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 individuals.

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

References to “this Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. References to “the 2015 Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. All references to 2016, 2015 and 2014 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2016, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, 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 2016, we had offices in over 30 countries and 47% of our total staff was based outside the Americas. Our clients are located worldwide and we are an active participant in financial markets around the world. In 2016, we generated 40% of our net revenues outside the Americas. For more information about our geographic results, see Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this 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.

The table below presents our segment operating results.

In the table above:

Investment Banking

Investment Banking serves public and private sector 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 institutional 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, restructurings, spin-offs and risk management. In particular, we help clients execute large, complex transactions for which we provide multiple services, including 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.

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 public and private sector clients, who need financing to generate growth, create jobs and deliver products and services. Our underwriting activities include public offerings and private placements, including local and cross-border transactions and acquisition financing, of a wide range of securities and other financial instruments, including loans. Underwriting also includes revenues from derivative transactions entered into with public and private sector 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, including in connection with acquisition financing, 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 us 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.

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. Our willingness to make markets, commit capital and take risk in a broad range of products is crucial to our client relationships. Market makers provide liquidity and play a critical role in price discovery, which contributes to the overall efficiency of the capital markets.

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. Much of this connectivity between us and our 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 2016, provided fundamental research on more than 3,000 companies worldwide and more than 40 national economies, as well as on industries, currencies and commodities.

Institutional Client Services generates revenues in the following ways:

In connection with our market-making activities, we maintain inventory, typically for a short period of time, in response to, or in anticipation of, client demand. We also hold inventory to actively manage our risk exposures that arise from these market-making activities.

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 client execution activities related to making markets in both cash and derivative instruments for 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 exchange-traded funds, 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, including 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, as well as OTC transactions. We provide our clients with access to a broad spectrum of equity execution services, including electronic “low-touch” access and more complex “high-touch” execution through both traditional and electronic platforms.

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

Investing & Lending

Our investing and lending activities, which are typically longer-term, include our investing and relationship lending activities across various asset classes, primarily debt securities and loans, public and private equity securities, infrastructure 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 and through funds managed by external parties. We also provide financing to corporate clients and individuals, including bank loans, personal loans and mortgages.

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

Debt Securities and Loans. We make corporate, real estate, infrastructure and other debt investments. In addition, we provide credit to corporate clients through loan facilities and to individuals primarily through secured loans. We also make unsecured loans to individuals through our online platform.

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 primarily 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 our 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 distribution channel and are affected by investment performance as well as asset inflows and redemptions. Other fees we receive primarily include financial counseling fees generated through our wealth advisory services.

Assets under supervision 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. Assets under supervision also 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 market 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 and credit 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.

Other Activities

We accept deposits directly from individuals through our online platform. Our online deposits are used to finance, among other things, our lending activity and other inventory.

Business Continuity and Information Security

Business continuity and information security, including cyber security, are high priorities for Goldman Sachs. Their importance has been highlighted by numerous highly publicized events in recent years, including cyber attacks against financial institutions, large consumer-based companies and other organizations that resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of personal information of clients and customers and other sensitive or confidential information and the theft and destruction of corporate information, and extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy.

Our Business Continuity Program has been developed to provide reasonable assurance of business continuity in the event of disruptions at our critical facilities or systems 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 designed 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 designed 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 2016, we had 34,400 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.

There has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the financial services industry. 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 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 U.S. We also compete with smaller institutions that offer more targeted services, such as independent advisory firms. Some clients may perceive these firms to be less susceptible to potential conflicts of interest than we are, and, as described below, our ability to effectively compete with them could be affected by regulations and limitations on activities that apply to us but may not apply to them.

A number of our businesses are subject to intense price competition. 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. For example, 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 electronic trading are generally lower than for non-electronic trading. It appears that this trend toward 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, and as we enter into or expand our presence in markets that may rely more heavily on electronic trading and execution.

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. For example, the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that prohibit proprietary trading and restrict investments in certain hedge and private equity funds differentiate between U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based banking organizations and give non-U.S.-based banking organizations greater flexibility to trade outside of the U.S. and to form and invest in funds outside the U.S.

Likewise, the obligations with respect to derivative transactions under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act depend, in part, on the location of the counterparties to the transaction. 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 described 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 certain of our competitors are subject to review by, and the standards of, the Federal Reserve Board and other regulators inside and outside the U.S., including the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the U.K. We also compete for employees with institutions whose pay practices are not subject to regulatory oversight. See “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 this Form 10-K for more information about the regulation of our compensation practices.

Regulation

As a participant in the global financial services industry, we are subject to extensive regulation worldwide. Our businesses have been subject to increasing regulation and supervision in the U.S. and other countries.

In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the rules thereunder, significantly altered the financial regulatory regime within which we operate. The capital, liquidity and leverage ratios based on the Basel Committee’s final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards (Basel III), as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board, the PRA and FCA and other national regulators, have also had a significant impact on our businesses. The Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for prudential bank regulation, and its member jurisdictions implement regulations based on its standards and guidelines.

The implications of such regulations for our businesses continue to depend to a large extent on their implementation by the relevant regulators globally, as well as the development of market practices and structures under the regime established by such regulations.

Other reforms have been adopted or are being considered by regulators and policy makers worldwide, as described further throughout this section. Recent political developments, including the new presidential administration in the U.S., have added additional uncertainty to the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms, including potential deregulation in some areas. On February 3, 2017, the President of the U.S. issued an executive order identifying “core principles” for the administration’s financial services regulatory policy and directing the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other financial regulatory agencies, to evaluate how the current regulatory framework promotes or inhibits the principles and what actions have been, and are being, taken to promote the principles.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) and Goldman Sachs International Bank (GSIB), our principal E.U. operating subsidiaries, are incorporated and headquartered in the U.K. and, as such, are subject to E.U. legal and regulatory requirements, based on directly binding regulations of the E.U. and the implementation of E.U. directives by the U.K. Both currently benefit from non-discriminatory access to E.U. clients and infrastructure based on E.U. treaties and E.U. legislation, including cross-border “passporting” arrangements and specific arrangements for the establishment of E.U. branches. There is considerable uncertainty as to the regulatory regime that will be applicable in the U.K. following the U.K. referendum vote to leave the European Union (Brexit) and the regulatory framework that will govern transactions and business undertaken by our U.K. subsidiaries in the remaining E.U. countries.

Banking Supervision and Regulation

Group Inc. is a bank holding company under the U.S. 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), and 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. The primary regulators of our U.S. non-bank subsidiaries directly regulate the activities of those subsidiaries, with the Federal Reserve Board exercising a supervisory role. Such “functionally regulated” U.S. 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.

Various of our subsidiaries are regulated by the banking and securities regulatory authorities of the countries in which they operate.

Our principal U.S. bank subsidiary, GS Bank USA, is supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A number of our activities are conducted partially or entirely through GS Bank USA and its subsidiaries, including: origination of bank loans; personal loans and mortgages; interest rate, credit, currency and other derivatives; leveraged finance; structured finance; deposit-taking; and agency lending. Our consumer-oriented activities are subject to extensive regulation and supervision by federal and state regulators with regard to consumer protection laws, including laws relating to fair lending and other practices in connection with marketing and providing consumer financial products.

GSI, our regulated U.K. broker-dealer subsidiary, which is designated as an investment firm, and GSIB, our regulated U.K. bank and principal non-U.S. bank subsidiary, are supervised and regulated by the PRA and the FCA. GSI provides broker-dealer services in and from the U.K., and GSIB acts as a primary dealer for European government bonds and is involved in market making in European government bonds, lending (including securities lending) and deposit-taking activities.

GSI, GSIB and other regulated entities in the E.U. are subject to directly binding regulations of the E.U. and national implementation of E.U. directives, where applicable.

Capital, Leverage and Liquidity Requirements. We are subject to consolidated regulatory capital and leverage requirements set forth by the Federal Reserve Board. GS Bank USA is subject to capital and leverage requirements that are calculated in substantially the same manner as those applicable to Group Inc., also set forth by the Federal Reserve Board. GSI is subject to capital requirements prescribed in the E.U. Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and the E.U. Fourth Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV).

Under the Federal Reserve Board’s capital adequacy requirements, 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 is also subject to qualitative judgments by regulators. Group Inc. and GS Bank USA are also subject to liquidity requirements established by the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies, and GSI is subject to similar requirements established by U.K. regulatory authorities.

Capital Ratios. We are subject to the Federal Reserve Board’s revised risk-based capital and leverage regulations, inclusive of certain transitional provisions (Revised Capital Framework). The Revised Capital Framework is largely based on Basel III and also implements certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the Revised Capital Framework, we are an “Advanced approach” banking organization and have been designated as a global systemically important bank (G-SIB).

The Revised Capital Framework provides for three additional capital ratio requirements that phase in over time: (i) for capital conservation (capital conservation buffer), (ii) as a consequence of our designation as a G-SIB (G-SIB buffer) and (iii) for counter-cyclicality (counter-cyclical buffer). These additional capital ratio requirements must be satisfied entirely with capital that qualifies as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1).

The capital conservation buffer began to phase in on January 1, 2016 and will continue to do so in increments of 0.625% per year until it reaches 2.5% of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) on January 1, 2019. The G-SIB buffer also began to phase in on January 1, 2016 and will continue to do so through January 1, 2019.

