Introduction

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

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

References to “the 2013 Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. All references to 2013, 2012 and 2011 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2013, December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

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

As of December 2013, we had offices in over 30 countries and 50% of our total staff was based outside the Americas (which includes the countries in North and South America). Our clients are located worldwide, and we are an active participant in financial markets around the world. In 2013, we generated 42% of our net revenues outside the Americas. For more information on our geographic results, see Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

Our Business Segments and Segment Operating Results

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

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

Financial Advisory. Financial Advisory includes strategic advisory assignments with respect to mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, corporate defense activities, risk management, restructurings and spin-offs. In particular, we help clients execute large, complex transactions for which we provide multiple services, including acquisition financing and cross-border structuring expertise. Financial Advisory also includes revenues from derivative transactions directly related to these client advisory assignments.

We also assist our clients in managing their asset and liability exposures and their capital. In addition, we may provide lending commitments and bank loan and bridge loan facilities in connection with our advisory assignments.

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

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

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

Institutional Client Services

Institutional Client Services serves our clients who come to the firm to buy and sell financial products, raise funding and manage risk. We do this by acting as a market maker and offering market expertise on a global basis. Institutional Client Services makes markets and facilitates client transactions in fixed income, equity, currency and commodity products. In addition, we make markets in and clear client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide. Market makers provide liquidity and play a critical role in price discovery, which contributes to the overall efficiency of the capital markets. Our willingness to make markets, commit capital and take risk in a broad range of products is crucial to our client relationships.

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

Through our global sales force, we maintain relationships with our clients, receiving orders and distributing investment research, trading ideas, market information and analysis. As a market maker, we provide prices to clients globally across thousands of products in all major asset classes and markets. At times we take the other side of transactions ourselves if a buyer or seller is not readily available and at other times we connect our clients to other parties who want to transact. Much of this connectivity between the firm and its clients is maintained on technology platforms and operates globally wherever and whenever markets are open for trading.

Institutional Client Services and our other businesses are supported by our Global Investment Research division, which, as of December 2013, provided fundamental research on more than 3,700 companies worldwide and more than 40 national economies, as well as on industries, currencies and commodities.

Institutional Client Services generates revenues in four ways:

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

Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution. Includes interest rate products, credit products, mortgages, currencies and commodities.

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

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

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

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

Commissions and Fees. We generate commissions and fees from executing and clearing institutional client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide. We provide our clients with access to a broad spectrum of equity execution services, including electronic “low-touch” access and more traditional “high-touch” execution. While the majority of our equity trading activity is “low-touch,” the majority of our net revenues continue to be derived from our “high-touch” activity. We expect both types of activity to remain important.

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

Investing & Lending

Our investing and lending activities, which are typically longer-term, include the firm’s investing and relationship lending activities across various asset classes, primarily debt securities and loans, public and private equity securities, and real estate. These activities include investing directly in publicly and privately traded securities and in loans, and also through certain investment funds that we manage. We manage a diversified global portfolio of investments in equity securities and debt and other investments in privately negotiated transactions, leveraged buyouts, acquisitions and investments in funds managed by external parties. We also provide financing to our clients.

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

Debt Securities and Loans. We make corporate, real estate and infrastructure debt investments. In addition, we provide credit to corporate clients through loan facilities and to high-net-worth individuals primarily through secured loans.

Other. Our other investments primarily include consolidated investments, for which we have an exit strategy and which are engaged in activities that are not closely related to our principal businesses. We also invest directly in distressed assets, currencies, commodities and other assets.

Investment Management

Investment Management provides investment and wealth advisory services to help clients preserve and grow their financial assets. Our clients include institutions and high-net-worth individuals, as well as retail investors who access our products through a network of third-party distributors around the world.

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

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

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

Management and Other Fees. The majority of revenues in management and other fees is comprised of asset-based fees on client assets. The fees that we charge vary by asset class and are affected by investment performance as well as asset inflows and redemptions. Other fees we receive include financial counseling fees generated through our wealth advisory services and fees related to the administration of real estate assets.

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

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

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

Business Continuity and Information Security

Business continuity and information security, including cyber security, are high priorities for Goldman Sachs. Our Business Continuity Program has been developed to provide reasonable assurance of business continuity in the event of disruptions at the firm’s critical facilities and to comply with regulatory requirements, including those of FINRA. Because we are a bank holding company, our Business Continuity Program is also subject to review by the Federal Reserve Board. The key elements of the program are crisis planning and management, people recovery, business recovery, systems and data recovery, and process improvement. In the area of information security, we have developed and implemented a framework of principles, policies and technology to protect the information provided to us by our clients and that of the firm from cyber attacks and other misappropriation, corruption or loss. Safeguards are applied to maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information.

Employees

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

Instilling the Goldman Sachs culture in all employees is a continuous process, in which training plays an important part. All employees are offered the opportunity to participate in education and periodic seminars that we sponsor at various locations throughout the world. Another important part of instilling the Goldman Sachs culture is our employee review process. Employees are reviewed by supervisors, co-workers and employees they supervise in a 360-degree review process that is integral to our team approach, and includes an evaluation of an employee’s performance with respect to risk management, compliance and diversity. As of December 2013, we had 32,900 total staff.

Competition

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

Over time, there has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the financial services industry and, in particular, the credit crisis caused numerous mergers and asset acquisitions among industry participants. Efforts by our competitors to gain market share have resulted in pricing pressure in our investment banking and client execution businesses and could result in pricing pressure in other of our businesses. Moreover, we have faced, and expect to continue to face, pressure to retain market share by committing capital to businesses or transactions on terms that offer returns that may not be commensurate with their risks. In particular, corporate clients seek such commitments (such as agreements to participate in their commercial paper backstop or other loan facilities) from financial services firms in connection with investment banking and other assignments.

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

We have experienced intense price competition in some of our businesses in recent years. For example, over the past several years the increasing volume of trades executed electronically, through the internet and through alternative trading systems, has increased the pressure on trading commissions, in that commissions for “low-touch” electronic trading are generally lower than for “high-touch” non-electronic trading. It appears that this trend toward electronic and other “low-touch,” low-commission trading will continue. In addition, we believe that we will continue to experience competitive pressures in these and other areas in the future as some of our competitors seek to obtain market share by further reducing prices.

The provisions of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the requirements promulgated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee) and other financial regulation could affect our competitive position to the extent that limitations on activities, increased fees and compliance costs or other regulatory requirements do not apply, or do not apply equally, to all of our competitors or are not implemented uniformly across different jurisdictions. The impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and other regulatory developments on our competitive position will depend to a large extent on the manner in which the required rulemaking and regulatory guidance evolve, the extent of international convergence, and the development of market practice and structures under the new regulatory regimes as discussed further under “Regulation” below.

We also face intense competition in attracting and retaining qualified employees. Our ability to continue to compete effectively will depend upon our ability to attract new employees, retain and motivate our existing employees and to continue to compensate employees competitively amid intense public and regulatory scrutiny on the compensation practices of large financial institutions. Our pay practices and those of our principal competitors are subject to review by, and the standards of, the Federal Reserve Board and regulators outside the United States, including the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom. See “Regulation — Banking Regulation” and “Regulation — Compensation Practices” below and “Risk Factors — Our businesses may be adversely affected if we are unable to hire and retain qualified employees” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K for more information on the regulation of our compensation practices.

Regulation

As a participant in the banking, securities, investment management, and derivatives industries, we are subject to extensive regulation worldwide. Regulatory bodies around the world are generally charged with safeguarding the integrity of the securities and other financial markets and with protecting the interests of the customers of market participants, including depositors in banking entities and the customers of broker-dealers, investment advisers, swap dealers and security-based swap dealers.

The financial services industry has been the subject of intense regulatory scrutiny in recent years. Our businesses have been subject to increasing regulation and supervision in the United States and other countries, and we expect this trend to continue in the future. In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, significantly altered the financial regulatory regime within which we operate. The implications of the Dodd-Frank Act for our businesses will depend to a large extent on the implementation of the legislation by the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the SEC, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and other agencies, as well as the development of market practices and structures under the regime established by the legislation and the implementing rules. Other reforms have been adopted or are being considered by other regulators and policy makers worldwide, as discussed further throughout this section. We will continue to update our business, risk management, and compliance practices to conform to developments in the regulatory environment.

Bank Holding Company Regulation

Group Inc. is a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHC Act) and a financial holding company under amendments to the BHC Act effected by the U.S. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLB Act).

Supervision and Regulation

As a bank holding company and a financial holding company under the BHC Act, Group Inc. is subject to supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve Board. Under the system of “functional regulation” established under the BHC Act, the Federal Reserve Board serves as the primary regulator of our consolidated organization, but generally defers to the primary regulators of our U.S. non-bank subsidiaries with respect to the activities of those subsidiaries. Such “functionally regulated” non-bank subsidiaries include broker-dealers registered with the SEC, such as our principal U.S. broker-dealer, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), entities registered with or regulated by the CFTC with respect to futures-related and swaps-related activities and investment advisers registered with the SEC with respect to their investment advisory activities.

As discussed further below, our subsidiary, GS Bank USA, is supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the New York State Department of Financial Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In addition, Group Inc. has two limited purpose trust company subsidiaries that are not permitted to accept deposits or make loans (other than as incidental to their trust activities) and are not insured by the FDIC. The Goldman Sachs Trust Company, N.A., a national banking association that is limited to fiduciary activities, is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and is a member bank of the Federal Reserve System. The Goldman Sachs Trust Company of Delaware, a Delaware limited purpose trust company, is regulated by the Office of the Delaware State Bank Commissioner.

Activities

The BHC Act generally restricts bank holding companies from engaging in business activities other than the business of banking and certain closely related activities. Financial holding companies, however, generally can engage in a broader range of financial and related activities than are otherwise permissible for bank holding companies as long as they continue to meet the eligibility requirements for financial holding companies. These requirements include that the financial holding company and each of its U.S. depository institution subsidiaries maintain their status as “well-capitalized” and “well-managed.” The broader range of permissible activities for financial holding companies includes underwriting, dealing and making markets in securities and making investments in non-financial companies. In addition, financial holding companies are permitted under the GLB Act to engage in certain commodities activities in the United States that may otherwise be impermissible for bank holding companies, so long as the assets held pursuant to these activities do not equal 5% or more of their consolidated assets.

The Federal Reserve Board, however, has the authority to limit our ability to conduct activities that would otherwise be permissible for a financial holding company, and will do so if we do not satisfactorily meet certain requirements of the Federal Reserve Board. In addition, we are required to obtain prior Federal Reserve Board approval before engaging in certain banking and other financial activities both in the United States and abroad.

Volcker Rule

In December 2013, the final rules to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule” were adopted. We are required to be in compliance with the rule (including the development of an extensive compliance program) by July 2015 with certain provisions of the rule subject to possible extensions through July 2017.

The Volcker rule prohibits “proprietary trading,” but will allow activities such as underwriting, market making and risk-mitigation hedging. In anticipation of the final rule, we evaluated this prohibition and determined that businesses that engage in “bright line” proprietary trading were most likely to be prohibited. In 2010 and 2011, we liquidated substantially all of our Global Macro Proprietary and Principal Strategies trading positions.

In addition to the prohibition on proprietary trading, the Volcker rule limits the sponsorship of, and investment in, “covered funds” (as defined in the rule) by banking entities, including Group Inc. and its subsidiaries. It also limits certain types of transactions between us and our sponsored funds, similar to the limitations on transactions between depository institutions and their affiliates as described below under “— Transactions with Affiliates.” Covered funds include our private equity funds, certain of our credit and real estate funds, and our hedge funds. The limitation on investments in covered funds requires us to reduce our investment in each such fund to 3% or less of the fund’s net asset value, and to reduce our aggregate investment in all such funds to 3% or less of our Tier 1 capital. In anticipation of the final rule, we limited our initial investment in certain new covered funds to 3% of the fund’s net asset value.

We continue to manage our existing funds, taking into account the transition periods under the Volcker Rule. As a result, in March 2012, we began redeeming certain interests in our hedge funds and will continue to do so.

For certain of our covered funds, in order to be compliant with the Volcker Rule by the prescribed compliance date, to the extent that the underlying investments of the particular funds are not sold, the firm may be required to sell its investments in such funds. If that occurs, the firm may receive a value for its investments that is less than the then carrying value, as there could be a limited secondary market for these investments and the firm may be unable to sell them in orderly transactions.

Although our net revenues from investments in our private equity, credit, real estate and hedge funds may vary from period to period, our aggregate net revenues from these investments were not material to our aggregate total net revenues over the period from 1999 through 2013.

Leveraged Lending

In March 2013, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies (Agencies) issued updated guidance on leveraged lending. The guidance focuses on transaction structures and risk management frameworks and outlines high-level principles for safe-and-sound leveraged lending, including underwriting standards, valuation and stress testing. Although the full impact of the guidance remains uncertain, implementation of this guidance and any related changes in the leveraged lending market could adversely affect our leveraged lending business.

Capital and Liquidity Requirements

As a bank holding company, we are subject to consolidated regulatory capital requirements administered by the Federal Reserve Board, and GS Bank USA is subject to broadly similar capital requirements.

