upon numerous dynamic, complex and inter-related factors and assumptions, including whether any downgrade of our long-term credit ratings precipitates downgrades to our short-term credit ratings, and assumptions about the behavior of various customers, investors and counterparties, whose responses to a downgrade are unknown and not reasonably knowable in advance.
     For additional information about our credit ratings and their potential effects to our liquidity, see Liquidity Risk – Credit Ratings in the MD&A on page 74 and Note 4 – Derivativesto the Consolidated Financial Statements.

222


Table of Contents

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
     The table below presents share repurchase activity for the three months ended June 30, 2011. The primary source of funds for cash distributions by the Corporation to its shareholders is dividends received from its banking subsidiaries. Each of the banking subsidiaries is subject to various regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including requirements to maintain capital above regulatory minimums. All of the Corporation’s preferred stock outstanding has preference over the Corporation’s common stock with respect to the payment of dividends.
                     
          Shares Purchased as   
(Dollars in millions, except per
 Common Shares  Weighted-average  Part of Publicly  Remaining Buyback Authority
share information; shares in thousands)
 Repurchased (1)  Per Share Price  Announced Programs  Amounts  Shares 
 
April 1-30, 2011
  101,310  $13.79   -  $-   - 
May 1-31, 2011
  99,935   13.88   -   -   - 
June 1-30, 2011
  9,925   12.35   -   -   - 
                 
Three months ended June 30, 2011
  211,170   13.76             
 
(1) 
Consists of shares acquired by the Corporation in connection with satisfaction of tax withholding obligations on vested restricted stock or restricted stock units and certain forfeitures and terminations of employment related to awards under equity incentive plans.
     The Corporation did not have any unregistered sales of its equity securities during the three months ended June 30, 2011.
Item 5.(a). Other
     In light of the previously announced voting results for the Corporation’s advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory stockholder votes on executive compensation held at its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and consistent with the recommendation of the Corporation’s Board of Directors on that proposal, the Corporation has decided that it will hold future advisory votes on executive compensation each year until the next advisory vote on frequency occurs. The Corporation is required to hold an advisory vote on frequency at least every six years.

223


Table of Contents

Item 6. Exhibits
   
Exhibit 3(a)
 
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, as in effect on the date hereof incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3(a) of the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (File No. 1-6523) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
 
  
Exhibit 3(b)
 
Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Corporation, as in effect on the date hereof incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3(b) of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K (File No. 1-6523) filed on February 25, 2011
 
  
Exhibit 4(a)
 
Supplemental Agreement to the Amended and Restated Agency Agreement dated as of July 22, 2011 among the Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A. (operating through its London branch), as Principal Agent, and Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited, as Registrar and Transfer Agent (1)
 
  
Exhibit 10(a)
 
Form of Directors’ Stock Plan Conditional Restricted Stock Award Agreement for Non-U.S. Director (1)
 
  
Exhibit 10(b)
 
Settlement Agreement dated as of June 28, 2011, among The Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Countrywide Financial Corporation, and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 of the Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K (File no. 1-6523) filed on June 29, 2011
 
  
Exhibit 10(c)
 
Institutional Investor Agreement dated as of June 28, 2011, among The Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and the other parties thereto, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 of the Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K (File no. 1-6523) filed on June 29, 2011
 
  
Exhibit 11
 
Earnings Per Share Computation – included in Note 14 – Earnings Per Common Share to the Consolidated Financial Statements
 
  
Exhibit 12
 
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (1)
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends (1)
 
  
Exhibit 31(a)
 
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(1)
 
  
Exhibit 31(b)
 
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(1)
 
  
Exhibit 32(a)
 
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (1)
 
  
Exhibit 32(b)
 
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (1)
 
  
Exhibit 101.INS
 
XBRL Instance Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.SCH
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.CAL
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.LAB
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.PRE
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.DEF
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definitions Linkbase Document (1, 2)
   
(1)  
Included herewith
 
(2)  
These interactive data files shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under those sections.

224


Table of Contents

SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
     
 Bank of America Corporation
Registrant
 
 
Date: August 4, 2011  /s/ Neil A. Cotty   
  Neil A. Cotty  
  Chief Accounting Officer
(Duly Authorized Officer) 
 
 

225


Table of Contents

     
Bank of America Corporation
Form 10-Q
Index to Exhibits
   
Exhibit Description
 
  
Exhibit 3(a)
 
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, as in effect on the date hereof incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3(a) of the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (File No. 1-6523) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
 
  
Exhibit 3(b)
 
Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Corporation, as in effect on the date hereof incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3(b) of the Corporation’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K (File No. 1-6523) filed on February 25, 2011
 
  
Exhibit 4(a)
 
Supplemental Agreement to the Amended and Restated Agency Agreement dated as of July 22, 2011 among the Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A. (operating through its London branch), as Principal Agent, and Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited, as Registrar and Transfer Agent (1)
 
  
Exhibit 10(a)
 
Form of Directors’ Stock Plan Conditional Restricted Stock Award Agreement for Non-U.S. Director (1)
 
  
Exhibit 10(b)
 
Settlement Agreement dated as of June 28, 2011, among The Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Countrywide Financial Corporation, and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 of the Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K (File no. 1-6523) filed on June 29, 2011
 
  
Exhibit 10(c)
 
Institutional Investor Agreement dated as of June 28, 2011, among The Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and the other parties thereto, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 of the Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K (File no. 1-6523) filed on June 29, 2011
 
  
Exhibit 11
 
Earnings Per Share Computation – included in Note 14 – Earnings Per Common Share to the Consolidated Financial Statements
 
  
Exhibit 12
 
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (1)
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends (1)
 
  
Exhibit 31(a)
 
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (1)
 
  
Exhibit 31(b)
 
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (1)
 
  
Exhibit 32(a)
 
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (1)
 
  
Exhibit 32(b)
 
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (1)
 
  
Exhibit 101.INS
 
XBRL Instance Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.SCH
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.CAL
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.LAB
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.PRE
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document (1, 2)
 
  
Exhibit 101.DEF
 
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definitions Linkbase Document (1, 2)
 
(1) 
Included herewith
 
(2) 
These interactive data files shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under those sections.

226