The counter-cyclical buffer, of up to 2.5%, is designed to counteract systemic vulnerabilities and applies only to “Advanced approach” banking organizations. The counter-cyclical buffer is currently set at zero percent. Several other national supervisors have also started to require counter-cyclical buffers. The G-SIB and counter-cyclical buffers applicable to us could change in the future and, as a result, the minimum capital ratios we are subject to could increase.

GS Bank USA also computes its capital ratios in accordance with the Revised Capital Framework as an “Advanced approach” banking organization.

The Basel Committee has published final guidelines for calculating incremental capital ratio requirements for banking institutions that are systemically significant from a domestic but not global perspective (D-SIBs). If these guidelines are implemented by national regulators, they will apply to, among others, certain subsidiaries of G-SIBs. These guidelines are in addition to the framework for G-SIBs, but are more principles-based. CRD IV and the CRR provide that institutions that are systemically important at the E.U. or member state level, known as other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs), may be subject to additional capital ratio requirements of up to 2% of CET1, according to their degree of systemic importance (O-SII buffers). O-SIIs are identified annually, along with their applicable buffers. During 2016, the PRA identified Goldman Sachs Group UK Limited (GSG UK), the parent company of GSI and GSIB, as an O-SII. GSG UK’s O-SII buffer is currently set at zero percent.

The Basel Committee has issued a series of updates that propose other changes to capital regulations. In particular, in January 2016, the Basel Committee finalized a revised framework for calculating minimum capital requirements for market risk, which is expected to increase market risk capital requirements for most banking organizations. The Basel Committee has set an effective date for reporting under the revised framework for market risk capital of December 31, 2019. The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies have not yet proposed rules implementing these revisions for U.S. banking organizations. In November 2016, the European Commission proposed amendments to the CRR to implement these revisions for certain E.U. financial institutions, including GSI.

The Basel Committee has also:

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K and Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information about our, GS Bank USA’s and GSI’s capital ratios and minimum required ratios.

As described under “Other Restrictions” below, in September 2016, the Federal Reserve Board issued a proposed rule that would, among other things, require financial holding companies to hold additional capital in connection with covered physical commodity activities.

Leverage Ratios. Under the Revised Capital Framework, we and GS Bank USA are subject to Tier 1 leverage requirements established by the Federal Reserve Board. The Revised Capital Framework also introduced a supplementary leverage ratio for “Advanced approach” banking organizations effective January 1, 2018 which implements the Basel III leverage ratio framework.

In November 2016, the European Commission proposed amendments to the CRR to implement a 3% minimum leverage ratio requirement for certain E.U. financial institutions, including GSI, which would implement the Basel III leverage ratio framework.

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K and Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information about our and GS Bank USA’s Tier 1 leverage ratios and supplementary leverage ratios and GSI’s leverage ratio.

Liquidity Ratios. The Basel Committee’s international framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring requires banking organizations to measure their liquidity against two specific liquidity tests.

The liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) applicable to both Group Inc. and GS Bank USA is generally consistent with the Basel Committee’s framework and is designed to ensure that a banking organization maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets equal to or greater than the expected net cash outflows under an acute short-term liquidity stress scenario.

In December 2016, the Federal Reserve Board issued a final rule that requires bank holding companies to disclose, on a quarterly basis beginning with the second quarter of 2017, LCR averages over the quarter, quantitative and qualitative information on certain components of the LCR calculation and projected net cash outflows.

The LCR rule issued by the European Commission became effective in the U.K. on October 1, 2015, with a phase-in period whereby certain financial institutions, including GSI, must have a 90% and 100% minimum ratio commencing on January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018, respectively.

The net stable funding ratio (NSFR) is designed to promote medium- and long-term stable funding of the assets and off-balance-sheet activities of banking organizations over a one-year time horizon. The Basel Committee’s NSFR framework requires banking organizations to maintain a minimum NSFR of 100%, and will be effective on January 1, 2018. In May 2016, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies issued a proposed rule that would implement an NSFR for large U.S. banking organizations, including Group Inc. The proposal would require banking organizations to ensure they have stable funding over a one-year time horizon. The proposed NSFR requirement has an effective date of January 1, 2018, including a requirement for quarterly public disclosure of the ratio, as well as a description of the banking organization’s stable funding sources.

In November 2016, the European Commission proposed amendments to the CRR to implement the NSFR for certain E.U. financial institutions, including GSI.

The enhanced prudential standards implemented by the Federal Reserve Board under the Dodd-Frank Act require bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets (covered BHCs) to comply with enhanced liquidity and overall risk management standards, including a level 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. Although the liquidity requirement under these rules has some similarities to the LCR, it is a separate requirement.

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management — Overview and Structure of Risk Management” and “— Liquidity Risk Management” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K for information about the LCR and NSFR, as well as our risk management practices and liquidity.

Stress Tests. Covered BHCs, including Group Inc., are subject to Dodd-Frank Act annual supervisory stress tests conducted by the Federal Reserve Board and semi-annual company-run stress tests. The stress test rules require increased involvement by boards of directors in stress testing and 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.

We publish summaries of our annual and mid-cycle stress tests results on our website as described under “Available Information” below. Our annual Dodd-Frank Act stress test submission is incorporated into the annual capital plans that we submit to the Federal Reserve Board as part of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). The purpose of CCAR is to ensure that large bank holding companies 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 CCAR, the Federal Reserve Board evaluates an institution’s plan to make capital distributions, such as repurchasing or redeeming stock or increasing dividend payments, across a range of macroeconomic and firm-specific assumptions.

GS Bank USA is also required to conduct stress tests on an annual basis, 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. GSI also has its own capital planning and stress testing process, which incorporates internally designed stress tests and those required under the PRA’s Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process.

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 through the CCAR process, based on capital plans and stress tests submitted by the bank holding company, and are 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 under baseline and stressed scenarios, and any potential impact of changes to its business plan and activities on its capital adequacy and liquidity.

The Federal Reserve Board’s capital plan rule includes a limitation on capital distributions to the extent that actual capital issuances are less than the amount indicated in the capital plan submission.

U.S. federal and state laws impose limitations on the payment of dividends by U.S. depository institutions, such as GS Bank USA. In general, the amount of dividends that may be paid by GS Bank USA 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 applicable U.S. 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. The BHC Act 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.

Source of Strength. The Dodd-Frank Act requires 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. 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 U.S. federal banking agency 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 for the holding company and the bank will be entitled to priority payment in respect of that commitment, ahead of other creditors of the bank holding company.

Transactions between 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. These regulations generally 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 or its subsidiaries. These regulations generally do not apply to transactions between GS Bank USA and its subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the coverage and scope of these regulations, including by applying them to the credit exposure arising under derivative transactions, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and lending transactions.

Resolution and Recovery. Group Inc. is required by the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC to provide a periodic 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. If the regulators jointly determine that an institution has failed to cure identified shortcomings in its resolution plan and that its resolution plan, after any permitted resubmission, is not credible or would not facilitate an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the regulators may jointly impose more stringent capital, leverage or liquidity requirements or restrictions on growth, activities or operations or may jointly order the institutions to divest assets or operations in order to facilitate orderly resolution in the event of failure. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital — Resolution and Recovery Plans” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K for information about our resolution plan.

We are also required by the Federal Reserve Board to submit, and have submitted, on a periodic basis, a global recovery plan that outlines the steps that management could take to reduce risk, maintain sufficient liquidity, and conserve capital in times of prolonged stress.

The FDIC has 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. Our resolution plan for GS Bank USA must, among other things, demonstrate that it is adequately protected from risks arising from our other entities.

The E.U. Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) establishes a framework for the recovery and resolution of financial institutions in the E.U., such as GSI. The BRRD provides national supervisory authorities with tools and powers to pre-emptively address potential financial crises in order to promote financial stability and minimize taxpayers’ exposure to losses. The BRRD requires E.U. member states to grant “bail-in” powers to E.U. resolution authorities to recapitalize a failing entity by writing down its unsecured debt or converting its unsecured debt into equity. Financial institutions in the E.U. (including GSI) must provide that new contracts enable such actions and also amend pre-existing contracts governed by non-E.U. law to enable such actions, if the financial institutions could incur liabilities under such pre-existing contracts.

The BRRD also subjects financial institutions to a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) so that they can be resolved without causing financial instability and without recourse to public funds in the event of a failure. The Bank of England’s rules on MREL are described below under “Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity.”

In May 2016, the Federal Reserve Board released a proposal that would impose restrictions on qualified financial contracts (QFCs) of G-SIBs. This proposal is intended to facilitate the orderly resolution of a failed G-SIB by limiting the ability of the G-SIB to transact with QFC counterparties unless such counterparties waive rights to terminate such contracts immediately upon the entry of the G-SIB or one of its affiliates into resolution. The effective date is proposed to be approximately one year after the proposal is finalized.

Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity. In December 2016, the Federal Reserve Board adopted a final rule establishing loss-absorbency and related requirements for U.S. G-SIBs such as Group Inc. The rule will be effective in January 2019 with no phase-in period. The rule addresses U.S. implementation of the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) principles and term sheet on minimum TLAC requirements for G-SIBs. The rule (i) establishes minimum TLAC requirements, (ii) establishes minimum “eligible long-term debt” (i.e., debt that is unsecured, has a maturity greater than one year from issuance and satisfies certain additional criteria) requirements, (iii) prohibits certain holding company transactions and (iv) caps the amount of G-SIB liabilities that are not eligible long-term debt.