Under the Federal Reserve Board’s capital adequacy requirements and, in the case of GS Bank USA, the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, both Group Inc. and GS Bank USA must meet specific regulatory capital requirements that involve quantitative measures of assets, liabilities and certain off-balance-sheet items. The sufficiency of our capital levels and those of GS Bank USA, as well as GS Bank USA’s prompt corrective action classification, are also subject to qualitative judgments by regulators.

Other regulated subsidiaries, including GS&Co. and Goldman Sachs International (GSI), are also subject to capital requirements. We expect Group Inc., GS Bank USA, GS&Co., GSI and other regulated subsidiaries to become subject to increased capital requirements over time.

Capital Ratios. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Equity Capital — Consolidated Regulatory Capital Ratios” in Part II, Item 7 of the 2013 Form 10-K and Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for information on our Tier 1 capital ratio, Tier 1 capital, Total capital ratio, total capital, risk-weighted assets (RWAs) including the market risk capital rules, Tier 1 leverage ratio, Common Equity Tier 1 (defined below), Common Equity Tier 1 ratio and Tier 1 supplementary leverage ratio (supplementary leverage ratio), and for a discussion of minimum required ratios.

Revised market risk capital rules of the Federal Reserve Board became effective on January 1, 2013. These rules required the addition of several new model-based capital requirements, as well as an increase in capital requirements for securitization positions, and were designed to implement the new market risk framework of the Basel Committee, as well as a prohibition on the use of external credit ratings, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Changes in Capital Requirements. The Agencies have approved revised risk-based capital and leverage ratio regulations establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations (Revised Capital Framework). These regulations are largely based on the Basel Committee’s December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards (Basel III), and significantly revise the risk-based capital and leverage ratio requirements applicable to bank holding companies as compared to the previous U.S. risk-based capital and leverage ratio rules, and thereby, implement certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Under the Revised Capital Framework, Group Inc. is an “Advanced approach” banking organization. Below are the aspects of the rules that are most relevant to us as an Advanced approach banking organization.

Definition of Capital and Capital Ratios. The Revised Capital Framework introduced changes to the definition of regulatory capital, which, subject to transitional provisions, became effective across our regulatory capital and leverage ratios on January 1, 2014. These changes include the introduction of a new capital measure called Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1), and the related regulatory capital ratio of CET1 to RWAs (CET1 ratio). In addition, the definition of Tier 1 capital has been narrowed to include only CET1 and instruments such as perpetual non-cumulative preferred stock that meet certain criteria.

Certain aspects of the revised requirements phase in over time. These include increases in the minimum capital ratio requirements and the introduction of new capital buffers and certain deductions from regulatory capital (such as investments in nonconsolidated financial institutions). In addition, junior subordinated debt issued to trusts is being phased out of regulatory capital. It is first phased out of Tier 1 capital but is eligible as Tier 2 capital for an interim period through December 31, 2015, after which it will also be phased out of Tier 2 capital through December 31, 2021.

The minimum CET1 ratio is 4.0% as of January 1, 2014 and will increase to 4.5% on January 1, 2015. The minimum Tier 1 capital ratio increased from 4.0% to 5.5% on January 1, 2014 and will increase to 6.0% beginning January 1, 2015. The minimum Total capital ratio remains unchanged at 8.0%. These minimum ratios will be supplemented by a new capital conservation buffer that phases in, beginning on January 1, 2016, in increments of 0.625% per year until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019. The Revised Capital Framework also introduces a new counter-cyclical capital buffer, to be imposed in the event that national supervisors deem it necessary in order to counteract excessive credit growth.

Certain adjustments to calculate CET1 are subject to transition provisions. Most items that were previously deducted from Tier 1 capital become deductions from CET1, many of which transition into CET1 deductions at a rate of 20% per year, beginning in January 2014. The Revised Capital Framework also introduced new deductions from CET1 (such as investments in nonconsolidated financial institutions), which are also phased in as CET1 deductions at a rate of 20% per year with residual amounts subject to risk weighting.

Risk-Weighted Assets. In February 2014, the Federal Reserve Board informed us that we have completed a satisfactory “parallel run,” as required of Advanced approach banking organizations under the Revised Capital Framework, and therefore changes to RWAs will take effect beginning with the second quarter of 2014. Accordingly, the calculation of RWAs in future quarters will be based on the following methodologies:

The primary difference between the Standardized approach and the Basel III Advanced approach is that the Standardized approach utilizes prescribed risk-weightings and does not contemplate the use of internal models to compute exposure for credit risk on derivatives and securities financing transactions, whereas the Basel III Advanced approach permits the use of such models, subject to supervisory approval. In addition, RWAs under the Standardized approach depend largely on the type of counterparty (e.g., whether the counterparty is a sovereign, bank, broker-dealer or other entity), rather than on assessments of each counterparty’s creditworthiness. Furthermore, the Standardized approach does not include a capital requirement for operational risk. RWAs for market risk under both the Standardized and Basel III Advanced approaches are based on the Federal Reserve Board’s revised market risk regulatory capital requirements described above.

For information on our RWAs, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Equity Capital — Risk-Weighted Assets” in Part II, Item 7 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

Regulatory Leverage Ratios. The Revised Capital Framework increased the minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio applicable to us from 3% to 4% effective January 1, 2014.

In addition, the Revised Capital Framework will introduce a new supplementary leverage ratio for Advanced approach banking organizations, which compares Tier 1 capital (as defined under the Revised Capital Framework) to a measure of leverage exposure (defined as the sum of our assets less certain CET1 deductions plus certain off-balance-sheet exposures).

The Revised Capital Framework requires a minimum supplementary leverage ratio of 3%, effective January 1, 2018, but with disclosure required beginning in the first quarter of 2015.

Liquidity Ratios under Basel III. Historically, regulation and monitoring of bank and bank holding company liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, both in the United States and internationally, without required formulaic measures. Basel III will require banks and bank holding companies to measure their liquidity against two specific liquidity tests that, although similar in some respects to liquidity measures historically applied by banks and regulators for management and supervisory purposes, will be mandated by regulation. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio, is designed to ensure that the entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets under an acute liquidity stress scenario. The other, referred to as the net stable funding ratio, is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of these entities over a one-year time horizon. These requirements may incentivize banking entities to increase their holdings of securities that qualify as high-quality liquid assets and increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source. Under the Basel Committee’s framework, the liquidity coverage ratio would be introduced on January 1, 2015; however there would be a phase-in period whereby firms would have a 60% minimum in 2015, which would be raised 10% per year until it reaches 100% in 2019. The net stable funding ratio is not expected to be introduced as a requirement until January 1, 2018.

In October 2013, the Agencies issued a proposal on minimum liquidity standards that is generally consistent with the Basel Committee’s framework as described above, but with certain modifications to the high-quality liquid asset definition and expected cash outflow assumptions, and accelerated transition provisions. In addition, under the proposed accelerated transition timeline, the liquidity coverage ratio would be introduced on January 1, 2015; however, there would be an accelerated U.S. phase-in period whereby firms would have an 80% minimum in 2015 which would be raised 10% per year until it reaches 100% in 2017.

While the principles behind the new frameworks proposed by the Basel Committee and the Agencies are broadly consistent with our current liquidity management framework, it is possible that the refinement and implementation of these standards could impact our liquidity and funding requirements and practices.

Stress Tests. In October 2012, the Federal Reserve Board issued final rules implementing the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act concerning the Dodd-Frank Act supervisory stress tests to be conducted by the Federal Reserve Board and semi-annual company-run stress tests for bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. The stress test rules require increased involvement by boards of directors in stress testing and, since March 2013, public disclosure of the results of both the Federal Reserve Board’s annual stress tests and a bank holding company’s annual supervisory stress tests, and semi-annual internal stress tests. Certain stress test requirements are also applicable to GS Bank USA, as discussed below.

We published a summary of our annual Dodd-Frank Act stress test results under the Federal Reserve Board’s severely adverse scenario in March 2013. We submitted the results of our mid-cycle Dodd-Frank Act stress test to the Federal Reserve Board in July 2013 and we published a summary of our mid-cycle Dodd-Frank Act stress test results under our internally developed severely adverse scenario in September 2013. Our internally developed severely adverse scenario is designed to stress the firm’s risks and idiosyncratic vulnerabilities and assess the firm’s pro-forma capital position and ratios under the hypothetical stressed environment. We provide additional information on our annual and mid-cycle Dodd-Frank Act stress test results on our web site as described under “Available Information” below. Our annual Dodd-Frank Act stress test submission is incorporated into the annual capital plans that we are required to submit to the Federal Reserve Board as part of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR).

Payment of Dividends and Stock Repurchases. Dividend payments by Group Inc. to its shareholders and stock repurchases by Group Inc. are subject to the oversight of the Federal Reserve Board. The dividend and share repurchase policies of large bank holding companies, such as Group Inc., are reviewed by the Federal Reserve Board based on capital plans and stress tests submitted by the bank holding company, and will be assessed against, among other things, the bank holding company’s ability to meet and exceed minimum regulatory capital ratios under stressed scenarios, its expected sources and uses of capital over the planning horizon (generally a period of two years) under baseline and stressed scenarios, and any potential impact of changes to its business plan and activities on its capital adequacy and liquidity. The purpose of the capital plan review is to ensure that these institutions have robust, forward-looking capital planning processes that account for each institution’s unique risks and that permit continued operations during times of economic and financial stress. As part of the capital plan review, the Federal Reserve Board will evaluate an institution’s plan to make capital distributions, such as repurchasing or redeeming stock or increasing dividend payments, across a range of macro-economic and firm-specific assumptions.

As part of our initial 2013 CCAR submission, the Federal Reserve Board informed us that it did not object to our proposed capital actions through the first quarter of 2014, including the repurchase of outstanding common stock, an increase in our quarterly common stock dividend, and the possible issuance, redemption and modification of other capital securities. As required by the Federal Reserve Board, we resubmitted our 2013 capital plan in September 2013, incorporating certain enhancements to our stress testing process. In December 2013, the Federal Reserve Board informed us that it did not object to our resubmitted capital plan. We submitted our 2014 CCAR to the Federal Reserve in January 2014 and expect to publish a summary of our annual Dodd-Frank Act stress test results in March 2014.

Enhanced Prudential Standards. In February 2014, the Federal Reserve Board adopted rules to implement certain of the enhanced prudential standards contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Beginning January 1, 2015, the rules require bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets to comply with enhanced liquidity and overall risk management standards, including a buffer of highly liquid assets based on projected funding needs for 30 days, and increased involvement by boards of directors in liquidity and overall risk management. The liquidity buffer is in addition to the Agencies’ proposal on minimum liquidity standards discussed above. Although the rules are broadly consistent with our current liquidity and overall risk management frameworks, it is possible that the implementation of the rules could impact our liquidity, funding and risk management practices.

Regulatory Proposals

In addition to the regulatory rule changes that have already been adopted (as discussed above), both the Federal Reserve Board and the Basel Committee have proposed other changes, which are discussed below. The full impact of these proposals on the firm will not be known with certainty until after any resulting rules are finalized and market practices develop under the final rules. Furthermore, these proposals, the Dodd-Frank Act, other reform initiatives proposed and announced by the Agencies, the Basel Committee, and other governmental entities and regulators (including the European Union (EU), the PRA and the FCA) are not in all cases consistent with one another, which adds further uncertainty to our future capital, leverage and liquidity requirements, and those of our subsidiaries.

Federal Reserve Board Proposals. In December 2011, the Federal Reserve Board proposed rules to implement the enhanced prudential standards and early remediation requirements contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Although many of these proposals have now been addressed in final rules that are described above, the single-counterparty credit limits and early remediation requirements are still under consideration. The proposed single-counterparty credit limits impose more stringent requirements for credit exposure among major financial institutions, which (together with other provisions incorporated into the Basel III capital rules) may affect our ability to transact or hedge with other financial institutions. The proposed early remediation rules are modeled on the prompt corrective action regime, described below, but are designed to require action to begin in earlier stages of a company’s financial distress, based on a range of triggers, including capital and leverage, stress test results, liquidity and risk management.

Subsequent to the approval of the Revised Capital Framework, the Agencies issued a proposal to increase the minimum supplementary leverage ratio requirement for the largest U.S. banks (those deemed to be global systemically important banking institutions (G-SIBs) under the Basel G-SIB framework). These proposals would require us and other G-SIBs to meet a 5% supplementary leverage ratio (comprised of the current minimum requirement of 3% plus a 2% buffer). In addition, the Basel Committee recently finalized revisions that would increase the size of the leverage exposure for purposes of the supplementary leverage ratio, but would retain a minimum supplementary leverage ratio requirement of 3%. It is not known with certainty at this point whether the U.S. regulators will adopt this revised definition of leverage into their rules and proposals for the supplementary leverage ratio.

Basel Committee Proposals. The Basel Committee has updated its methodology for assessing the global systemic importance of banking institutions and determining the range of additional CET1 that should be maintained by those deemed to be G-SIBs. The required amount of additional CET1 for these institutions will initially range from 1% to 2.5% and could be higher in the future for a banking institution that increases its systemic footprint (e.g., by increasing total assets). In November 2013, the Financial Stability Board (established at the direction of the leaders of the Group of 20) indicated that we would be required to hold an additional 1.5% of CET1 as a G-SIB,

based on our 2012 financial data. The final determination of the amount of additional CET1 that we will be required to hold will initially be based on our 2013 financial data and the manner and timing of the U.S. banking regulators’ implementation of the Basel Committee’s methodology. The Basel Committee indicated that G-SIBs will be required to meet the capital surcharges on a phased-in basis beginning in 2016 through 2019.