The rule also prohibits a U.S. G-SIB from (i) guaranteeing liabilities of subsidiaries that are subject to early termination provisions if the parent company of a U.S. G-SIB enters into an insolvency or receivership proceeding, subject to an exception for guarantees permitted by rules of the U.S. federal banking agencies imposing restrictions on QFCs, which have not yet been adopted; (ii) incurring liabilities guaranteed by subsidiaries; (iii) issuing short-term debt; or (iv) entering into derivatives and certain other financial contracts with external counterparties.

Additionally, the rule caps, at 5% of the value of the U.S. G-SIB’s eligible TLAC, the amount of unsecured non-contingent third-party liabilities that are not eligible long-term debt that could rank equally with or junior to eligible long-term debt.

In October 2016, the Basel Committee issued a final standard to implement capital deductions for banking organizations relating to TLAC holdings of other G-SIBs. This standard will inform how the deductions are implemented by national regulators.

The FSB, an international body that sets standards and coordinates the work of national financial authorities and international standard-setting bodies, issued a final TLAC standard requiring certain material subsidiaries of a G-SIB organized outside of the G-SIB’s home country, such as GSI, to maintain amounts of TLAC to facilitate the transfer of losses from operating subsidiaries to the parent company. In December 2016, the FSB issued a consultative document that presents a set of guiding principles on the implementation of the TLAC requirements applicable to material subsidiaries. As an obligation of membership, the FSB’s members, including the U.S., commit to implement international financial standards, including those of the FSB.

The BRRD subjects institutions to MREL, which is generally consistent with the FSB’s TLAC standard. In November 2016, the Bank of England published its policy on setting MREL under which certain U.K. financial institutions will be required to maintain equity and liabilities sufficient to credibly bear losses in resolution. The Bank of England has not yet published its final policy on the calibration of MREL for entities that are parts of groups, such as GSI.

In November 2016, the European Commission proposed amendments to the CRR and BRRD that are designed to implement the FSB’s minimum TLAC requirement for G-SIBs commencing January 1, 2019. The proposal would require subsidiaries of a non-E.U. G-SIB that account for more than 5% of our RWAs, operating income or leverage exposure, such as GSI, to meet 90% of the requirement applicable to E.U. G-SIBs.

In November 2016, the European Commission also proposed an amendment to CRD IV that would require a non-E.U. G-SIB, such as Group Inc., to establish an E.U. intermediate holding company (E.U. IHC) if the firm has two or more of certain types of E.U. financial institution subsidiaries, including broker-dealers and banks, such as GSI and GSIB. This proposal is subject to adoption at the E.U. level and implementing rulemakings by E.U. member states. The European Commission also proposed amendments to the CRR that would require E.U. IHCs to satisfy MREL requirements and certain other prudential requirements.

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, 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 and claims of debtholders 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 debtholders (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 (OLA)”) for bank holding companies and their affiliates that are systemically important and certain non-bank financial companies. Under OLA, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver for the systemically important institution and its failed non-bank subsidiaries if, upon the recommendation of applicable regulators, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury determines, among other things, that the institution is in default or in danger of default, that the institution’s failure would have serious adverse effects on the U.S. financial system and that resolution under OLA would avoid or mitigate those effects.

If the FDIC is appointed as receiver under OLA, 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 OLA, and not under the bankruptcy or insolvency law that would otherwise apply. The powers of the receiver under OLA 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 OLA and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including the right of the FDIC under OLA 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, OLA limits the ability of creditors to enforce certain contractual cross-defaults against affiliates of the institution in receivership.

The OLA provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act became effective upon enactment. The FDIC has completed several rulemakings and taken other actions under OLA, including the issuance of a notice describing some elements of its “single point of entry” or “SPOE” strategy pursuant to the OLA provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Under this strategy, the FDIC would, among other things, resolve a failed financial holding company by transferring its assets to a “bridge” holding company.

We, along with a number of other major global banking organizations, adhere to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Resolution Stay Protocol (the ISDA Protocol) that was developed and updated in coordination with the FSB. The ISDA Protocol imposes a stay on certain cross-default and early termination rights within standard ISDA derivatives contracts and securities financing transactions between adhering parties in the event that one of them is subject to resolution in its home jurisdiction, including a resolution under OLA in the U.S. The ISDA Protocol is expected to be adopted more broadly in the future, following the adoption of regulations by banking regulators (including the Federal Reserve Board’s proposal on QFCs described above), and expanded to include instances where a U.S. financial holding company becomes subject to proceedings under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

FDIC 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.

In March 2016, the FDIC adopted a final rule increasing the reserve ratio for the Deposit Insurance Fund to 1.35% of total insured deposits. The rule imposes a surcharge on the assessments of larger depository institutions, that began in the third quarter of 2016 and continues through the earlier of the quarter that the reserve ratio first reaches or exceeds 1.35% and December 31, 2018. Under the rule, if the reserve ratio does not reach 1.35% by December 31, 2018, the FDIC will impose a shortfall assessment on larger depository institutions, including GS Bank USA.

Prompt Corrective Action. The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), among other things, requires the federal bank regulatory 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.

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” above.

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.

Activities. The Dodd-Frank Act and the BHC Act generally restrict bank holding companies from engaging in business activities other than the business of banking and certain closely related activities.

Volcker Rule. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule” became effective in July 2015. The Volcker Rule prohibits “proprietary trading,” but permits activities such as underwriting, market making and risk-mitigation hedging, requires an extensive compliance program and includes additional reporting and record-keeping requirements. The reporting requirements include calculating daily quantitative metrics on covered trading activities (as defined in the rule) and providing these metrics to regulators on a monthly basis.

In addition, 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. Covered funds include our private equity funds, certain of our credit and real estate funds, our hedge funds and certain other investment structures. 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 July 2016, the Federal Reserve Board extended the conformance period through July 2017 for investments in, and relationships with, covered funds that were in place prior to December 31, 2013. In December 2016, the Federal Reserve Board released guidance regarding the extended conformance period available for legacy “illiquid funds” (as defined in the Volcker Rule) and the process for banking entities to request an extension of the conformance period for those funds of up to an additional five years beyond the expiration of the general conformance period in July 2017. See “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K and Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information about our investments in covered funds.

Other Restrictions. Financial holding companies 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. 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 (merchant banking activities). In addition, certain financial holding companies are permitted under the GLB Act to engage in certain commodities activities in the U.S. 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 a financial holding company’s ability to conduct activities that would otherwise be permissible, and will likely do so if the financial holding company does not satisfactorily meet certain requirements of the Federal Reserve Board. For example, if a financial holding company or any of its U.S. depository institution subsidiaries ceases to maintain its status as well-capitalized or well-managed, the Federal Reserve Board may impose corrective capital and/or managerial requirements, as well as additional limitations or conditions. If the deficiencies persist, the financial holding company may be required to divest its U.S. depository institution subsidiaries or to cease engaging in activities other than the business of banking and certain closely related activities.

If any insured depository institution subsidiary of a financial holding company fails to maintain at least a “satisfactory” rating under the Community Reinvestment Act, the financial holding company would be subject to similar restrictions on activities.

In addition, we are required to obtain prior Federal Reserve Board approval before engaging in certain banking and other financial activities both within and outside the U.S.

In September 2016, the Federal Reserve Board issued a proposed rule which, if adopted, would impose new requirements on the physical commodity activities and certain merchant banking activities of financial holding companies. The proposed rule would, among other things, (i) require companies to hold additional capital in connection with covered physical commodity activities, including merchant banking investments in companies engaged in physical commodity activities; (ii) tighten the quantitative limits on permissible physical trading activity; and (iii) establish new public reporting requirements on the nature and extent of firms’ physical commodity holdings and activities. In addition, in a September 2016 report, the Federal Reserve Board recommended that Congress repeal (i) the authority of financial holding companies to engage in merchant banking activities; and (ii) the authority described above for certain financial holding companies to engage in certain otherwise permissible commodities activities.

In March 2016, the Federal Reserve Board issued a revised proposal regarding single counterparty credit limits, which would impose more stringent requirements for credit exposures among major financial institutions. Such limits (together with other provisions incorporated into the Basel III capital rules) may affect our ability to transact or hedge with other financial institutions. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has proposed early remediation requirements, which are modeled on the prompt corrective action regime, described under “Prompt Corrective Action” above, 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.

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.

The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies have issued guidance that focuses on transaction structures and risk management frameworks and that outlines high-level principles for safe-and-sound leveraged lending, including underwriting standards, valuation and stress testing. This guidance has, among other things, limited the percentage amount of debt that can be included in certain transactions.

Our 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, record-keeping, the financing of clients’ purchases, and the conduct of directors, officers and employees. In the U.S., 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. U.S. self-regulatory organizations, such as FINRA and the NYSE, adopt rules that apply to, and examine, broker-dealers such as GS&Co.

In addition, U.S. state securities and other U.S. 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 described further below, as well as under “Other Regulation.” For a description of net capital requirements applicable to GS&Co., see Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

In Europe, we provide broker-dealer services that are subject to oversight by national regulators. These services are regulated in accordance with national laws, many of which implement E.U. directives, and, increasingly, by directly applicable E.U. regulations. These national and E.U. laws require, among other things, compliance with certain capital adequacy standards, customer protection requirements and market conduct and trade reporting rules.