The Basel Committee has also published its final guidelines for calculating incremental capital requirements for domestic systemically important banking institutions (D-SIBs). These guidelines are complementary to the framework outlined above for G-SIBs, but are more principles-based in order to provide an appropriate degree of national discretion. The impact of these guidelines on the regulatory capital requirements of GS Bank USA, GSI and other of our subsidiaries will depend on how they are implemented by the banking and non-banking regulators in the United States and other jurisdictions.

The Basel Committee has released other consultation papers that may result in further changes to regulatory capital requirements, including a “Fundamental Review of the Trading Book” and “Revisions to the Basel Securitization Framework.”

Resolution and Recovery Plans

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve Board and FDIC have jointly issued a rule requiring each bank holding company with over $50 billion in assets and each designated systemically important financial institution to provide to regulators an annual plan for its rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure (resolution plan). Our resolution plan must, among other things, demonstrate that GS Bank USA is adequately protected from risks arising from our other entities. The regulators’ joint rule sets specific standards for the resolution plans, including requiring a detailed resolution strategy and analyses of the company’s material entities, organizational structure, interconnections and interdependencies, and management information systems, among other elements. In April 2013, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC provided additional guidance to us relating to our 2013 resolution plan. Group Inc. submitted its 2013 resolution plan to its regulators in September 2013. Group Inc. is also required to submit, on an annual basis, a global recovery plan to regulators that outlines the steps that management could take over time to reduce risk, raise liquidity, and conserve capital in times of prolonged stress. We have been submitting yearly plans since 2010.

Source of Strength

Federal Reserve Board policy historically has required bank holding companies to act as a source of strength to their bank subsidiaries and to commit capital and financial resources to support those subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codifies this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required by the Federal Reserve Board at times when we might otherwise determine not to provide it. Capital loans by a bank holding company to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of the subsidiary bank. In addition, if a bank holding company commits to a federal bank regulator that it will maintain the capital of its bank subsidiary, whether in response to the Federal Reserve Board’s invoking its source-of-strength authority or in response to other regulatory measures, that commitment will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and the bank will be entitled to priority payment in respect of that commitment, ahead of other creditors of the bank holding company.

The BHC Act provides for regulation of bank holding company activities by various functional regulators and prohibits the Federal Reserve Board from requiring a payment by a holding company subsidiary to a depository institution if the functional regulator of that subsidiary objects to such payment. In such a case, the Federal Reserve Board could instead require the divestiture of the depository institution and impose operating restrictions pending the divestiture.

Compensation Practices

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

In June 2010, the Agencies jointly issued guidance designed to ensure that incentive compensation arrangements at banking organizations take into account risk and are consistent with safe and sound practices. The guidance sets forth the following three key principles with respect to incentive compensation arrangements: the arrangements should provide employees with incentives that appropriately balance risk and financial results in a manner that does not encourage employees to expose their organizations to imprudent risk; the arrangements should be compatible with effective controls and risk management; and the arrangements should be supported by strong corporate governance. In addition, the Federal Reserve

Board has conducted a review of the incentive compensation policies and practices of a number of large, complex banking organizations, including us. The June 2010 guidance provides that supervisory findings with respect to incentive compensation will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect its ability to make acquisitions or perform other actions. The guidance also provides that enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements or related risk management, control or governance processes pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness.

The Financial Stability Board has released standards for implementing certain compensation principles for banks and other financial companies designed to encourage sound compensation practices. These standards are to be implemented by local regulators. In Europe, the Fourth Capital Requirements Directive (CRD4) includes compensation provisions designed to implement the Financial Stability Board’s compensation standards within the EU. These rules are being implemented by EU member states and, among other things, limit the ratio of variable to fixed compensation of certain employees identified as having a material impact on the risk profile of EU-regulated entities, including GSI and certain other affiliates. These requirements are in addition to the guidance issued by U.S. financial regulators discussed above and the Dodd-Frank Act provision discussed below.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the U.S. financial regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board, to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities having at least $1 billion in total assets (which would include Group Inc. and some of its depository institution, broker-dealer and investment advisor subsidiaries) that encourage inappropriate risks by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements. The initial version of these regulations was proposed by the U.S. financial regulators in early 2011 but the regulations have not yet been finalized. The proposed regulations incorporate the three key principles from the June 2010 regulatory guidance discussed above. If the regulations are adopted in the form initially proposed, they may restrict our flexibility with respect to the manner in which we structure compensation.

Regulation of GS Bank USA

Our subsidiary, GS Bank USA, an FDIC-insured, New York State-chartered bank and a member of the Federal Reserve System, is supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the New York State Department of Financial Services and the CFPB, and is subject to minimum capital requirements (described below) that are calculated in a manner similar to those applicable to bank holding companies. A number of our activities are conducted partially or entirely through GS Bank USA and its subsidiaries, including: origination of bank loans; interest rate, credit, currency and other derivatives; leveraged finance; mortgage origination; structured finance; and agency lending.

Under rules adopted by the Agencies in 2012 under the Dodd-Frank Act, GS Bank USA is required to undertake stress tests, to submit the results to the Federal Reserve Board, and to make a summary of those results public. The rules require that the board of directors of GS Bank USA, among other things, consider the results of the stress tests in the normal course of the bank’s business including, but not limited to, its capital planning, assessment of capital adequacy and risk management practices.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains “derivative push-out” provisions that will prevent us from conducting certain swaps-related activities through GS Bank USA, subject to exceptions for certain interest rate, currency and cleared credit default swaps and for hedging or risk mitigation activities directly related to the bank’s business. In July 2013, the Federal Reserve Board granted GS Bank USA an extension through July 2015 to comply with these derivative push-out provisions. Precluded activities may be conducted elsewhere within the firm, subject to certain requirements and potential registration as a swap or security-based swap dealer.

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

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

Federal and state laws impose limitations on the payment of dividends by our depository institution subsidiaries to Group Inc. In general, the amount of dividends that may be paid by GS Bank USA or our national bank trust company subsidiary is limited to the lesser of the amounts calculated under a “recent earnings” test and an “undivided profits” test. Under the recent earnings test, a dividend may not be paid if the total of all dividends declared by the entity in any calendar year is in excess of the current year’s net income combined with the retained net income of the two preceding years, unless the entity obtains prior regulatory approval. Under the undivided profits test, a dividend may not be paid in excess of the entity’s “undivided profits” (generally, accumulated net profits that have not been paid out as dividends or transferred to surplus). The banking regulators have authority to prohibit or limit the payment of dividends if, in the banking regulator’s opinion, payment of a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in light of the financial condition of the banking organization.

Deposit Insurance. GS Bank USA accepts deposits, and those deposits have the benefit of FDIC insurance up to the applicable limits. The FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund is funded by assessments on insured depository institutions, such as GS Bank USA. The amounts of these assessments for larger depository institutions (generally those that have $10 billion in assets or more), such as GS Bank USA, are currently based on the average total consolidated assets less the average tangible equity of the insured depository institution during the assessment period, the supervisory ratings of the insured depository institution and specified forward-looking financial measures used to calculate the assessment rate. The assessment rate is subject to adjustment by the FDIC.

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

A depository institution is generally deemed to be “well-capitalized,” the highest category, if it has a Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 6%, a Total capital ratio of at least 10% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5%. GS Bank USA has agreed with the Federal Reserve Board to maintain minimum capital ratios in excess of these “well-capitalized” levels. Under the Revised Capital Framework, as of January 1, 2014, GS Bank USA became subject to a new minimum CET1 ratio requirement of 4%, increasing to 4.5% in 2015. In addition, the Revised Capital Framework changes the standards for “well-capitalized” status under prompt corrective action regulations beginning January 1, 2015 by, among other things, introducing a CET1 ratio requirement of 6.5% and increasing the Tier 1 capital ratio requirement from 6% to 8%. In addition, commencing, January 1, 2018, Advanced approach banking organizations, such as GS Bank USA, must have a supplementary leverage ratio of 3% or greater. Shortly after the approval of the Revised Capital Framework, in July 2013, the Agencies issued a proposal that would also require that U.S. insured depository institution subsidiaries of U.S. G-SIBs, such as GS Bank USA, meet a “well-capitalized” supplementary leverage ratio requirement of 6%, which would be effective beginning January 1, 2018 if the proposal is enacted as proposed.

See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for information on GS Bank USA’s regulatory capital ratios.

GS Bank USA computes its risk-based capital ratios in accordance with the regulatory capital requirements applicable to state member banks, which are based on the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies. As of December 2013, these capital requirements were based on the Basel I Capital Accord of the Basel Committee, and also reflected the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board, which became effective on January 1, 2013.

The Revised Capital Framework is also applicable to GS Bank USA, which is an Advanced approach banking organization under this framework. GS Bank USA has also been informed by the Federal Reserve Board that it has completed a satisfactory parallel run, as required of Advanced approach banking organizations under the Revised Capital Framework, and therefore changes to its calculations of RWAs will take effect beginning with the second quarter of 2014.

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

The prompt corrective action regulations apply only to depository institutions and not to bank holding companies such as Group Inc. However, the Federal Reserve Board is authorized to take appropriate action at the holding company level, based upon the undercapitalized status of the holding company’s depository institution subsidiaries. In certain instances relating to an undercapitalized depository institution subsidiary, the bank holding company would be required to guarantee the performance of the undercapitalized subsidiary’s capital restoration plan and might be liable for civil money damages for failure to fulfill its commitments on that guarantee. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the holding company, the guarantee would take priority over the holding company’s general unsecured creditors, as described under “— Source of Strength” above.

Insolvency of an Insured Depository Institution or a Bank Holding Company

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950, if the FDIC is appointed as conservator or receiver for an insured depository institution such as GS Bank USA, upon its insolvency or in certain other events, the FDIC has broad powers, including the power:

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

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new resolution regime (known as “orderly liquidation authority”) for bank holding companies and their affiliates, and systemically important non-bank financial companies. Under the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver for the systemically important institution, and its failed non-bank subsidiaries, for purposes of liquidating the entity if, among other conditions, it is determined at the time of the institution’s failure that it is in default or in danger of default and the failure poses a risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system.

If the FDIC is appointed as receiver under the orderly liquidation authority, then the powers of the receiver, and the rights and obligations of creditors and other parties who have dealt with the institution, would be determined under the orderly liquidation authority, and not under the insolvency law that would otherwise apply. The powers of the receiver under the orderly liquidation authority were generally based on the powers of the FDIC as receiver for depository institutions under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Substantial differences in the rights of creditors exist between the orderly liquidation authority and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including the right of the FDIC under the orderly liquidation authority to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims in some circumstances, the use of an administrative claims procedure to determine creditors’ claims (as opposed to the judicial procedure utilized in bankruptcy proceedings), and the right of the FDIC to transfer claims to a “bridge” entity. In addition, the orderly liquidation authority limits the ability of creditors to enforce certain contractual cross-defaults against affiliates of the institution in receivership.

The orderly liquidation authority provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act became effective upon enactment. The FDIC has completed several rulemakings under the orderly liquidation authority, but may provide additional guidance. New guidance may affect the manner in which the new authority is applied, particularly with respect to broker-dealer and futures commission merchant subsidiaries of bank holding companies. The FDIC issued a notice in December 2013 describing some elements of its “single point of entry” or “SPOE” strategy pursuant to the orderly liquidation authority provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, under which the FDIC would, among other things, resolve a failed financial holding company by transferring its assets to a “bridge” holding company.

Resolution Plan

The FDIC issued a rule requiring each insured depository institution with $50 billion or more in assets, such as GS Bank USA, to provide a resolution plan. Similar to our resolution plan for Group Inc., our resolution plan for GS Bank USA must, among other things, demonstrate that it is adequately protected from risks arising from our other entities. GS Bank USA submitted its 2013 resolution plan to its regulators in September 2013.

Broker-Dealer and Securities Regulation

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

In addition, state securities and other regulators also have regulatory or oversight authority over GS&Co. Similarly, our businesses are also subject to regulation by various non-U.S. governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory authorities in virtually all countries where we have offices, as discussed further under “Other Regulation” below. GSEC and one of its subsidiaries are registered U.S. broker-dealers and are regulated by the SEC, the NYSE and FINRA. For a discussion of net capital requirements applicable to GS&Co. and GSEC, see Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

Our exchange-based market-making activities are subject to extensive regulation by a number of securities exchanges. As a Designated Market Maker (DMM) on the NYSE and as a market maker on other exchanges, we are required to maintain orderly markets in the securities to which we are assigned. Under the NYSE’s DMM rules, this may require us to supply liquidity to these markets when markets are declining.

The Dodd-Frank Act will result in additional regulation by the SEC, the CFTC and other regulators of our broker-dealer and regulated subsidiaries in a number of respects. The legislation calls for the imposition of expanded standards of care by market participants in dealing with clients and customers, including by providing the SEC with authority to adopt rules establishing fiduciary duties for broker-dealers and directing the SEC to examine and improve sales practices and disclosure by broker-dealers and investment advisers.

Our broker-dealer and other subsidiaries will also be affected by rules to be adopted by federal agencies pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act that require any person who organizes or initiates an asset-backed security transaction to retain a portion (generally, at least five percent) of any credit risk that the person conveys to a third party. Securitizations will also be affected by rules proposed by the SEC in September 2011 to implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition against securitization participants’ engaging in any transaction that would involve or result in any material conflict of interest with an investor in a securitization transaction. The proposed rules would exempt bona fide market-making activities and risk-mitigating hedging activities in connection with securitization activities from the general prohibition.

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

Swaps, Derivatives and Commodities Regulation

The commodity futures, commodity options and swaps industry in the United States is subject to regulation under the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act. The CFTC is the federal agency charged with the administration of the CEA. In addition, the SEC is the federal agency charged with the regulation of security-based swaps. Several of Goldman Sachs’ subsidiaries, including GS&Co. and GSEC, are registered with the CFTC and act as futures commission merchants, commodity pool operators, commodity trading advisors or (as discussed below) swap dealers, and are subject to CFTC regulations. The rules and regulations of various self-regulatory organizations, such as the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, other futures exchanges and the National Futures Association, also govern the commodity futures, commodity options and swaps activities of these entities. In addition, Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) is registered with the SEC as an OTC derivatives dealer and conducts certain OTC derivatives activities.

The Dodd-Frank Act provides for significantly increased regulation of and restrictions on derivative markets and transactions. In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes the following requirements relating to swaps and security-based swaps:

The terms “swaps” and “security-based swaps” are generally defined broadly for purposes of these requirements, and can include a wide variety of derivative instruments in addition to those conventionally called swaps. The definition includes certain forward contracts, options, certain loan participations and guarantees of swaps, subject to certain exceptions, and relates to a wide variety of underlying assets or obligations, including currencies, commodities, interest or other monetary rates, yields, indices, securities, credit events, loans and other financial obligations.

The CFTC is responsible for issuing rules relating to swaps, swap dealers and major swap participants, and the SEC is responsible for issuing rules relating to security-based swaps, security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants. Although the CFTC has not yet finalized its margin requirements or capital regulations, certain of the requirements, including registration of swap dealers, business conduct standards and real-time public trade reporting, have taken effect already under CFTC rules, and the SEC and the CFTC have finalized the definitions of a number of key terms. In addition, the CFTC has implemented rules requiring the mandatory clearing of certain credit default swaps and interest rate swaps between dealers, and between swap dealers and non-dealer financial entities. Finally, the CFTC has commenced making determinations regarding which swaps must be traded on swap execution facilities or exchanges, and certain interest rate swaps and credit default swaps are now subject to these trade-execution requirements. The CFTC is expected to continue to make such determinations during 2014.

The SEC has proposed rules to impose margin, capital and segregation requirements for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants. The SEC has also proposed rules relating to registration of security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, trade reporting and real-time reporting, and business conduct requirements for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, and has proposed rules and guidance on the cross-border regulation of security-based swaps. The SEC has proposed, but not yet finalized, rules that would govern the design of new trading venues for security-based swaps and establish the process for determining which products must be traded on these venues.

We have registered certain subsidiaries as “swap dealers” under the CFTC rules, including GS&Co., GS Bank USA, GSI and J. Aron & Company. We expect that these entities, and our businesses more broadly, will be subject to significant and developing regulation and regulatory oversight in connection with swap-related activities.

Similar regulations have been proposed or adopted in jurisdictions outside the United States, including the introduction of standardized execution and clearing, margining and reporting requirements for OTC derivatives. For instance, the EU has established a set of new regulatory requirements for EU derivatives activities under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation. These requirements include various risk management requirements that have already become effective and regulatory reporting and clearing requirements that are expected to start becoming effective in 2014.

The full application of new derivatives rules across different national and regulatory jurisdictions has not yet been fully established. In July 2013, the CFTC finalized guidance and timing on the cross-border regulation of swaps and announced that it had reached an understanding with the European Commission regarding the cross-border regulation of derivatives and the common goals underlying their respective regulations. However, specific determinations of the extent to which regulators in each of the relevant jurisdictions will defer to regulations in other jurisdictions have not yet been completed. The full impact of the various U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory developments in this area will not be known with certainty until all the rules are finalized and implemented and market practices and structures develop under the final rules.

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

In addition, as a result of our power-related and commodities activities, we are subject to energy, environmental and other governmental laws and regulations, as discussed under “Risk Factors — Our commodities activities, particularly our physical commodities activities, subject us to extensive regulation, potential catastrophic events and environmental, reputational and other risks that may expose us to significant liabilities and costs” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K.

Investment Management Regulation

Our investment management business is subject to significant regulation in numerous jurisdictions around the world relating to, among other things, the safeguarding of client assets, offerings of funds, marketing activities, transactions among affiliates and our management of client funds. Certain of our subsidiaries are registered with, and subject to oversight by, the SEC as investment advisers. In June 2013, the SEC proposed amendments to the rules governing the regulation of money market funds, which included two alternatives that could be adopted separately or in a combined manner: a floating net asset value and/or restrictions on redemptions. The full impact of the amendments on us will not be known with certainty until the amendments are finalized and market practices and structures develop under the amended rules.

Other Regulation

The U.S. and non-U.S. government agencies, regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations, as well as state securities commissions and other state regulators in the United States, are empowered to conduct administrative proceedings that can result in censure, fine, the issuance of cease and desist orders, or the suspension or expulsion of a regulated entity or its directors, officers or employees. In addition, a number of our other activities require us to obtain licenses, adhere to applicable regulations and be subject to the oversight of various regulators in the jurisdictions in which we conduct these activities. Regulatory oversight has been increasing, as well as the level of fines and penalties imposed by regulatory agencies. Our subsidiaries are subject to various and numerous requests for information, investigations and proceedings, and sanctions have been imposed for infractions of various regulations relating to our activities.

In Europe, Goldman Sachs provides investment services that are subject to oversight by national regulators as well as the EU. These investment services are regulated in accordance with national laws, many of which implement EU directives, and increasingly by directly applicable EU regulations. These national and EU laws require, among other things, compliance with certain capital adequacy standards, customer protection requirements and market conduct and trade reporting rules.

Goldman Sachs provides investment services in and from the United Kingdom under the regulation of the PRA and the FCA. GSI, our regulated U.K. broker-dealer subsidiary, is subject to the capital requirements imposed by the PRA. Other subsidiaries, including Goldman Sachs International Bank (GSIB), our regulated U.K. bank, are also regulated by the PRA and the FCA. As of December 2013, GSI and GSIB were in compliance with the PRA capital requirements.

Various other Goldman Sachs entities are regulated by the banking and securities regulatory authorities of the European countries in which they operate, including, among others, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) and the Bundesbank in Germany, the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel and the Autorité des Marchés Financiers in France, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority. In November 2014, a new Single Supervisory Mechanism will become effective, under which the European Central Bank and national supervisors will both have certain regulatory responsibilities for banks in participating EU member states. While the U.K. does not participate in this new mechanism, it will affect how the firm’s banks in Germany and France are regulated and supervised.

The EU and national financial legislators and regulators have proposed or adopted numerous market reforms that may impact our businesses. These include stricter capital and liquidity requirements, including recently finalized legislation to implement Basel III capital requirements for certain of our EU subsidiaries (such as GSI). These market reforms also include rules on the recovery and resolution of EU institutions, rules on the separation of certain trading activities from deposit taking, rules on the cross-border provision of services from countries outside the European Economic Area, authorizations for regulators to impose position limits, requirements to execute certain transactions only on certain regulated venues, reporting requirements (including requirements to publish information about transactions), restrictions on short selling and credit default swaps, additional obligations and restrictions on the management and marketing of funds in the EU, sanctions for regulatory breach and further revised organizational, market structure, conduct of business and market abuse rules. In addition, the European Commission, the European Securities Market Authority and the European Banking Authority have announced or are formulating regulatory standards and other measures which will impact our European operations. Certain Goldman Sachs entities are also regulated by the European securities, derivatives and commodities exchanges of which they are members.

In February 2013, the European Commission published a proposal for enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transactions tax in response to a request from certain member states of the EU. The proposed financial transactions tax is broad in scope and would apply to transactions in a wide variety of financial instruments and derivatives. The draft legislation is still subject to further revisions and the full impact of the proposal will not be known with certainty until the legislation is finalized.

Goldman Sachs Japan Co., Ltd. (GSJCL), our regulated Japanese broker-dealer, is subject to the capital requirements imposed by Japan’s Financial Services Agency. As of December 2013, GSJCL was in compliance with its capital adequacy requirements. GSJCL is also regulated by the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Osaka Securities Exchange, the Tokyo Financial Exchange, the Japan Securities Dealers Association, the Tokyo Commodity Exchange, Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, Bank of Japan, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, among others.

Also, the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the Korean Financial Supervisory Service, the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Securities Exchange, among others, regulate various of our subsidiaries and also have capital standards and other requirements comparable to the rules of the SEC. Various other Goldman Sachs entities are regulated by the banking and regulatory authorities in countries in which Goldman Sachs operates, including, among others, Brazil and Dubai.

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

In addition, we are subject to laws and regulations worldwide, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the U.K. Bribery Act, relating to corrupt and illegal payments to, and hiring practices with regard to, government officials and others. The obligation of financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, to identify their clients, to monitor for and report suspicious transactions, to monitor direct and indirect payments to government officials, to respond to requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies, and to share information with other financial institutions, has required the implementation and maintenance of internal practices, procedures and controls that have increased, and may continue to increase, our costs, and any failure with respect to our programs in this area could subject us to substantial liability and regulatory fines.

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

Certain of our businesses are subject to compliance with regulations enacted by U.S. federal and state governments, the EU or other jurisdictions and/or enacted by various regulatory organizations or exchanges relating to the privacy of the information of clients, employees or others, and any failure to comply with these regulations could expose us to liability and/or reputational damage.

Available Information

Our internet address is www.gs.com and the investor relations section of our web site is located at www.gs.com/shareholders. We make available free of charge through the investor relations section of our web site, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), as well as proxy statements, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Also posted on our web site, and available in print upon request of any shareholder to our Investor Relations Department, are our certificate of incorporation and by-laws, charters for our Audit Committee, Risk Committee, Compensation Committee, and Corporate Governance, Nominating and Public Responsibilities Committee, our Policy Regarding Director Independence Determinations, our Policy on Reporting of Concerns Regarding Accounting and Other Matters, our Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics governing our directors, officers and employees. Within the time period required by the SEC, we will post on our web site any amendment to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and any waiver applicable to any executive officer, director or senior financial officer.

In addition, our web site includes information concerning:

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

We have included or incorporated by reference in the 2013 Form 10-K, and from time to time our management may make, statements that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are not historical facts, but instead represent only our beliefs regarding future events, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and outside our control. These statements include statements other than historical information or statements of current condition and may relate to our future plans and objectives and results, among other things, and may also include statements about the effect of changes to the capital and leverage rules applicable to banks and bank holding companies, the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our businesses and operations, and various legal proceedings or mortgage-related contingencies as set forth under “Legal Proceedings” and “Certain Mortgage-Related Contingencies” in Notes 27 and 18, respectively, to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K, as well as statements about the results of our Dodd-Frank Act and firm stress tests, statements about the objectives and effectiveness of our risk management and liquidity policies, statements about trends in or growth opportunities for our businesses, statements about our future status, activities or reporting under U.S. or non-U.S. banking and financial regulation, and statements about our investment banking transaction backlog.

By identifying these statements for you in this manner, we are alerting you to the possibility that our actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ from those indicated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, those discussed below and under “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K.

In the case of statements about our investment banking transaction backlog, such statements are subject to the risk that the terms of these transactions may be modified or that they may not be completed at all; therefore, the net revenues, if any, that we actually earn from these transactions may differ, possibly materially, from those currently expected. Important factors that could result in a modification of the terms of a transaction or a transaction not being completed include, in the case of underwriting transactions, a decline or continued weakness in general economic conditions, outbreak of hostilities, volatility in the securities markets generally or an adverse development with respect to the issuer of the securities and, in the case of financial advisory transactions, a decline in the securities markets, an inability to obtain adequate financing, an adverse development with respect to a party to the transaction or a failure to obtain a required regulatory approval. For a discussion of other important factors that could adversely affect our investment banking transactions, see “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K.

We have voluntarily provided in this filing information regarding the firm’s and GS Bank USA’s estimated capital ratios, including CET1 ratios under the Advanced and Standardized approaches on a fully phased-in and transitional basis, Basel I Adjusted capital ratio and supplementary leverage ratio. The statements with respect to the estimated ratios are forward-looking statements, based on our current interpretation, expectations and understandings of the Revised Capital Framework and related proposals to increase the minimum supplementary leverage ratio. The information regarding estimated ratios includes significant assumptions concerning the treatment of various assets and liabilities and the manner in which the ratios are calculated under the Revised Capital Framework. As a result, the methods used to calculate these estimates may differ, possibly materially, from those used in calculating the estimates for any future voluntary disclosures as well as those used when such ratios are required to be disclosed. The ultimate methods of calculating the ratios will depend on, among other things, the promulgation of final rules to increase the minimum supplementary leverage ratio, supervisory approval of our internal models used under the Advanced approach for calculating CET1, implementation guidance from the Agencies and the development of market practices and standards.