Goldman Sachs Japan Co., Ltd. (GSJCL), our regulated Japanese broker-dealer, is subject to capital requirements imposed by Japan’s Financial Services Agency. GSJCL is also regulated by the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Osaka 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 of our other subsidiaries are regulated by the banking and regulatory authorities in jurisdictions in which we operate, including, among others, Brazil and Dubai.

Our exchange-based market-making activities are subject to extensive regulation by a number of securities exchanges. As a market maker on exchanges, we are required to maintain orderly markets in the securities to which we are assigned.

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 law 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.

In addition, in April 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor issued final rules expanding the circumstances in which a person would be treated as a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by reason of providing investment advice to retirement plans and individual retirement accounts, as well as final exemptions. These rules and exemptions are scheduled to become effective on April 10, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the President of the U.S. directed the Secretary of Labor to prepare an updated analysis of the likely impact of the rules and to consider whether to propose to rescind or revise the rules.

Our U.S. broker-dealer and other U.S. subsidiaries are also subject to rules adopted by U.S. 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 would also be affected by rules proposed by the SEC 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 U.S. is subject to regulation under the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The CFTC is the U.S. federal agency charged with the administration of the CEA. In addition, the SEC is the U.S. federal agency charged with the regulation of security-based swaps. GS&Co. is registered with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant, and several of our subsidiaries, including GS&Co., are registered with the CFTC and act as commodity pool operators, commodity trading advisors and/or 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. 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.

In general, 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. The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies (acting jointly) are responsible for issuing margin rules for uncleared swaps and security-based swaps for swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants and major security-based swap participants subject to their oversight. In September 2016, the final margin rules issued by the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies and the CFTC for uncleared swaps became effective. These rules will phase in through March 2017 for variation margin requirements and through September 2020 for initial margin requirements depending on the level of swaps, security-based swaps and/or exempt foreign exchange derivative transaction activity of the swap dealer and the relevant counterparty. The final rules of the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies generally apply to inter-affiliate transactions, with limited relief available from initial margin requirements for affiliates. Under the CFTC final rules, inter-affiliate transactions are exempt from initial margin requirements with certain exceptions but variation margin requirements still apply.

In December 2016, the CFTC proposed revised capital regulations for swap dealers and major swap participants that are not subject to the capital rules of a prudential regulator, such as the Federal Reserve Board, as well as a liquidity requirement for those swap dealers. However, many other requirements, including registration of swap dealers, mandatory clearing and execution of certain swaps, 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. Finally, the CFTC has begun to decide which swaps must be cleared through central counterparties and executed on swap execution facilities or exchanges. In particular, certain interest rate swaps and credit default swaps are now subject to these clearing and trade-execution requirements. The CFTC is expected to continue to make such determinations during 2017.

The SEC has adopted rules relating to trade reporting and real-time reporting requirements for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants. The SEC has also adopted final rules relating to the registration of, and application of business conduct standards to, security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, but compliance with such rules is not currently required. The SEC has proposed, but not yet finalized, 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 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 also expect to register certain subsidiaries as security-based swap dealers.

Similar regulations have been proposed or adopted in jurisdictions outside the U.S., including the adoption of standardized execution and clearing, margining and reporting requirements for OTC derivatives. For instance, the E.U. has established regulatory requirements for OTC derivatives activities under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation, including requirements relating to portfolio reconciliation and reporting, clearing certain OTC derivatives and margining for uncleared derivatives.

The CFTC and SEC have issued guidance and rules relating to swap activities. The CFTC has provided 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. The CFTC also approved certain comparability determinations that would permit substituted compliance with non-U.S. regulatory regimes for certain swap regulations related to certain business conduct requirements, including chief compliance officer duties, conflict of interest rules, monitoring of position limits, record-keeping and risk management.

The SEC issued rules and guidance on cross-border security-based swap activities and the CFTC issued rules that determine the circumstances under which registered swap dealers are subject to the CFTC’s rules regarding margin in connection with uncleared swaps in cross-border transactions. In particular, certain non-U.S. swap dealers are generally required to comply with the CFTC’s rules but, with respect to the requirement to post margin, these non-U.S. swap dealers are permitted to comply with comparable margin requirements in a foreign jurisdiction, subject to the CFTC’s approval of the particular jurisdiction. Substituted compliance is also available with respect to the collection of margin in certain circumstances. The CFTC’s rules are only applicable to those swap dealers that are not subject to the margin requirements of a prudential regulator.

In October 2016, the CFTC proposed rules addressing the extent to which swap dealers and major swap participants would be required to comply with the CFTC’s business conduct standards in cross-border transactions. The proposal also would determine the circumstances under which U.S. and non-U.S. persons would be required to include their cross-border swap dealing transactions or swap positions in their calculations of the level of activity subject to CFTC jurisdiction for purposes of determining whether they are required to register as either a swap dealer or major swap participant.

The application of new derivatives rules across different national and regulatory jurisdictions has not yet been fully established and 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 described under “Risk Factors — Our commodities activities, particularly our physical commodities activities, subject us to extensive regulation and involve certain potential risks, including environmental, reputational and other risks that may expose us to significant liabilities and costs” in Part I, Item 1A of this 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. The SEC has adopted amendments to the rules that govern SEC-registered money market mutual funds. The amended rules require institutional prime money market funds to value their portfolio securities using market-based factors and to sell and redeem their shares based on a floating net asset value. In addition, the rules allow, in certain circumstances, for the board of directors of money market mutual funds to impose liquidity fees and redemption gates and also require additional disclosure, reporting and stress testing.

In October 2016, the SEC also adopted rules relating to liquidity risk management that, among others, require registered open-end funds to adopt and implement liquidity risk management programs, establish a minimum percentage of their net assets that will be invested in highly liquid investments and adopt policies and procedures to address shortfalls in meeting that minimum (applicable only to funds that do not primarily hold assets that are highly liquid), and classify and review the liquidity of their portfolio assets. The rules also permit funds to employ “swing pricing,” under which the net asset value of a fund’s shares may be adjusted in order to pass the cost of trading in such shares to purchasing or redeeming shareholders. In addition, the rules require funds to make disclosures relating to their liquidity risk management program and swing pricing policies.

In December 2015, the SEC also proposed a rule regulating the use of derivatives by registered funds. Under the proposed rule, a registered fund would be required to, among other things, comply with one of two alternative portfolio limitations designed to impose a limit on the total amount of leverage the fund can obtain through derivatives transactions; maintain a minimum amount of “qualifying coverage assets” (generally limited to cash and cash equivalents) to support payment obligations for each derivative transaction; establish a derivatives risk management program if derivative use meets specified thresholds; and comply with new record-keeping, disclosure and reporting requirements related to its use of derivatives.

Certain of our European subsidiaries are subject to the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and related regulations, which govern the approval, organizational, marketing and reporting requirements of E.U.-based alternative investment managers and the ability of alternative investment fund managers located outside the E.U. to access the E.U. market.

The E.U. legislative institutions have reached provisional agreement on an E.U. regulation relating to money market funds, including provisions prescribing minimum levels of daily and weekly liquidity, clear labeling of money market funds and internal credit risk assessments. This E.U. regulation is currently expected to be published in the second quarter of 2017 and is expected to apply from early 2018 (subject to transitional provisions).

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.

The U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies have provided 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: (i) 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; (ii) the arrangements should be compatible with effective controls and risk management; and (iii) the arrangements should be supported by strong corporate governance. The 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 FSB has released standards for local regulators to implement certain compensation principles for banks and other financial companies designed to encourage sound compensation practices. In the E.U., the CRR and CRD IV include compensation provisions designed to implement the FSB’s compensation standards. These rules have been implemented by E.U. member states and, among other things, limit the ratio of variable to fixed compensation of certain employees, including those identified as having a material impact on the risk profile of E.U.-regulated entities, including GSI.

The E.U. has also introduced rules regulating compensation for certain persons providing services to certain investment funds. These requirements are in addition to the guidance issued by U.S. financial regulators described above and the Dodd-Frank Act provision described below.

During the second quarter of 2016, the U.S. financial regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC, proposed revised rules on incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities having at least $1 billion in total assets (including Group Inc. and some of its depository institution, broker-dealer and investment adviser subsidiaries).

The proposed revised rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, additional specific requirements for entities with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion and further, more stringent requirements for those with total consolidated assets of at least $250 billion. The general qualitative requirements include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate record-keeping.

For larger financial institutions, the proposed revised rules would also introduce additional requirements applicable only to “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers” (as defined in the proposed rules), including (i) limits on performance measures and leverage relating to performance targets; (ii) minimum deferral periods; and (iii) subjecting incentive compensation to possible downward adjustment, forfeiture and clawback.

In October 2016, the NYDFS issued guidance emphasizing that its regulated banking institutions, including GS Bank USA, must ensure that any incentive compensation arrangements tied to employee performance indicators are subject to effective risk management, oversight and control.

Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Bribery Rules and Regulations

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 U.S. 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 scope of the types of payments or other benefits covered by these laws is very broad and regulators are frequently using enforcement proceedings to define the scope of these laws. 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.