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

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

Our businesses, by their nature, do not produce predictable earnings, and all of our businesses are materially affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic conditions generally, both directly and through their impact on client activity levels. Since 2008, these conditions have changed suddenly and, for a period of time, very negatively. In 2008 and through early 2009, the financial services industry and the securities markets generally were materially and adversely affected by significant declines in the values of nearly all asset classes and by a serious lack of liquidity. Since 2011, concerns about European sovereign debt risk and its impact on the European banking system, and about U.S. growth and uncertainty regarding U.S. federal fiscal and monetary policies, the U.S. federal debt ceiling and the continued funding of the U.S. government, have resulted, at times, in significant volatility while negatively impacting the levels of client activity.

Since 2008, governments, regulators and central banks in the United States and worldwide have taken numerous steps to increase liquidity and to restore investor and public confidence. In addition, numerous legislative and regulatory actions have been taken to deal with what regulators, politicians and others believe to be the root causes of the financial crisis, including laws and regulations relating to financial institution capital, liquidity and leverage requirements and compensation practices, restrictions on the type of activities in which financial institutions are permitted to engage, and generally increased regulatory scrutiny. Additional taxes have been, and may in the future be, imposed on us and certain other financial institutions and on financial transactions in which we engage. Many of the regulations that are required to implement this legislation (including the Dodd-Frank Act) are still being developed or are not yet in effect; therefore, the exact impact that these regulations will have on our businesses, results of operations and cash flows is presently unclear. Certain of these regulations have or will soon come into effect, and liquidity in financial markets may be negatively impacted as market participants and market practices and structures adjust to these new requirements.

National and local governments continue to face difficult financial conditions due to significant reductions in tax revenues, particularly from corporate and personal income taxes, as well as increased outlays for unemployment benefits due to high unemployment levels and the cost of stimulus programs.

General uncertainty about economic, political and market activities, and the timing and final details of regulatory reform, as well as a lack of consumer, investor and CEO confidence resulting in large part from such uncertainty, continues to negatively impact client activity which, together with low levels of volatility, has adversely affected many of our businesses.

Our revenues, profitability and return on equity are significantly below 2007 levels, due primarily to the post-2008 economic, financial and political conditions (including the uncertainty about future regulations) and their impact on the markets and the level of client activity. In addition, our revenues and profitability and those of our competitors have been and will continue to be impacted by changes resulting from the financial crisis, including increased capital requirements, minimum liquidity levels and levels of regulatory oversight, as well as limitations on the type of and manner in which certain business activities may be carried out by financial institutions. Financial institution returns have also been negatively impacted by increased funding costs due in part to the withdrawal of perceived government support of such institutions in the event of future financial crises.

The degree to which these and other changes resulting from the financial crisis will have a long-term impact on the profitability of financial institutions will depend on the final interpretation and implementation of new regulations, the manner in which markets, market participants and financial institutions adapt to the new landscape, and the prevailing economic and financial market conditions. However, there is a risk that such changes will, at least in the near-term, continue to negatively impact the absolute level of revenues, profitability and return on equity at our firm and at other financial institutions.

Our financial performance is highly dependent on the environment in which our businesses operate. A favorable business environment is generally characterized by, among other factors, high global gross domestic product growth, transparent, liquid and efficient capital markets, low inflation, high business and investor confidence, stable geopolitical conditions, regulatory certainty and strong business earnings. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by: concerns about sovereign defaults; uncertainty in U.S. federal fiscal or monetary policy, the U.S. federal debt ceiling and the continued funding of the U.S. government; uncertainty about the timing and nature of regulatory reforms; declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence; limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital; increases in inflation, interest rates, exchange rate volatility, default rates or the price of basic commodities; outbreaks of hostilities or other geopolitical instability; corporate, political or other scandals that reduce investor confidence in capital markets; extreme weather events or other natural disasters or pandemics; or a combination of these or other factors.

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

Many of our businesses have net “long” positions in debt securities, loans, derivatives, mortgages, equities (including private equity and real estate) and most other asset classes. These include positions we take when we act as a principal to facilitate our clients’ activities, including our exchange-based market-making activities, or commit large amounts of capital to maintain positions in interest rate and credit products, as well as through our currencies, commodities, equities and mortgage-related activities. Because substantially all of these investing, lending and market-making positions are marked-to-market on a daily basis, declines in asset values directly and immediately impact our earnings, unless we have effectively “hedged” our exposures to such declines. In certain circumstances (particularly in the case of leveraged loans and private equities or other securities that are not freely tradable or lack established and liquid trading markets), it may not be possible or economic to hedge such exposures and to the

extent that we do so the hedge may be ineffective or may greatly reduce our ability to profit from increases in the values of the assets. Sudden declines and significant volatility in the prices of assets may substantially curtail or eliminate the trading markets for certain assets, which may make it very difficult to sell, hedge or value such assets. The inability to sell or effectively hedge assets reduces our ability to limit losses in such positions and the difficulty in valuing assets may negatively affect our capital, liquidity or leverage ratios, increase our funding costs and generally require us to maintain additional capital.

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

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

We post collateral to support our obligations and receive collateral to support the obligations of our clients and counterparties in connection with our client execution businesses. When the value of the assets posted as collateral declines, the party posting the collateral may need to provide additional collateral or, if possible, reduce its trading position. A classic example of such a situation is a “margin call” in connection with a brokerage account. Therefore, declines in the value of asset classes used as collateral mean that either the cost of funding positions is increased or the size of positions is decreased. If we are the party providing collateral, this can increase our costs and reduce our profitability and if we are the party receiving collateral, this can also reduce our profitability by reducing the level of business done with our clients and counterparties. In addition, volatile or less liquid markets increase the difficulty of valuing assets which can lead to costly and time-consuming disputes over asset values and the level of required collateral, as well as increased credit risk to the recipient of the collateral due to delays in receiving adequate collateral.

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

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

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

In addition, we may incur significant unrealized gains or losses due solely to changes in our credit spreads or those of third parties, as these changes may affect the fair value of our derivative instruments and the debt securities that we hold or issue, which may in turn adversely affect our results of operations and capital ratios.

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

Certain of our market-making activities depend on market volatility to provide trading and arbitrage opportunities to our clients, and decreases in volatility may reduce these opportunities and adversely affect the results of these activities. On the other hand, increased volatility, while it can increase trading volumes and spreads, also increases risk as measured by Value-at-Risk (VaR) and may expose us to increased risks in connection with our market-making activities or cause us to reduce our market-making positions in order to avoid increasing our VaR. Limiting the

size of our market-making positions can adversely affect our profitability. In periods when volatility is increasing, but asset values are declining significantly, it may not be possible to sell assets at all or it may only be possible to do so at steep discounts. In such circumstances we may be forced to either take on additional risk or to incur losses in order to decrease our VaR. In addition, increases in volatility increase the level of our RWAs and increase our capital requirements, both of which in turn increase our funding costs.

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

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

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

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

Our investment management business may be affected by the poor investment performance of our investment products.

Poor investment returns in our investment management business, due to either general market conditions or underperformance (relative to our competitors or to benchmarks) by funds or accounts that we manage or investment products that we design or sell, affects our ability to retain existing assets and to attract new clients or additional assets from existing clients. This could affect the management and incentive fees that we earn on assets under supervision or the commissions and net spreads that we earn for selling other investment products, such as structured notes or derivatives.

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

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

The models that we use to assess and control our risk exposures reflect assumptions about the degrees of correlation or lack thereof among prices of various asset classes or other market indicators. In times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances, such as occurred during 2008 and early 2009, and to some extent since 2011,

previously uncorrelated indicators may become correlated, or conversely previously correlated indicators may move in different directions. These types of market movements have at times limited the effectiveness of our hedging strategies and have caused us to incur significant losses, and they may do so in the future. These changes in correlation can be exacerbated where other market participants are using risk or trading models with assumptions or algorithms that are similar to ours. In these and other cases, it may be difficult to reduce our risk positions due to the activity of other market participants or widespread market dislocations, including circumstances where asset values are declining significantly or no market exists for certain assets.

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

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

For a further discussion of our risk management policies and procedures, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management and Risk Factors” in Part II, Item 7 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

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

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

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

Further, our ability to sell assets may be impaired if other market participants are seeking to sell similar assets at the same time, as is likely to occur in a liquidity or other market crisis. In addition, financial institutions with which we interact may exercise set-off rights or the right to require additional collateral, including in difficult market conditions, which could further impair our access to liquidity.

Our credit ratings are important to our liquidity. A reduction in our credit ratings could adversely affect our liquidity and competitive position, increase our borrowing costs, limit our access to the capital markets or trigger our obligations under certain provisions in some of our trading and collateralized financing contracts. Under these provisions, counterparties could be permitted to terminate contracts with Goldman

Sachs or require us to post additional collateral. Termination of our trading and collateralized financing contracts could cause us to sustain losses and impair our liquidity by requiring us to find other sources of financing or to make significant cash payments or securities movements. Certain rating agencies have indicated that the Dodd-Frank Act could result in the rating agencies reducing their assumed level of government support and therefore result in ratings downgrades for certain large financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs. As of December 2013, each of Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services and Ratings and Investment Information, Inc. had issued a negative outlook on our long-term credit ratings. As of December 2013, in the event of a one-notch and two-notch downgrade of our credit ratings our counterparties could have called for additional collateral or termination payments related to our net derivative liabilities under bilateral agreements in an aggregate amount of $911 million and $2.99 billion, respectively. A downgrade by any one rating agency, depending on the agency’s relative ratings of the firm at the time of the downgrade, may have an impact which is comparable to the impact of a downgrade by all rating agencies. For a further discussion of our credit ratings, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity Risk Management — Credit Ratings” in Part II, Item 7 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

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

Conflicts of interest are increasing and a failure to appropriately identify and address conflicts of interest could adversely affect our businesses.

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

In addition, our status as a bank holding company subjects us to heightened regulation and increased regulatory scrutiny by the Federal Reserve Board with respect to transactions between GS Bank USA and entities that are or could be viewed as affiliates of ours.

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

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

Group Inc. is a holding company and, therefore, depends on dividends, distributions and other payments from its subsidiaries to fund dividend payments and to fund all payments on its obligations, including debt obligations. Many of our subsidiaries, including our broker-dealer and

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

As a result of the 2008 financial crisis, there has been a trend towards increased regulation and supervision of our subsidiaries by the governments and regulators in the countries in which those subsidiaries are located or do business. Concerns about protecting clients and creditors of financial institutions that are controlled by persons or entities located outside of the country in which such entities are located or do business have caused or may cause a number of governments and regulators to take additional steps to “ring fence” such entities in order to protect clients and creditors of such entities in the event of financial difficulties involving such entities. The result has been and may continue to be additional limitations on our ability to efficiently move capital and liquidity among our affiliated entities, thereby increasing the overall level of capital and liquidity required by the firm on a consolidated basis.

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

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

See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K for a further discussion of regulatory restrictions.

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

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

We are also subject to the risk that our rights against third parties may not be enforceable in all circumstances. In addition, deterioration in the credit quality of third parties whose securities or obligations we hold, including a deterioration in the value of collateral posted by third parties to secure their obligations to us under derivatives contracts and loan agreements, could result in losses and/or adversely affect our ability to rehypothecate or otherwise use those securities or obligations for liquidity purposes. A significant downgrade in the credit ratings of our counterparties could also have a negative impact on our results. While in many cases we are permitted to require additional collateral from counterparties that experience financial difficulty, disputes may arise as to the amount of collateral we are entitled to receive and the value of pledged assets. The termination of contracts and the foreclosure on collateral may subject us to claims for the improper exercise of our rights. Default rates, downgrades and disputes with counterparties as to the valuation of collateral increase significantly in times of market stress and illiquidity.

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

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

Concentration of risk increases the potential for significant losses in our market-making, underwriting, investing and lending activities. The number and size of such transactions may affect our results of operations in a given period. Moreover, because of concentration of risk, we may suffer losses even when economic and market conditions are generally favorable for our competitors. Disruptions in the credit markets can make it difficult to hedge these credit exposures effectively or economically. In addition, we extend large commitments as part of our credit origination activities. The Dodd-Frank Act will require issuers of asset-backed securities and any person who organizes and initiates an asset-backed securities transaction to retain economic exposure to the asset, which could significantly increase the cost to us of engaging in securitization activities. Our inability to reduce our credit risk by selling, syndicating or securitizing these positions, including during periods of market stress, could negatively affect our results of operations due to a decrease in the fair value of the positions, including due to the insolvency or bankruptcy of the borrower, as well as the loss of revenues associated with selling such securities or loans.

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

The financial services industry is both highly competitive and interrelated.

The financial services industry and all of our businesses are intensely competitive, and we expect them to remain so. We compete on the basis of a number of factors, including transaction execution, our products and services, innovation, reputation, creditworthiness and price. Over time, there has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the financial services industry. This trend accelerated over recent years as a result of numerous mergers and asset acquisitions among industry participants. This trend has also hastened the globalization of the securities and other financial services markets. As a result, we have had to commit capital to support our international operations and to execute large global transactions. To the extent we expand into new business areas and new geographic regions, we will face competitors with more experience and more established relationships with clients, regulators and industry participants in the relevant market, which could adversely affect our ability to expand. Governments and regulators have recently adopted regulations, imposed taxes or otherwise put forward various proposals that have or may impact our ability to conduct certain of our businesses in a cost-effective manner or at all in certain or all jurisdictions, including proposals relating to restrictions on the type of activities in which financial institutions are permitted to engage. These or other similar rules, many of which do not apply to all our U.S. or non-U.S. competitors, could impact our ability to compete effectively.

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

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

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

A number of our recent and planned business initiatives and expansions of existing businesses may bring us into contact, directly or indirectly, with individuals and entities that are not within our traditional client and counterparty base and expose us to new asset classes and new markets. For example, we continue to transact business and invest in new regions, including a wide range of emerging and growth markets. Furthermore, in a number of our businesses, including where we make markets, invest and lend, we directly or indirectly own interests in, or otherwise become affiliated with the ownership and operation of public services, such as airports, toll roads and shipping ports, as well as physical commodities, mines, commodity warehouses and other commodities infrastructure components, both within and outside the United States. Deteriorating market conditions may lead to an increase in opportunities to acquire distressed assets and we may determine opportunistically to increase our exposure to these types of assets.

These activities expose us to new and enhanced risks, including risks associated with dealing with governmental entities, reputational concerns arising from dealing with less sophisticated counterparties and investors, greater regulatory scrutiny of these activities, increased credit-related, market, sovereign and operational risks, risks arising from accidents or acts of terrorism, and reputational concerns with the manner in which these assets are being operated or held.

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

We are party to a large number of derivative transactions, including credit derivatives. Many of these derivative instruments are individually negotiated and non-standardized, which can make exiting, transferring or settling positions difficult. Many credit derivatives require that we deliver to the counterparty the underlying security, loan or other obligation in order to receive payment. In a number of cases, we do not hold the underlying security, loan or other obligation and may not be able to obtain the underlying security, loan or other obligation. This could cause us to forfeit the payments due to us under these contracts or result in settlement delays with the attendant credit and operational risk as well as increased costs to the firm. Derivative transactions may also involve the risk that documentation has not been properly executed, that executed agreements may not be enforceable against the counterparty, or that obligations under such agreements may not be able to be “netted” against other obligations with such counterparty. In addition, counterparties may claim that such transactions were not appropriate or authorized.

Derivative contracts and other transactions, including secondary bank loan purchases and sales, entered into with third parties are not always confirmed by the counterparties or settled on a timely basis. While the transaction remains unconfirmed or during any delay in settlement, we are subject to heightened credit and operational risk and in the event of a default may find it more difficult to enforce our rights. In addition, as new and more complex derivative products are created, covering a wider array of underlying credit and other instruments, disputes about the terms of the underlying contracts could arise, which could impair our ability to effectively manage our risk exposures from these products and subject us to increased costs. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring central clearing of credit derivatives and other OTC derivatives, or a market shift toward standardized derivatives, could reduce the risk associated with such transactions, but under certain circumstances could also limit our ability to develop derivatives that best suit the needs of our clients and to hedge our own risks, and could adversely affect our profitability and increase our credit exposure to such platform.

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

Our performance is largely dependent on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals; therefore, our continued ability to compete effectively in our businesses, to manage our businesses effectively and to expand into new businesses and geographic areas depends on our ability to attract new talented and diverse employees and to retain and motivate our existing employees. Factors that affect our ability to attract and retain such employees include our compensation and benefits, and our reputation as a successful business with a culture of fairly hiring, training and promoting qualified employees.

Competition from within the financial services industry and from businesses outside the financial services industry for qualified employees has often been intense. This is particularly the case in emerging and growth markets, where we are often competing for qualified employees with entities that have a significantly greater presence or more extensive experience in the region.

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

As described further in “Business — Regulation — Banking Regulation” and “Regulation — Compensation Practices” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K, our compensation practices are subject to review by, and the standards of, the Federal Reserve Board. As a large financial and banking institution, we are subject to limitations on compensation practices (which may or may not affect our competitors) by the Federal Reserve Board, the PRA, the FCA, the FDIC or other regulators worldwide. These limitations, including any imposed by or as a result of future legislation or regulation, may require us to alter our compensation practices in ways that could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain talented employees.

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

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

There is also the risk that new laws or regulations or changes in enforcement of existing laws or regulations applicable to our businesses or those of our clients, including capital, liquidity, leverage and margin requirements, restrictions on leveraged lending or other business practices, reporting requirements, tax burdens and compensation restrictions, could be imposed on a limited subset of financial institutions (either based on size, activities, geography or other criteria), which may adversely affect our ability to compete effectively with other institutions that are not affected in the same way. In addition, regulation imposed on financial institutions or market participants generally, such as taxes on financial transactions, could adversely impact levels of market activity more broadly, and thus impact our businesses.

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

U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory developments, in particular the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, have significantly altered the regulatory framework within which we operate and may adversely affect our competitive position and profitability. As discussed further under “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K, in December 2013, final rules were adopted to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule,” which will prohibit proprietary trading and will limit our sponsorship of, and investment in, covered funds. Based on what we know as of the date of this filing, we do not expect the impact of the prohibition on proprietary trading to be material to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, given that the rule is highly complex, and its full impact will not be known until market practices are fully developed, the implementation of the rule and the related market changes could negatively impact our businesses and expose us to increased liability for inadvertent breaches and reporting failures. Among the other aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act most likely to affect our businesses are: increased capital, liquidity and reporting requirements; increased regulation of and restrictions on OTC derivatives markets and transactions; limitations on incentive compensation; the prohibition on engaging in certain swaps-based activities through an insured depository institution; limitations on affiliate transactions; requirements to reorganize or limit activities in connection with recovery and resolution plans; increased deposit insurance assessments; and increased standards of care for broker-dealers in dealing with clients. The implementation of higher capital requirements, the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio under Basel III may also adversely affect our profitability and competitive position, particularly if the requirements do not apply, or do not apply equally, to our competitors or are not implemented uniformly across jurisdictions.

In addition, the attorneys general of a number of states have filed lawsuits against financial institutions alleging, among other things, that the centralized system of recording mortgages and designating a common entity as the mortgage holder is in violation of state law, and other authorities have brought similar actions or indicated that they are contemplating bringing such actions. If this system and related practices are deemed invalid, it may call into question the validity or enforceability of certain mortgage-related obligations under securitizations and other transactions in which we have participated, negatively impact the market for mortgages and mortgage-related products and our mortgage-related activities, or subject us to additional costs or penalties.

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

For a discussion of the extensive regulation to which our businesses are subject, see “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

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

Governmental scrutiny from regulators, legislative bodies and law enforcement agencies with respect to matters relating to compensation, our business practices, our past actions and other matters has increased dramatically in the past several years. The financial crisis and the current political and public sentiment regarding financial institutions has resulted in a significant amount of adverse press coverage, as well as adverse statements or charges by regulators or other government officials. Press coverage and other public statements that assert some form of wrongdoing often result in some type of investigation by regulators, legislators and law enforcement officials or in lawsuits. Responding to these investigations and lawsuits, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the proceeding, is time-consuming and expensive and can divert the time and effort of our senior management from our business. Penalties and fines sought by regulatory authorities have increased substantially over the last several years, and certain regulators have been more likely in recent years to commence enforcement actions or to advance or support legislation targeted at the financial services industry. Adverse publicity, governmental scrutiny and legal and enforcement proceedings can also have a negative impact on our reputation and on the morale and performance of our employees, which could adversely affect our businesses and results of operations. Certain regulators, including the SEC, have announced policies that make it more likely that they will seek an admission of wrongdoing as part of any settlement of a matter brought by them against a regulated entity or individual, which could lead to increased exposure to civil litigation and could adversely affect our reputation and ability to do business in certain jurisdictions with so-called “bad actor” disqualification laws and could have other negative effects.

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

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

As our client base, and our geographical reach expands, and the volume, speed, frequency and complexity of transactions, especially electronic transactions (as well as the requirements to report such transactions on a real-time basis to clients, regulators and exchanges) increases, developing and maintaining our operational systems and infrastructure becomes more challenging, and the risk of systems or human error in connection with such transactions increases. Our financial, accounting, data processing or other operational systems and facilities may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, such as a spike in transaction volume, adversely affecting our ability to process these transactions or provide these services. We must continuously update these systems to support our operations and growth and to respond to changes in regulations and markets, and invest heavily in systemic controls and training to ensure that such transactions do not violate applicable rules and regulations or, due to errors in processing such transactions, adversely affect markets, our clients and counterparties or the firm.

Systems enhancements and updates, as well as the requisite training, entail significant costs and create risks associated with implementing new systems and integrating them with existing ones.

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

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

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

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

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

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. We are regularly the target of attempted cyber attacks, including denial-of-service attacks, and must continuously monitor and develop our systems to protect our technology infrastructure and data from misappropriation or corruption. Although we take protective measures and endeavor to modify them as circumstances warrant, our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, misuse, computer viruses or other malicious code and other events that could have a security impact. If one or more of such events occur, this potentially could jeopardize our or our clients’ or counterparties’ confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, our clients’, our counterparties’ or third parties’ operations, which could impact their ability to transact with us or otherwise result in significant losses or reputational damage. The increased use of mobile and cloud technologies can heighten these and other operational risks. We expect to expend significant additional resources on an ongoing basis to modify our protective measures and to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures, and we may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered through any insurance maintained by us.

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

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

We face significant legal risks in our businesses, and the volume of claims and amount of damages and penalties claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against financial institutions remain high. See Note 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for a discussion of certain legal proceedings in which we are involved and Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for information regarding certain mortgage-related contingencies. Our experience has been that legal claims by customers and clients increase in a market downturn and that employment-related claims increase following periods in which we have reduced our staff. Additionally, governmental entities are plaintiffs in certain of the legal proceedings in which we are involved, and we may face future actions or claims by the same or other governmental entities. Recently, significant settlements by several large financial institutions with governmental entities have been publicly announced. The trend of large settlements with governmental entities may adversely affect the outcomes for other financial institutions in similar actions, especially where governmental officials have announced that the large settlements will be used as the basis or a template for other settlements.

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

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

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

We engage in, or invest in entities that engage in, the production, storage, transportation, marketing and trading of numerous commodities, including crude oil, oil products, natural gas, electric power, agricultural products, metals (base and precious), minerals (including uranium), emission credits, coal, freight, liquefied natural gas and related products and indices. These activities subject us to extensive and evolving federal, state and local energy, environmental, antitrust and other governmental laws and regulations worldwide, including environmental laws and regulations relating to, among others, air quality, water quality, waste management, transportation of hazardous substances, natural resources, site remediation and health and safety. Additionally, rising climate change concerns may lead to additional regulation that could increase the operating costs and profitability of our investments.

We may incur substantial costs in complying with current or future laws and regulations relating to our commodities-related activities and investments, particularly transportation and storage of physical commodities and wholesale sales and trading of electricity and natural gas. Compliance with these laws and regulations could require us to commit significant capital toward environmental monitoring, renovation of storage facilities or transport vessels, payment of emission fees and carbon or other taxes, and application for, and holding of, permits and licenses.

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

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

We may also be required to divest or discontinue certain of these activities for regulatory or legal reasons. If that occurs, the firm may receive a value that is less than the then carrying value, as the firm may be unable to exit these activities in an orderly transaction.

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

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

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

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

In addition, there have been a number of highly publicized cases around the world, involving actual or alleged fraud or other misconduct by employees in the financial services industry in recent years, and we run the risk that employee misconduct could occur. This misconduct has included and may include in the future the theft of proprietary information, including proprietary software. It is not always possible to deter or prevent employee misconduct and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity have not been and may not be effective in all cases.

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

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

Item 1B.    Unresolved Staff Comments

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

Item 2.    Properties

Our principal executive offices are located at 200 West Street, New York, New York and comprise approximately 2.1 million gross square feet. The building is located on a parcel leased from Battery Park City Authority pursuant to a ground lease. Under the lease, Battery Park City Authority holds title to all improvements, including the office building, subject to Goldman Sachs’ right of exclusive possession and use until June 2069, the expiration date of the lease. Under the terms of the ground lease, we made a lump sum ground rent payment in June 2007 of $161 million for rent through the term of the lease.

We have offices at 30 Hudson Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, which we own and which include approximately 1.6 million gross square feet of office space, and we own over 700,000 square feet of additional commercial space spread among four locations in New York and New Jersey.

We have additional offices in the United States and elsewhere in the Americas, which together comprise approximately 2.1 million rentable square feet of leased space.

In Europe, the Middle East and Africa, we have offices that total approximately 1.9 million rentable square feet of leased and owned space. Our European headquarters is located in London at Peterborough Court, pursuant to a lease expiring in 2026. In total, we have offices with approximately 1.4 million rentable square feet in London, relating to various properties.

In Asia (including India), Australia and New Zealand, we have offices with approximately 2.0 million rentable square feet. Our headquarters in this region are in Tokyo, at the Roppongi Hills Mori Tower, and in Hong Kong, at the Cheung Kong Center. In Tokyo, we currently have offices with approximately 390,000 rentable square feet, the majority of which have leases that will expire in 2018. In Hong Kong, we currently have offices with approximately 340,000 rentable square feet, the majority of which have leases that will expire in 2017.