Privacy and Cyber Security Regulation

Certain of our businesses are subject to laws and regulations enacted by U.S. federal and state governments, the E.U. or other non-U.S. jurisdictions and/or enacted by various regulatory organizations or exchanges relating to the privacy of the information of clients, employees or others, including the GLB Act, the E.U. Data Protection Directive, the Japanese Personal Information Protection Act, the Hong Kong Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, the Australian Privacy Act and the Brazilian Bank Secrecy Law.

In February 2017, the NYDFS adopted regulations that will, beginning March 1, 2017, require financial institutions regulated by the NYDFS, including GS Bank USA, to, among other things, (i) establish and maintain a cyber security program designed to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of their information systems; (ii) implement and maintain a written cyber security policy setting forth policies and procedures for the protection of their information systems and nonpublic information; and (iii) designate a Chief Information Security Officer. In addition, in October 2016, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on potential enhanced cyber risk management standards for large financial institutions.

Other Regulation

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 U.S., 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.

The E.U. is finalizing implementing measures under the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation and under a revision of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (collectively, MiFID II). MiFID II will become effective on January 3, 2018. Although the implementing rules and technical standards were largely finalized by the European Commission and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in the second half of 2016, significant legal uncertainty still remains in terms of commodities position limits and several market structure rules. In addition, legal uncertainty will remain until member states finalize their rules transposing MiFID II into their law, which they are required to do by July 2017.

MiFID II includes extensive market structure reforms, such as the establishment of new trading venue categories for the purposes of discharging the obligation to trade OTC derivatives on a trading platform and enhanced pre- and post-trade transparency covering a wider range of financial instruments. In equities, MiFID II introduces volume caps on non-transparent liquidity trading for trading venues, limits the use of broker-dealer crossing networks and creates a new regime for systematic internalizers, which execute client transactions outside a trading venue.

Additional controls will be introduced for algorithmic trading, high frequency trading and direct electronic access. Commodities trading firms will be required to calculate their positions and adhere to specific limits. Other reforms introduce enhanced transaction reporting, the publication of best execution data by investment firms and trading venues, transparency on costs and charges of service to investors, changes to the way investment managers can pay for the receipt of investment research and mandatory unbundling for broker-dealers between execution and other major services.

The E.U. and national financial legislators and regulators in the E.U. have proposed or adopted numerous further market reforms that may impact our businesses, including heightened corporate governance standards for financial institutions, rules on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products and rules on indices that are used as benchmarks for financial instruments or funds. In addition, the European Commission, ESMA and the European Banking Authority have announced or are formulating regulatory standards and other measures which will impact our European operations. Certain of our European subsidiaries are also regulated by the securities, derivatives and commodities exchanges of which they are members.

The European Commission has published a proposal for a common system of financial transactions tax which would be implemented in certain E.U. member states willing to engage in enhanced cooperation in this area. The proposed financial transactions tax is broad in scope and would apply to transactions in a wide variety of financial instruments and derivatives. The European Commission has also published a draft proposal for structural reform of E.U. banks, which would prohibit certain banks from proprietary trading and would require separating certain trading activities from deposit-taking entities.

As described 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.

Available Information

Our internet address is www.gs.com and the investor relations section of our website is located at www.gs.com/shareholders. We make available free of charge through the investor relations section of our website, 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 website, 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, Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, 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 website 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 website 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.

From time to time, we use our website, our Twitter account (twitter.com/GoldmanSachs) and other social media channels as additional means of disclosing public information to investors, the media and others interested in Goldman Sachs. It is possible that certain information we post on our website and on social media could be deemed to be material information, and we encourage investors, the media and others interested in Goldman Sachs to review the business and financial information we post on our website and on the social media channels identified above. The information on our website and our social media channels is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K.

Cautionary Statement Pursuant to the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

We have included or incorporated by reference in this 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, leverage, liquidity, long-term debt and total loss-absorbing capacity rules applicable to banks and bank holding companies, the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our businesses and operations, and various legal proceedings, governmental investigations or mortgage-related contingencies as set forth in Notes 27 and 18, respectively, to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this 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 business continuity plan, information security program, risk management and liquidity policies, statements about our resolution plan and resolution strategy and their implications for our debtholders and other stakeholders, 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 described below and in “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K.

Statements about our investment banking transaction backlog 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 information about other important factors that could adversely affect our investment banking transactions, see “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K.

We have provided in this filing information regarding the firm’s capital, liquidity and leverage ratios, including the CET1 ratios under the Advanced and Standardized approaches on a fully phased-in basis, as well as the LCR and the NSFR for the firm and the supplementary leverage ratios for the firm and GS Bank USA. The statements with respect to these ratios are forward-looking statements, based on our current interpretation, expectations and understandings of the relevant regulatory rules, guidance and proposals, and reflect significant assumptions concerning the treatment of various assets and liabilities and the manner in which the ratios are calculated. As a result, the methods used to calculate these ratios may differ, possibly materially, from those used in calculating the firm’s capital, liquidity and leverage ratios for any future disclosures. The ultimate methods of calculating the ratios will depend on, among other things, implementation guidance or further rulemaking from the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies and the development of market practices and standards.

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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. These conditions can change suddenly and negatively.

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, regulatory and market conditions which result in transparent, liquid and efficient capital markets, low inflation, high business and investor confidence, stable geopolitical conditions, clear regulations 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; the extent of and 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; illiquid markets; increases in inflation, interest rates, exchange rate or basic commodity price volatility or default rates; outbreaks of hostilities or other geopolitical instability or uncertainty, such as Brexit; 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.

The financial services industry and the securities markets have been materially and adversely affected in the past by significant declines in the values of nearly all asset classes and by a serious lack of liquidity. In addition, concerns about European sovereign debt risk and its impact on the European banking system, about the impact of Brexit, and about changes in interest rates and other market conditions or actual changes in interest rates and other market conditions, including market conditions in China, have resulted, at times, in significant volatility while negatively impacting the levels of client activity.

General uncertainty about economic, political and market activities, and the scope, timing and final implementation of regulatory reform, as well as weak consumer, investor and CEO confidence resulting in large part from such uncertainty, continues to negatively impact client activity, which adversely affects many of our businesses. Periods of low volatility and periods of high volatility combined with a lack of liquidity, have at times had an unfavorable impact on our market-making businesses.

Our revenues and profitability and those of our competitors have been and will continue to be impacted by requirements relating to capital, additional loss-absorbing capacity, leverage, minimum liquidity and long-term funding levels, requirements related to resolution and recovery planning, derivatives clearing and margin rules and levels of regulatory oversight, as well as limitations on which and, if permitted, how certain business activities may be carried out by financial institutions. Although interest rates are at or near historically low levels, 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. In addition, liquidity in the financial markets has also been negatively impacted as market participants and market practices and structures adjust to new regulations.

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 significant 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 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. In many cases, our activities may be subject to overlapping and divergent regulation in different jurisdictions. 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, including higher capital requirements, or subjected to new or substantially higher taxes or other governmental charges in connection with the conduct of our businesses or with respect to our employees. Such limitations or conditions may limit our business activities and negatively impact our profitability.

Separate and apart from the impact on the scope and profitability of our business activities, day-to-day compliance with existing laws and regulations, in particular those laws and regulations adopted since 2008, has involved and will, except to the extent that some of such regulations are eventually modified or otherwise repealed, continue to involve significant amounts of time, including that of our senior leaders and that of an increasing number of dedicated compliance and other reporting and operational personnel, all of which may negatively impact our profitability.

If there are new laws or regulations or changes in the enforcement of existing laws or regulations applicable to our businesses or those of our clients, including capital, liquidity, leverage, long-term debt, total loss-absorbing capacity and margin requirements, restrictions on leveraged lending or other business practices, reporting requirements, requirements relating to recovery and resolution planning, tax burdens and compensation restrictions, that are imposed on a limited subset of financial institutions (either based on size, activities, geography or other criteria), compliance with these new laws or regulations, or changes in the enforcement of existing laws or regulations, could 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.

Among the aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act that have affected or may in the future affect our businesses are: increased capital, liquidity and reporting requirements; limitations on activities in which we may engage; increased regulation of and restrictions on OTC derivatives markets and transactions; limitations on incentive compensation; limitations on affiliate transactions; requirements to reorganize or limit activities in connection with recovery and resolution planning; increased deposit insurance assessments; and increased standards of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers in dealing with clients. The implementation of higher capital requirements, the LCR, the NSFR, requirements relating to long-term debt and total loss-absorbing capacity and the prohibition on proprietary trading and the sponsorship of, or investment in, covered funds by the Volcker Rule may adversely affect our profitability and competitive position, particularly if these requirements do not apply equally to our competitors or are not implemented uniformly across jurisdictions.

As described under “Business — Regulation — Capital and Liquidity Requirements — Payment of Dividends and Stock Repurchases” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K, Group Inc.’s proposed capital actions and capital plan are reviewed by the Federal Reserve Board as part of the CCAR process. If the Federal Reserve Board objects to our proposed capital actions in our capital plan, Group Inc. could be prohibited from taking some or all of the proposed capital actions, including increasing or paying dividends on common or preferred stock or repurchasing common stock or other capital securities. Our inability to carry out our proposed capital actions could, among other things, prevent us from returning capital to our shareholders and impact our return on equity.