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Off-Balance-Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations — Contractual Obligations” in Part II, Item 7 of the 2013 Form 10-K for a discussion of exit costs we may incur in the future to the extent we (i) reduce our space capacity or (ii) commit to, or occupy, new properties in the locations in which we operate and, consequently, dispose of existing space that had been held for potential growth.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

We are involved in a number of judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our businesses. Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. However, we believe, based on currently available information, that the results of such proceedings, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, but may be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Given the range of litigation and investigations presently under way, our litigation expenses can be expected to remain high. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Use of Estimates” in Part II, Item 7 of the 2013 Form 10-K. See Note 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for information on certain judicial, regulatory and legal proceedings.

Item 4.    Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

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

Lloyd C. Blankfein, 59

Mr. Blankfein has been our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since June 2006, and a director since April 2003.

Alan M. Cohen, 63

Mr. Cohen has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs and our Global Head of Compliance since February 2004.

Gary D. Cohn, 53

Mr. Cohn has been our President and Chief Operating Officer (or Co-Chief Operating Officer) and a director since June 2006.

Edith W. Cooper, 52

Ms. Cooper has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs since April 2011 and our Global Head of Human Capital Management since March 2008. From 2002 to 2008, she served in various positions at the firm, including sales management within the Securities Division.

Gregory K. Palm, 65

Mr. Palm has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs since May 1999, and our General Counsel and head or co-head of the Legal Department since May 1992.

John F.W. Rogers, 57

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

Harvey M. Schwartz, 49

Mr. Schwartz has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs and our Chief Financial Officer since January 2013. From February 2008 to January 2013, Mr. Schwartz was global co-head of the Securities Division.

Mark Schwartz, 59

Mr. Schwartz has been a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs and Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific since rejoining the firm in June 2012. From 2006 to June 2012, he was Chairman of MissionPoint Capital Partners, an investment firm he co-founded.

Michael S. Sherwood, 48

Mr. Sherwood has been a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs since February 2008 and co-chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs International since 2005. He assumed responsibility for coordinating the firm’s business and activities around Growth Markets in November 2013.

John S. Weinberg, 57

Mr. Weinberg has been a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs since June 2006. He has been co-head of Goldman Sachs’ Investment Banking Division since December 2002.

The principal market on which our common stock is traded is the NYSE. Information relating to the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock, as reported by the Consolidated Tape Association, for each full quarterly period during 2011, 2012 and 2013 is set forth under the heading “Supplemental Financial Information — Common Stock Price Range” in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K. As of February 14, 2014, there were 11,661 holders of record of our common stock.

During 2012 and 2013, a dividend of $0.35 per common share was declared on January 17, 2012, dividends of $0.46 per common share were declared on April 16, 2012 and July 16, 2012, dividends of $0.50 per common share were declared on October 15, 2012, January 15, 2013, April 15, 2013 and July 15, 2013 and a dividend of $0.55 per common share was declared on October 16, 2013. The holders of our common stock share proportionately on a per share basis in all dividends and other distributions on common stock declared by the Board of Directors of Group Inc. (Board).

The declaration of dividends by Group Inc. is subject to the discretion of our Board. Our Board will take into account such matters as general business conditions, our financial results, capital requirements, contractual, legal and regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends by us to our shareholders or by our subsidiaries to us, the effect on our debt ratings and such other factors as our Board may deem relevant. See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K for a discussion of potential regulatory limitations on our receipt of funds from our regulated subsidiaries and our payment of dividends to shareholders of Group Inc.

The table below sets forth the information with respect to purchases made by or on behalf of Group Inc. or any “affiliated purchaser” (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Exchange Act), of our common stock during the fourth quarter of our year ended December 2013.

Information relating to compensation plans under which our equity securities are authorized for issuance is presented in Part III, Item 12 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

Item 6.    Selected Financial Data

The Selected Financial Data table is set forth under Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Founded in 1869, the firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices in all major financial centers around the world.

We report our activities in four business segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending and Investment Management. See “Results of Operations” below for further information about our business segments.

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

References to “the 2013 Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. All references to 2013, 2012 and 2011 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2013, December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Any reference to a future year refers to a year ending on December 31 of that year. Certain reclassifications have been made to previously reported amounts to conform to the current presentation.

In this discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations, we have included information that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are not historical facts, but instead represent only our beliefs regarding future events, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and outside our control. This information includes statements other than historical information or statements of current condition and may relate to our future plans and objectives and results, among other things, and may also include statements about the effect of changes to the capital and leverage rules applicable to banks and bank holding companies, the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our businesses and operations, and various legal proceedings or mortgage-related contingencies as set forth under “Legal Proceedings” and “Certain Mortgage-Related Contingencies” in Notes 27 and 18, respectively, to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K, as well as statements about the results of our Dodd-Frank Act and firm stress tests, statements about the objectives and effectiveness of our risk management and liquidity policies, statements about trends in or growth opportunities for our businesses, statements about our future status, activities or reporting under U.S. or non-U.S. banking and financial regulation, and statements about our investment banking transaction backlog. By identifying these statements for you in this manner, we are alerting you to the possibility that our actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ from those indicated in these forward-looking statements include, among others, those discussed below under “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” as well as “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K and “Cautionary Statement Pursuant to the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K.

The firm generated net earnings of $8.04 billion for 2013, compared with $7.48 billion for 2012 and $4.44 billion for 2011. Our diluted earnings per common share were $15.46 for 2013, compared with $14.13 for 2012 and $4.51 for 2011. Return on average common shareholders’ equity (ROE) ¹ was 11.0% for 2013, compared with 10.7% for 2012 and 3.7% for 2011.

Book value per common share increased approximately 5% to $152.48 and tangible book value per common share ² increased approximately 7% to $143.11 compared with the end of 2012. ³ During the year, the firm repurchased 39.3 million shares of its common stock for a total cost of $6.17 billion, while maintaining strong capital levels. Our Tier 1 capital ratio was 16.7% and our Tier 1 common ratio ⁴ was 14.6% as of December 2013 (in each case under Basel I and also reflecting the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements which became effective on January 1, 2013).

The firm generated net revenues of $34.21 billion for 2013. These results reflected significantly higher net revenues in Investment Banking, as well as higher net revenues in Investing & Lending and Investment Management compared with 2012. These increases were offset by lower net revenues in Institutional Client Services compared with 2012.

An overview of net revenues for each of our business segments is provided below.

Investment Banking

Net revenues in Investment Banking increased significantly compared with 2012, reflecting significantly higher net revenues in Underwriting, due to strong net revenues in both equity and debt underwriting. Net revenues in equity underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, reflecting an increase in client activity, particularly in initial public offerings. Net revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, principally due to leveraged finance activity. Net revenues in Financial Advisory were essentially unchanged compared with 2012.

Institutional Client Services

Net revenues in Institutional Client Services decreased compared with 2012, reflecting lower net revenues in both Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and Equities.

The decrease in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution compared with 2012 reflected significantly lower net revenues in interest rate products compared with a solid 2012, and significantly lower net revenues in mortgages compared with a strong 2012. In addition, net revenues in currencies were slightly lower, while net revenues in credit products and commodities were essentially unchanged compared with 2012. Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution operated in a generally challenging environment during much of 2013, as macroeconomic concerns and uncertainty led to challenging market-making conditions and generally lower levels of activity.

The decrease in Equities compared with 2012 was due to the sale of our Americas reinsurance business ¹ in 2013 and the sale of our hedge fund administration business in 2012. Net revenues in equities client execution (excluding net revenues from our Americas reinsurance business) were higher compared with 2012, including significantly higher net revenues in cash products, partially offset by significantly lower net revenues in derivatives. Commissions and fees were slightly higher compared with 2012. Securities services net revenues were significantly lower compared with 2012, primarily due to the sale of our hedge fund administration business in 2012 (2012 included a gain on sale of $494 million). During 2013, Equities operated in an environment characterized by a significant increase in global equity prices, particularly in Japan and the U.S., and generally lower volatility levels.

The net loss attributable to the impact of changes in our own credit spreads on borrowings for which the fair value option was elected was $296 million ($220 million and $76 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2013, compared with a net loss of $714 million ($433 million and $281 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2012.

Investing & Lending

Net revenues in Investing & Lending increased compared with 2012, reflecting a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, driven by company-specific events and stronger corporate performance, as well as significantly higher global equity prices. In addition, net gains and net interest income from debt securities and loans were slightly higher, while other net revenues, related to our consolidated investments, were lower compared with 2012.

Investment Management

Net revenues in Investment Management increased compared with 2012, reflecting higher management and other fees, primarily due to higher average assets under supervision. During the year, total assets under supervision increased $77 billion to $1.04 trillion. Long-term assets under supervision increased $81 billion, including net inflows of $41 billion ², reflecting inflows in fixed income and equity assets, partially offset by outflows in alternative investment assets. Net market appreciation of $40 billion during the year was primarily in equity assets. Liquidity products decreased $4 billion.

Our businesses, by their nature, do not produce predictable earnings. Our results in any given period can be materially affected by conditions in global financial markets, economic conditions generally and other factors. For a further discussion of the factors that may affect our future operating results, see “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below, as well as “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K.

Real gross domestic product (GDP), although generally rising, appeared to remain subdued in most major economies. Market sentiment improved in advanced economies, supported by better private sector growth prospects in the United States and signs of a turnaround in the Euro area, while monetary policy generally remained accommodative. Improvements in the U.S. economy reflected favorable developments in unemployment and housing, even though a reduction in fiscal spending weighed on growth. These improvements resulted in tighter credit spreads, significantly higher global equity prices and generally lower levels of volatility. However, signals during the year from the U.S. Federal Reserve that it would begin tapering its asset purchase program contributed to a rise in U.S. interest rates and a more challenging environment, particularly for emerging markets. In addition, continued political uncertainty, particularly the political debate in the United States surrounding the government shutdown and a potential breach of the debt ceiling, generally resulted in heightened risk aversion. These concerns also weighed on investment banking activity as industry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity declined compared with 2012. Industry-wide equity underwriting activity improved and industry-wide debt underwriting activity remained solid. For a further discussion of how market conditions may affect our businesses, see “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below as well as “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K.

Global

During 2013, real GDP growth appeared to decline in many advanced economies and emerging markets. In advanced economies, the slowdown primarily reflected a decline in fixed investment growth in the United States and continued weakness in the Euro area. In emerging markets, growth in domestic demand decreased and current account balances worsened. Unemployment levels declined in some economies compared with 2012, including the United States, but increased in others, particularly in the Euro area.

The rate of unemployment continued to remain elevated in many advanced economies. During 2013, the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan each left policy interest rates unchanged, while the European Central Bank reduced its policy interest rate. In December 2013, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced that it would begin to scale back its asset purchase program by $10 billion to $75 billion per month. The U.S. dollar weakened against both the Euro and the British pound, while it strengthened significantly against the Japanese yen.

United States

In the United States, real GDP increased by 1.9% in 2013, compared with an increase of 2.8% in 2012. Growth decelerated on the back of a significant contraction in federal government spending as a result of sequestration, as well as a slowdown in fixed investment. House prices, house sales and housing starts increased, although the rise in U.S. bond yields drove mortgage interest rates higher. Industrial production expanded in 2013, but at a slower pace than in the previous year. Although political uncertainty around the federal government shutdown led to some temporary deterioration, business and consumer confidence generally improved during the year, primarily reflecting continued improvement in the private sector. Measures of inflation were lower compared with 2012. The unemployment rate declined during 2013, but remained elevated. The U.S. Federal Reserve maintained its federal funds rate at a target range of zero to 0.25% during the year and announced in December 2013 a reduction in its monthly program to purchase U.S. Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities. In addition, the U.S. Federal Reserve affirmed its commitment to keep short-term interest rates exceptionally low for some time, even after the unemployment rate falls to 6.5% or inflation rises materially. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note rose by 126 basis points during 2013 to 3.04%. In equity markets, the NASDAQ Composite Index, the S&P 500 Index and the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by 38%, 30% and 26%, respectively, during 2013.

Europe

In the Euro area, real GDP declined by 0.4% in 2013, compared with a decrease of 0.6% in 2012. The contraction was principally due to continued weakness in domestic demand, primarily reflecting further declines in fixed investment and consumer spending. Business and consumer confidence remained at low levels and measures of core inflation decelerated further during the year. The unemployment rate remained elevated, particularly in Italy and Spain. Political uncertainty in Italy and the debt crisis in Cyprus temporarily increased market volatility earlier in the year, while private sector lending conditions remained very tight in periphery countries. To address these issues, the European Central Bank decreased its main refinancing operations rate by 50 basis points to 0.25%, and adopted forward guidance for the future path of interest rates as a new part of its monetary policy tools. The Euro appreciated by 5% against the U.S. dollar. In the United Kingdom, real GDP increased by 1.8% in 2013, compared with an increase of 0.3% in 2012. The Bank of England maintained its official bank rate at 0.50% and also introduced forward guidance for the future path of interest rates, contingent on the evolution of employment and inflation. The British pound appreciated by 2% against the U.S. dollar. Long-term government bond yields generally increased during the year, except in the periphery countries where yields fell. In equity markets, the DAX Index, the CAC 40 Index, the Euro Stoxx 50 Index and the FTSE 100 Index increased by 25%, 18%, 18% and 14%, respectively, during 2013.