We are also subject to laws and regulations 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. In addition, our businesses are increasingly subject to laws and regulations relating to surveillance, encryption and data on-shoring in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Compliance with these laws and regulations may require us to change our policies, procedures and technology for information security, which could, among other things, make us more vulnerable to cyber attacks and misappropriation, corruption or loss of information or technology.

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. To the extent that we have fiduciary obligations in connection with acting as a financial adviser, investment adviser or in other roles for individual, institutional, sovereign or investment fund clients, any breach, or even an alleged breach, of such obligations could have materially negative legal, regulatory and reputational consequences.

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

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 credit products, including 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 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 or the credit ratings of the party posting collateral decline, the party posting the collateral may need to provide additional collateral or, if possible, reduce its trading position. An 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. In cases where we foreclose on collateral, we have been, and may in the future be, subject to claims that the foreclosure was not permitted under the legal documents, was conducted in an improper manner or caused a client or counterparty to go out of business.

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, or by obtaining bank loans or lines of credit. We seek to finance many of our assets on a secured basis. 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.

Our credit businesses have been and may in the future be negatively affected by a lack of liquidity in credit markets. A lack of liquidity reduces price transparency, increases price volatility and decreases transaction volumes and size, all of which can increase transaction risk or decrease the profitability of such businesses.

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 inventory 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 realize losses in order to decrease our VaR. In addition, increases in volatility increase the level of our RWAs, which increases our capital requirements.

Our investment banking, client execution and investment management businesses have been adversely affected and may in the future 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 can adversely affect and have in the past 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 or a client preference for products other than those which we offer.

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. To the extent that our clients choose to invest in products that we do not currently offer, we will suffer outflows and a loss of management fees.

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, and underwriting activities, 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 those that 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.

In addition, the use of models in connection with risk management and numerous other critical activities presents risks that such models may be ineffective, either because of poor design or ineffective testing, improper or flawed inputs, as well as unpermitted access to such models resulting in unapproved or malicious changes to the model or its inputs.

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 further information about our risk management policies and procedures, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management” in Part II, Item 7 of this 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 or otherwise allocate liquidity optimally across our firm, 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.

We employ structured products to benefit our clients and hedge our own risks. The financial instruments that we hold and the contracts to which we are a party are often complex, 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 there is not generally a liquid market for such assets, as well as in circumstances where other market participants are seeking to sell similar otherwise generally liquid assets at the same time, as is likely to occur in a liquidity or other market crisis or in response to changes to rules or regulations. For example, under the Volcker Rule, we are currently required to sell our interests in “illiquid funds” by July 2017. If our request for an extension is not granted, we will be required to sell such interests by July 2017 and we will likely receive significantly less than our carrying value for those assets. 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 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 us 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.

As of December 2016, 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 $677 million and $2.22 billion, respectively. A downgrade by any one rating agency, depending on the agency’s relative ratings of us at the time of the downgrade, may have an impact which is comparable to the impact of a downgrade by all rating agencies. For further information about our credit ratings, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management — Liquidity Risk Management — Credit Ratings” in Part II, Item 7 of this 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 has proven to be extremely volatile and at times has lacked a high degree of transparency or liquidity.

Regulatory changes relating to liquidity may also negatively impact our results of operations and competitive position. Recently, numerous regulations have been adopted or proposed, and additional regulations are under consideration, to introduce more stringent liquidity requirements for large financial institutions. These regulations and others being considered address, among other matters, liquidity stress testing, minimum liquidity requirements, wholesale funding, limitations on the issuance of short-term debt and structured notes and prohibitions on parent guarantees that are subject to cross-defaults. These may overlap with, and be impacted by, other regulatory changes, including new rules relating to minimum long-term debt requirements and TLAC, guidance on the treatment of brokered deposits and the capital, leverage and resolution and recovery frameworks applicable to large financial institutions. Given the overlap and complex interactions among these new and prospective regulations, they may have unintended cumulative effects, and their full impact will remain uncertain until implementation of post-financial crisis regulatory reform is complete.

A failure to appropriately identify and address potential 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 and, under the Volcker Rule, transactions between Goldman Sachs and certain covered funds.

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.

A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, as well as human error, 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 large number of transactions, many of which are highly complex and occur at 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.

Many rules and regulations worldwide govern our obligations to report transactions and other information to regulators, exchanges and investors. Compliance with these legal and reporting requirements can be challenging, and the firm and other financial institutions have been subject to regulatory fines and penalties for failing to report timely, accurate and complete information. As reporting requirements expand, compliance with these rules and regulations has become more challenging.

As our client base and our geographical reach expand 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) increase, 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, as well as the potential consequences of such errors due to the speed and volume of transactions involved and the potential difficulty associated with discovering such errors quickly enough to limit the resulting consequences.

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, including in connection with the integration of new businesses, entail significant costs and create risks associated with implementing new systems and integrating them with existing ones.

Notwithstanding the proliferation of technology and technology-based risk and control systems, our businesses ultimately rely on people as our greatest resource, and, from time-to-time, they make mistakes that are not always caught immediately by our technological processes or by our other procedures which are intended to prevent and detect such errors. These can include calculation errors, mistakes in addressing emails, errors in software or model development or implementation, or simple errors in judgment. We strive to eliminate such human errors through training, supervision, technology and by redundant processes and controls. Human errors, even if promptly discovered and remediated, can result in material losses and liabilities for the firm.

In addition, we 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, including cloud service providers. 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, terrorism, economic or political developments, pandemics and weather events.

Nearly all of our employees in our primary locations, including the New York metropolitan area, London, Bengaluru, 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 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.

A failure to protect our computer systems, networks and information, and our clients’ information, against cyber attacks and similar threats could impair our ability to conduct our businesses, result in the disclosure, theft or destruction of confidential information, damage our reputation and cause losses.

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. There have been several highly publicized cases involving financial services companies, consumer-based companies and other organizations reporting the unauthorized disclosure of client, customer or other confidential information in recent years, as well as cyber attacks involving the dissemination, theft and destruction of corporate information or other assets, as a result of failure to follow procedures by employees or contractors or as a result of actions by third parties, including actions by foreign governments. There have also been several highly publicized cases where hackers have requested “ransom” payments in exchange for not disclosing customer information.

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. We may face an increasing number of attempted cyber attacks as we expand our mobile- and other internet-based products and services, as well as our usage of mobile and cloud technologies and as we provide more of these services to a greater number of retail clients. In addition, due to our interconnectivity with third-party vendors, central agents, exchanges, clearing houses and other financial institutions, we could be adversely impacted if any of them is subject to a successful cyber attack or other information security event.

Despite our efforts to ensure the integrity of our systems and information, we may not be able to anticipate, detect or implement effective preventive measures against all cyber threats, especially because the techniques used are increasingly sophisticated, change frequently and are often not recognized until launched. Cyber attacks can originate from a variety of sources, including third parties who are affiliated with foreign governments or are involved with organized crime or terrorist organizations. Third parties may also attempt to place individuals within the firm or induce employees, clients or other users of our systems to disclose sensitive information or provide access to our data or that of our clients, and these types of risks may be difficult to detect or prevent.

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. Due to the complexity and interconnectedness of our systems, the process of enhancing our protective measures can itself create a risk of systems disruptions and security issues.

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, but these measures may be ineffective 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. Certain aspects of the security of such technologies are unpredictable or beyond our control, and the failure by mobile technology and cloud service providers to adequately safeguard their systems and prevent cyber attacks could disrupt our operations and result in misappropriation, corruption or loss of confidential and other information. In addition, there is a risk that encryption and other protective measures, despite their sophistication, may be defeated, particularly to the extent that new computing technologies vastly increase the speed and computing power available.

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.

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 and other 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.

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” or maintain internal total loss-absorbing capacity at 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 us on a consolidated basis.

Furthermore, Group Inc. has guaranteed the payment obligations of certain of its subsidiaries, including GS&Co. and GS Bank USA, subject to certain exceptions. 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 or issue additional long-term debt at Group Inc. or 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, arrangements to facilitate our resolution planning may cause us to be subject to additional taxes. Any such limitations or requirements would be in addition to the legal and regulatory restrictions described above on our ability to engage in capital actions or make intercompany dividends or payments.

See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K for further information about regulatory restrictions.

The application of regulatory strategies and requirements in the U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions to facilitate the orderly resolution of large financial institutions could create greater risk of loss for Group Inc.’s security holders.

As described under “Business — Regulation — Banking Supervision and Regulation — Insolvency of an Insured Depository Institution or a Bank Holding Company,” if the FDIC is appointed as receiver under OLA, the rights of Group Inc.’s creditors would be determined under OLA, and substantial differences exist in the rights of creditors between OLA and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including the right of the FDIC under OLA to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims in some circumstances, which could have a material adverse effect on debtholders.

The FDIC has announced that a single point of entry strategy may be a desirable strategy under OLA to resolve a large financial institution such as Group Inc. in a manner that would, among other things, impose losses on shareholders, debtholders and other creditors of the top-tier holding company (in our case, Group Inc.), while the holding company’s subsidiaries may continue to operate. It is possible that the application of the single point of entry strategy under OLA, in which Group Inc. would be the only legal entity to enter resolution proceedings (and its material broker-dealer, bank and other operating entities would not enter resolution proceedings), would result in greater losses to Group Inc.’s security holders (including holders of our fixed rate, floating rate and indexed debt securities), than the losses that would result from the application of a bankruptcy proceeding or a different resolution strategy, such as a multiple point of entry resolution strategy for Group Inc. and certain of its material subsidiaries.

Assuming Group Inc. entered resolution proceedings and that support from Group Inc. to its subsidiaries was sufficient to enable the subsidiaries to remain solvent, losses at the subsidiary level would be transferred to Group Inc. and ultimately borne by Group Inc.’s security holders, third-party creditors of Group Inc.’s subsidiaries would receive full recoveries on their claims, and Group Inc.’s security holders (including our shareholders, debtholders and other unsecured creditors) could face significant losses. In that case, Group Inc.’s security holders would face losses while the third-party creditors of Group Inc.’s subsidiaries would incur no losses because the subsidiaries would continue to operate and would not enter resolution or bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, holders of Group Inc.’s eligible long-term debt and holders of Group Inc.’s other debt securities could face losses ahead of its other similarly situated creditors in a resolution under OLA if the FDIC exercised its right, described above, to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims.

OLA also provides the FDIC with authority to cause creditors and shareholders of the financial company such as Group Inc. in receivership to bear losses before taxpayers are exposed to such losses, and amounts owed to the U.S. government would generally receive a statutory payment priority over the claims of private creditors, including senior creditors.

In addition, under OLA, claims of creditors (including debtholders) could be satisfied through the issuance of equity or other securities in a bridge entity to which Group Inc.’s assets are transferred. If such a securities-for-claims exchange were implemented, there can be no assurance that the value of the securities of the bridge entity would be sufficient to repay or satisfy all or any part of the creditor claims for which the securities were exchanged. While the FDIC has issued regulations to implement OLA, not all aspects of how the FDIC might exercise this authority are known and additional rulemaking is likely.

In addition, certain jurisdictions, including the U.K. and the E.U., have implemented, or are considering, changes to resolution regimes to provide resolution authorities with the ability to recapitalize a failing entity by writing down its unsecured debt or converting its unsecured debt into equity. Such “bail-in” powers are intended to enable the recapitalization of a failing institution by allocating losses to its shareholders and unsecured debtholders. U.S. and non-U.S. regulators are also considering requirements that certain subsidiaries of large financial institutions maintain minimum amounts of total loss-absorbing capacity that would pass losses up from the subsidiaries to the top-tier holding company and, ultimately, to security holders of the top-tier holding company in the event of failure.

The application of Group Inc.’s proposed resolution strategy could result in greater losses for Group Inc.’s security holders, and failure to address shortcomings in our resolution plan could subject us to increased regulatory requirements.

In our resolution plan, Group Inc. would be resolved under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The strategy described in our resolution plan is a variant of the single point of entry strategy: Group Inc. would recapitalize and provide liquidity to certain major subsidiaries, including through the forgiveness of intercompany indebtedness, the extension of the maturities of intercompany indebtedness and the extension of additional intercompany loans. If this strategy were successful, creditors of some or all of Group Inc.’s major subsidiaries would receive full recoveries on their claims, while Group Inc.’s security holders could face significant losses.

In that case, Group Inc.’s security holders could face losses while the third-party creditors of Group Inc.’s major subsidiaries would incur no losses because those subsidiaries would continue to operate and not enter resolution or bankruptcy proceedings. As part of the strategy, Group Inc. could also seek to elevate the priority of its guarantee obligations relating to its major subsidiaries’ derivatives contracts so that cross-default and early termination rights would be stayed under the ISDA Protocol, which would result in holders of Group Inc.’s eligible long-term debt and holders of Group Inc.’s other debt securities incurring losses ahead of the beneficiaries of those guarantee obligations.

It is also possible that holders of Group Inc.’s eligible long-term debt and other debt securities could incur losses ahead of other similarly situated creditors. If Group Inc.’s proposed resolution strategy were not successful, Group Inc.’s financial condition would be adversely impacted and Group Inc.’s security holders, including debtholders, may as a consequence be in a worse position than if the strategy had not been implemented. In all cases, any payments to debtholders are dependent on our ability to make such payments and are therefore subject to our credit risk.

In April 2016, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC provided feedback on the 2015 resolution plans of eight systemically important domestic banking institutions and provided guidance related to the 2017 resolution plan submissions. While our plan was not jointly found to be deficient (i.e., non-credible or to not facilitate an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code), the FDIC identified certain deficiencies and both the FDIC and Federal Reserve Board also identified certain shortcomings. In response to the feedback received, in September 2016, we submitted a status report on our actions to address these shortcomings and a separate public section that explains these actions at a high level, which is available on our website as described under “Available Information” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K.

Our 2017 resolution plan, which is due by July 1, 2017, is also required to address the shortcomings and take into account the additional guidance. If it is determined that Group Inc. did not effectively address the shortcomings and additional guidance, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC could, after any permitted resubmission, find our resolution plan not credible and require us to hold more capital, change our business structure or dispose of businesses, which could have a negative impact on our ability to return capital to shareholders, financial condition, results of operations or competitive position.

As a result of our recovery and resolution planning processes, including incorporating feedback from our regulators, we may incur increased operational, funding or other costs and face limitations on our ability to structure our internal organization or engage in internal or external activities in a manner that we may otherwise deem most operationally efficient.

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.

Rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act 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 is likely to 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 E.U., 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. Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have led to increased centralization of trading activity through particular clearing houses, central agents or exchanges, which has significantly increased our concentration of risk with respect to these entities. 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.

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. There has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the financial services industry. This consolidation and convergence has 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, adopted compensation restrictions 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 significant volume of transactions occur among a limited number of 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 negative reputational impact and can subject us to large fines and settlements, and potentially 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 and commodities infrastructure components, both within and outside the U.S.

We have recently increased and intend to further increase our consumer-oriented deposit-taking and lending activities. To the extent we engage in such activities or similar consumer-oriented activities, we could face additional compliance, legal and regulatory risk, increased reputational risk and increased operational risk due to, among other things, higher transaction volumes and significantly increased retention and transmission of customer and client information.

New business initiatives expose us to new and enhanced risks, including risks associated with dealing with governmental entities, reputational concerns arising from dealing with less sophisticated clients, 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 or in which we interact with these counterparties.

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.

As a signatory to the ISDA Protocol, we may not be able to exercise remedies against counterparties and, as this new regime has not yet been tested, we may suffer risks or losses that we would not have expected to suffer if we could immediately close out transactions upon a termination event. Various U.S. and non-U.S. regulators have proposed or adopted implementing regulations contemplated by the ISDA Protocol, and those implementing regulations may result in additional limitations on our ability to exercise remedies against counterparties. The ISDA Protocol’s impact will depend on, among other things, how it is implemented and the development of market practice and structures under the implementing regulations.

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 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 people; 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. As a significant portion of the compensation that we pay to our employees is in the form of year-end discretionary compensation, a significant portion of which is in the form of deferred equity-related awards, declines in our profitability, or in the outlook for our future profitability, as well as regulatory limitations on compensation levels and terms, can negatively impact our ability to hire and retain highly qualified employees.

Competition from within the financial services industry and from businesses outside the financial services industry for qualified employees has often been intense. Recently, we have experienced increased competition in hiring and retaining employees to address the demands of new regulatory requirements. This is also 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 —Compensation Practices” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K, our compensation practices are subject to review by, and the standards of, the Federal Reserve Board. As a large global 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 and 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.

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 (including, in some cases, press coverage and public statements that do not directly involve us) 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.

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 this Form 10-K for information about certain legal and regulatory proceedings and investigations in which we are involved and Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this 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 have been and 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, as well as follow-on civil litigation that is often commenced after regulatory settlements.

Recently, significant settlements by several large financial institutions, including, in some cases, us, 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 uncertain regulatory enforcement environment makes it difficult to estimate probable losses, which can lead to substantial disparities between legal reserves and subsequent actual settlements or penalties.

Certain enforcement authorities have recently required admissions of wrongdoing, and, in some cases, criminal pleas, as part of the resolutions of matters brought by them against financial institutions. Any such resolution of a matter involving the firm could lead to increased exposure to civil litigation, could adversely affect our reputation, could result in penalties or limitations on our ability to do business in certain jurisdictions and could have other negative effects.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice has announced a policy of requiring companies to provide investigators with all relevant facts relating to the individuals responsible for the alleged misconduct in order to qualify for any cooperation credit in civil and criminal investigations of corporate wrongdoing, which may result in our incurring increased fines and penalties if the Department of Justice determines that we have not provided sufficient information about applicable individuals in connection with an investigation, as well as increased costs in responding to Department of Justice investigations. It is possible that other governmental authorities will adopt similar policies.

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. 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 generally lower commissions arising from electronic trades.

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

As part of our commodities business, we purchase and sell certain physical commodities, arrange for their storage and transport, and engage in market making of commodities. The commodities involved in these activities may include crude oil, oil refined products, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, electric power, agricultural products, metals (base and precious), minerals (including unenriched uranium), emission credits, coal, freight and related products and indices.

In our investing and lending businesses, we make investments in and finance entities that engage in the production, storage and transportation of numerous commodities, including many of the commodities referenced above.

These activities subject us and/or the entities in which we invest 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.

There may be substantial costs in complying with current or future laws and regulations relating to our commodities-related activities and investments. Compliance with these laws and regulations could require significant commitments of 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.