Asia

In Japan, real GDP increased by 1.6% in 2013, compared with an increase of 1.4% in 2012. Growth was supported by significant increases in private housing investment and in public fixed investment. However, the trade balance continued to deteriorate during 2013. Measures of inflation turned positive during the year, but remain far from the Bank of Japan’s newly adopted 2% inflation target. In addition, the Bank of Japan, under new leadership, introduced a new program of quantitative and qualitative monetary easing, which included a significant increase in the size and mandate of its asset purchases, as well as a commitment to a more targeted communication strategy.

The Bank of Japan also changed its main operating target for money market operations from the uncollateralized overnight call rate to the monetary base, which is set to increase annually by approximately 60-70 trillion yen. The yield on 10-year Japanese government bonds fell by 5 basis points during the year to 0.74%. The Japanese yen depreciated by 21% against the U.S. dollar and, in equity markets, the Nikkei 225 Index increased by 57%. In China, real GDP increased by 7.7% in 2013, broadly in line with the increase in the previous year, although impacted by less supportive monetary policies and tightening financial conditions. Measures of inflation remained moderate and The People’s Bank of China kept the reserve requirement ratio unchanged. The Chinese yuan appreciated by 3% against the U.S. dollar and, in equity markets, the Shanghai Composite Index fell by 7%. In India, real GDP increased by an estimated 4.7% in 2013, compared with an increase of 5.1% in 2012. Growth decelerated, primarily reflecting a further softening in domestic demand growth and only slight improvements in the current account balance. The rate of wholesale inflation declined compared with 2012. The Indian rupee depreciated by 12% against the U.S. dollar, while, in equity markets, the BSE Sensex Index increased by 9%. Equity markets in Hong Kong and South Korea were slightly higher, as the Hang Seng Index increased by 3% and the KOSPI Composite Index increased by 1% during 2013.

Other Markets

In Brazil, real GDP increased by an estimated 2.2% in 2013, compared with an increase of 1.0% in 2012. Growth accelerated on the back of increasing domestic demand and fixed investment. The Brazilian real depreciated by 15% against the U.S. dollar and, in equity markets, the Bovespa Index decreased by 15% during 2013. In Russia, real GDP increased by 1.3% in 2013, compared with an increase of 3.4% in 2012. This slowdown primarily reflected a decline in domestic demand growth and a contraction in investment growth, particularly during the middle of the year. The Russian ruble depreciated by 8% against the U.S. dollar, while, in equity markets, the MICEX Index increased by 2% during 2013.

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

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

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

Instruments categorized within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are those which require one or more significant inputs that are not observable. As of December 2013 and December 2012, level 3 assets represented 4.4% and 5.0%, respectively, of our total assets. Absent evidence to the contrary, instruments classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are initially valued at transaction price, which is considered to be the best initial estimate of fair value. Subsequent to the transaction date, we use other methodologies to determine fair value, which vary based on the type of instrument. Estimating the fair value of level 3 financial instruments requires judgments to be made. These judgments include:

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

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

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

See Notes 5 through 8 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for further information about fair value measurements.

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

Review of Valuation Models. The firm’s independent model validation group, consisting of quantitative professionals who are separate from model developers, performs an independent model approval process. This process incorporates a review of a diverse set of model and trade parameters across a broad range of values (including extreme and/or improbable conditions) in order to critically evaluate:

New or changed models are reviewed and approved prior to being put into use. Models are evaluated and re-approved annually to assess the impact of any changes in the product or market and any market developments in pricing theories.

Level 3 Financial Assets at Fair Value. The table below presents financial assets measured at fair value and the amount of such assets that are classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Total level 3 financial assets were $40.01 billion and $47.10 billion as of December 2013 and December 2012, respectively.

See Notes 5 through 8 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for further information about changes in level 3 financial assets and fair value measurements.

Goodwill. Goodwill is the cost of acquired companies in excess of the fair value of net assets, including identifiable intangible assets, at the acquisition date. Goodwill is assessed annually in the fourth quarter for impairment, or more frequently if events occur or circumstances change that indicate an impairment may exist, by first assessing qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If the results of the qualitative assessment are not conclusive, a quantitative goodwill test would be performed by comparing the estimated fair value of each reporting unit with its estimated net book value.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, we assessed goodwill for impairment. The qualitative assessment required management to make judgments and to evaluate several factors, which included, but were not limited to, macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance, entity-specific events, events affecting reporting units and sustained changes in our stock price. Based on our evaluation of these factors, we determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of the reporting units exceeded its respective carrying amount, and therefore, we determined that goodwill was not impaired and that a quantitative goodwill impairment test was not required.

If we experience a prolonged period of weakness in the business environment or financial markets, our goodwill could be impaired in the future. In addition, significant changes to critical inputs of the goodwill impairment test (e.g., cost of equity) could cause the estimated fair value of our reporting units to decline, which could result in an impairment of goodwill in the future.

See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for further information about our goodwill.

Identifiable Intangible Assets. We amortize our identifiable intangible assets over their estimated lives or based on economic usage for certain commodities-related intangibles. Identifiable intangible assets are tested for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances suggest that an asset’s or asset group’s carrying value may not be fully recoverable. See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for the carrying value and estimated remaining lives of our identifiable intangible assets by major asset class.

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

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

See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for impairments of our identifiable intangible assets.

Recent Accounting Developments

See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for information about Recent Accounting Developments.

The use of generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions. In addition to the estimates we make in connection with fair value measurements, and the accounting for goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, the use of estimates and assumptions is also important in determining provisions for losses that may arise from litigation, regulatory proceedings and tax audits.

We estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation and regulatory proceedings to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. In addition, we estimate the upper end of the range of reasonably possible aggregate loss in excess of the related reserves for litigation proceedings where the firm believes the risk of loss is more than slight. See Notes 18 and 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for information on certain judicial, regulatory and legal proceedings.

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

In accounting for income taxes, we estimate and provide for potential liabilities that may arise out of tax audits to the extent that uncertain tax positions fail to meet the recognition standard under FASB Accounting Standards Codification 740. See Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2013 Form 10-K for further information about accounting for income taxes.

The composition of our net revenues has varied over time as financial markets and the scope of our operations have changed. The composition of net revenues can also vary over the shorter term due to fluctuations in U.S. and global economic and market conditions. See “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below and “Risk

Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of the 2013 Form 10-K for a further discussion of the impact of economic and market conditions on our results of operations.

Financial Overview

The table below presents an overview of our financial results.

Net Revenues

2013 versus 2012. Net revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $34.21 billion for 2013, essentially unchanged compared with 2012. 2013 included significantly higher investment banking revenues, as well as higher other principal transactions revenues and investment management revenues. In addition, commissions and fees were slightly higher compared with 2012. These increases were offset by lower market-making revenues and lower net interest income compared with 2012.

2012 versus 2011. Net revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $34.16 billion for 2012, 19% higher than 2011, reflecting significantly higher other principal transactions revenues, as well as higher market-making revenues, investment banking revenues and investment management revenues compared with 2011. These increases were partially offset by significantly lower net interest income and lower commissions and fees compared with 2011.

Non-interest Revenues

Investment banking

During 2013, investment banking revenues reflected an operating environment generally characterized by improved industry-wide equity underwriting activity, particularly in initial public offerings, as global equity prices significantly increased during the year. In addition, industry-wide debt underwriting activity remained solid, and included significantly higher leveraged finance activity, as interest rates remained low. However, ongoing macroeconomic concerns continued to weigh on investment banking activity as industry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity declined compared with 2012. If macroeconomic concerns continue and result in lower levels of client activity, investment banking revenues would likely be negatively impacted.

2013 versus 2012. Investment banking revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $6.00 billion for 2013, 22% higher than 2012, reflecting significantly higher revenues in underwriting, due to strong revenues in both equity and debt underwriting. Revenues in equity underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, reflecting an increase in client activity, particularly in initial public offerings. Revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2012, principally due to leveraged finance activity. Revenues in financial advisory were essentially unchanged compared with 2012.

2012 versus 2011. Investment banking revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $4.94 billion for 2012, 13% higher than 2011, reflecting significantly higher revenues in underwriting, due to strong revenues in debt underwriting. Revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher compared with 2011, primarily reflecting higher revenues from investment-grade and leveraged finance activity. Revenues in equity underwriting were lower compared with 2011, primarily reflecting a decline in industry-wide initial public offerings. Revenues in financial advisory were essentially unchanged compared with 2011.

Investment management

During 2013, investment management revenues reflected an operating environment generally characterized by improved asset prices, particularly in equities, resulting in appreciation in the value of client assets. In addition, the mix of average assets under supervision shifted slightly compared with 2012 from liquidity products to long-term assets under supervision, primarily due to growth in equity and fixed income assets. In the future, if asset prices were to decline, or investors favor asset classes that typically generate lower fees or investors withdraw their assets, investment management revenues would likely be negatively impacted. In addition, continued concerns about the global economic outlook could result in downward pressure on assets under supervision.

2013 versus 2012. Investment management revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.19 billion for 2013, 5% higher than 2012, reflecting higher management and other fees, primarily due to higher average assets under supervision.

2012 versus 2011. Investment management revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $4.97 billion for 2012, 6% higher than 2011, due to significantly higher incentive fees, partially offset by slightly lower management and other fees.

Commissions and fees

During 2013, commissions and fees reflected an environment characterized by higher average daily volumes in listed cash equities in Asia and Europe and lower average daily volumes in listed cash equities in the United States, and generally lower volatility levels compared with 2012. If market volumes were to decline, commissions and fees would likely be negatively impacted.

2013 versus 2012. Commissions and fees on the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.26 billion for 2013, slightly higher than 2012, primarily reflecting higher commissions and fees in Asia and Europe. During 2013, our average daily volumes were higher in Asia and Europe and lower in the United States compared with 2012, consistent with listed cash equity market volumes.

2012 versus 2011. Commissions and fees on the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.16 billion for 2012, 16% lower than 2011, reflecting lower commissions and fees in the United States, Europe and Asia. Our average daily volumes during 2012 were lower in each of these regions compared with 2011, consistent with listed cash equity market volumes.

Market making

“Market making” is comprised of revenues (excluding net interest) from client execution activities related to making markets in interest rate products, credit products, mortgages, currencies, commodities and equity products. Market-making activities are included in our Institutional Client Services segment.

During 2013, market-making revenues reflected a challenging operating environment that required continual reassessment of the outlook for the global economy, as uncertainty about when the U.S. Federal Reserve would begin tapering its asset purchase program, as well as constant global political risk and uncertainty, were interspersed with improvements in the U.S. economy over the course of the year. As a result, our clients’ risk appetite and activity levels fluctuated during 2013. Compared with 2012, activity levels were generally lower, global equity prices significantly increased and credit spreads tightened. If macroeconomic concerns continue over the long term, market-making revenues would likely continue to be negatively impacted.

2013 versus 2012. Market-making revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $9.37 billion for 2013, 17% lower than 2012. The decrease compared with 2012 was primarily due to significantly lower revenues in equity products, mortgages and interest rate products, as well as lower revenues in currencies. The decrease in equity products was due to the sale of our Americas reinsurance business in 2013, the sale of our hedge fund administration business in 2012 (2012 included a gain on sale of $494 million) and lower revenues in derivatives, partially offset by significantly higher revenues in cash products compared with 2012. Revenues in commodities were higher, while revenues in credit products were essentially unchanged compared with 2012. In December 2013, we completed the sale of a majority stake in our European insurance business and recognized a gain of $211 million.

2012 versus 2011. Market-making revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $11.35 billion for 2012, 22% higher than 2011, primarily reflecting significantly higher revenues in mortgages and higher revenues in interest rate products, credit products and equity cash products, partially offset by significantly lower revenues in commodities. In addition, market-making

revenues included significantly higher revenues in securities services compared with 2011, reflecting a gain of $494 million on the sale of our hedge fund administration business.

Other principal transactions

“Other principal transactions” is comprised of revenues (excluding net interest) from our investing activities and the origination of loans to provide financing to clients. In addition, “Other principal transactions” includes revenues related to our consolidated investments. Other principal transactions are included in our Investing & Lending segment.

During 2013, other principal transactions revenues generally reflected favorable company-specific events and strong corporate performance, as well as the impact of significantly higher global equity prices and tighter corporate credit spreads. However, concerns about the outlook for the global economy and uncertainty over financial regulatory reform continue to impact the global marketplace. If equity markets decline or credit spreads widen, other principal transactions revenues would likely be negatively impacted.

2013 versus 2012. Other principal transactions revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $6.99 billion for 2013, 19% higher than 2012, reflecting a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, driven by company-specific events and stronger corporate performance, as well as significantly higher global equity prices. In addition, net gains from debt securities and loans were slightly higher, while revenues related to our consolidated investments were lower compared with 2012.

2012 versus 2011. Other principal transactions revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.87 billion for 2012 compared with $1.51 billion for 2011. The increase compared with 2011 reflected a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, primarily in public equities, principally due to the impact of an increase in global equity prices during 2012 after equity prices in Europe and Asia declined significantly during 2011. Net gains from equity securities included a gain in 2012 and a loss in 2011 related to our investment in the ordinary shares of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited (ICBC). The increase compared with 2011 also reflected a significant increase in net gains from debt securities and loans, primarily due to approximately $1 billion of unrealized losses related to relationship lending activities, including the effect of hedges, in 2011 and the impact of a more favorable credit environment as credit spreads tightened during 2012 after widening during 2011. These increases were partially offset by lower revenues related to our consolidated investments.