Commodities involved in our intermediation activities and investments are also subject to the risk of unforeseen or catastrophic events, which are likely to be outside of our control, including those arising from the 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 expose us to costs or losses. Also, while we seek to insure against potential risks, 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. For example, the Federal Reserve Board recently proposed regulations that could impose significant additional capital requirements on certain commodity-related activities. If that occurs, we may receive a value that is less than the then carrying value, as we 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. For example, there has been significant conflict between Russia and Ukraine in recent years, and sanctions have been imposed by the U.S. and the E.U. on certain individuals and companies in Russia. 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. Further, in some jurisdictions a failure to comply with laws and regulations may subject the firm and its personnel not only to civil actions but also criminal actions. We are also subject to the enhanced risk that transactions we structure might not be legally enforceable in all cases.

In June 2016, a referendum was passed for the U.K. to exit the E.U. (Brexit). The exit of the U.K. from the E.U. will likely change the arrangements by which U.K. firms are able to provide services into the E.U., which may materially adversely affect the manner in which we operate certain of our businesses in Europe and could require us to restructure certain of our operations. The outcome of the negotiations between the U.K. and the E.U. in connection with Brexit is highly uncertain. Such uncertainty has resulted in, and may continue to result in, market volatility and may negatively impact the confidence of investors and clients.

Our businesses and operations are increasingly expanding throughout the world, including in 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, hiring practices 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, such as the Ebola or Zika viruses, 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 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 square feet of office space. We have additional offices and commercial space in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Americas, which together comprise approximately 2.6 million square feet of leased and owned space.

In Europe, the Middle East and Africa, we have offices that total approximately 1.6 million square feet of leased and owned space. Our European headquarters is located in London at Peterborough Court, pursuant to a lease that we can terminate in 2021. In total, we have offices with approximately 1.2 million square feet in London, relating to various properties. We are currently constructing a 1.1 million square foot office in London. We expect initial occupancy during 2019.

In Asia, Australia and New Zealand, we have offices with approximately 1.9 million 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 Japan, we currently have offices with approximately 219,000 square feet, the majority of which have leases that will expire in 2018. In Hong Kong, we currently have offices with approximately 315,000 square feet, the majority of which have leases that will expire in 2023.

In the preceding paragraphs, square footage figures are provided only for properties that are used in the operation of our businesses.

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 this Form 10-K for information about 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 this Form 10-K. See Notes 18 and 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information about certain judicial, regulatory and legal proceedings.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

Executive Officers of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

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

Lloyd C. Blankfein, 62

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

Alan M. Cohen, 66

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

Edith W. Cooper, 55

Ms. Cooper has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs since April 2011 and Global Head of Human Capital Management since March 2008.

Richard J. Gnodde, 56

Mr. Gnodde has been a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs since January 2017, Chief Executive Officer or co-Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs International since 2006 and co-head of the Investment Banking Division since 2011.

Gregory K. Palm, 68

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

John F.W. Rogers, 60

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.

Pablo J. Salame, 51

Mr. Salame has been a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs since January 2017 and global co-head of the Securities Division since 2008.

Harvey M. Schwartz, 52

Mr. Schwartz has been President and co-Chief Operating Officer of Goldman Sachs since January 2017. Additionally, he will continue in his role as Chief Financial Officer (which he assumed in January 2013) through April 2017. From February 2008 to January 2013, Mr. Schwartz was global co-head of the Securities Division.

David M. Solomon, 55

Mr. Solomon has been President and co-Chief Operating Officer of Goldman Sachs since January 2017. He had previously served as co-head of the Investment Banking Division since July 2006.

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

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 2014, 2015 and 2016 is set forth under the heading “Supplemental Financial Information — Common Stock Price Range” in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. As of February 10, 2017, there were 8,177 holders of record of our common stock.

The table below presents dividends declared by Group Inc. during 2016 and 2015.

The declaration of dividends by Group Inc. is subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors of Group Inc. (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. The holders of our common stock share proportionately on a per share basis in all dividends and other distributions on common stock declared by our Board. See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K for information about potential regulatory limitations on our receipt of funds from our regulated subsidiaries and our payment of dividends to shareholders of Group Inc. Prior to the payment of dividends, we must receive confirmation that the Federal Reserve Board does not object to such payment.

The table below presents 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 2016. Information relating to compensation plans under which our equity securities are authorized for issuance is presented in Part III, Item 12 of this Form 10-K.

Since March 2000, our Board has approved a repurchase program authorizing repurchases of up to 505 million shares of our common stock. The repurchase program is effected primarily through regular open-market purchases (which may include repurchase plans designed to comply with Rule 10b5-1), the amounts and timing of which are determined primarily by our current and projected capital position, but which may also be influenced by general market conditions and the prevailing price and trading volumes of our common stock. The repurchase program has no set expiration or termination date. Prior to repurchasing common stock, we must receive confirmation that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System does not object to such capital actions.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc. or parent company), a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the firm), 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 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. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

References to “this Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. References to “the 2015 Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. All references to “the consolidated financial statements” or “Supplemental Financial Information” are to Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. All references to 2016, 2015 and 2014 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2016, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, 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. 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, leverage, liquidity, long-term debt and total loss-absorbing capacity rules applicable to banks and bank holding companies, the impact of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) on our businesses and operations, and various legal proceedings, governmental investigations or mortgage-related contingencies as set forth in Notes 27 and 18, respectively, to the consolidated financial statements, as well as statements about the results of our Dodd-Frank Act and firm stress tests, statements about the objectives and effectiveness of our business continuity plan, information security program, risk management and liquidity policies, statements about our resolution plan and resolution strategy and their implications for our debtholders and other stakeholders, 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, statements about the possible effects of the U.K. referendum vote to leave the European Union (E.U.), 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 described in “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K and “Cautionary Statement Pursuant to the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K.

2016 versus 2015. We generated net earnings of $7.40 billion and diluted earnings per common share of $16.29 for 2016, an increase of 22% and 34%, respectively, compared with $6.08 billion and $12.14 per share for 2015. Return on average common shareholders’ equity (ROE) was 9.4% for 2016, compared with 7.4% for 2015. Book value per common share was $182.47 as of December 2016, 6.7% higher compared with the end of 2015.

Net revenues were $30.61 billion for 2016, 9% lower than 2015, due to significantly lower net revenues in Investing & Lending and lower net revenues in Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services and Investment Management. These results reflected the impact of a challenging operating environment during the first half of the year, particularly during the first quarter, although the environment improved during the second half of the year.

Operating expenses were $20.30 billion for 2016, 19% lower than 2015, primarily due to significantly lower non-compensation expenses, primarily reflecting significantly lower net provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters, as the prior year included provisions for the settlement agreement with the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group of the U.S. Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (RMBS Working Group), as well as lower market development expenses and professional fees, reflecting expense savings initiatives. Compensation and benefits expenses were also lower, reflecting a decrease in net revenues and the impact of expense savings initiatives.

We continued to maintain strong capital ratios and liquidity, while returning $7.20 billion of capital to shareholders during 2016. During the year, we repurchased 36.6 million shares of our common stock for a total cost of $6.07 billion and paid common stock dividends of $1.13 billion. Our Common Equity Tier 1 ratio as calculated in accordance with the Standardized approach and the Basel III Advanced approach, in each case reflecting the applicable transitional provisions, was 14.5% and 13.1%, respectively, and our global core liquid assets were $226 billion, all as of December 2016. See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our capital ratios. See “Risk Management — Liquidity Risk Management” below for further information about our global core liquid assets.

In the context of the challenging environment during the first half of 2016, we completed an initiative that identified areas where we can operate more efficiently, resulting in a reduction of approximately $900 million in annual run rate compensation. For 2016, net savings from this initiative, after severance and other related costs, were approximately $500 million.

2015 versus 2014. We generated net earnings of $6.08 billion and diluted earnings per common share of $12.14 for 2015, a decrease of 28% and 29%, respectively, compared with $8.48 billion and $17.07 per share for 2014. ROE was 7.4% for 2015, compared with 11.2% for 2014. During 2015, we recorded provisions for the settlement agreement with the RMBS Working Group of $3.37 billion ($2.99 billion after-tax), which reduced diluted earnings per common share by $6.53 and ROE by 3.8 percentage points. See Note 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2015 Form 10-K for further information.

Book value per common share was $171.03 as of December 2015, 4.9% higher compared with the end of 2014. During 2015, we repurchased 22.1 million shares of our common stock for a total cost of $4.20 billion.

Net revenues were $33.82 billion for 2015, 2% lower than 2014, as significantly lower net revenues in Investing & Lending were largely offset by higher net revenues in Investment Banking and slightly higher net revenues in Investment Management. Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were essentially unchanged compared with 2014.

Operating expenses were $25.04 billion for 2015, 13% higher than 2014, due to significantly higher non-compensation expenses, primarily reflecting significantly higher net provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters. Compensation and benefits expenses were essentially unchanged compared with the prior year.

As of December 2015, our Common Equity Tier 1 ratio as calculated in accordance with the Standardized approach and the Basel III Advanced approach, in each case reflecting the applicable transitional provisions, was 13.6% and 12.4%, respectively. In addition, our global core liquid assets were $199 billion as of December 2015.

Global

During 2016, real gross domestic product (GDP) growth appeared to slow in advanced economies and appeared mixed in emerging market economies compared with 2015. In advanced economies, growth was lower in the U.S., the Euro area, the U.K. and Japan. In emerging markets, growth slowed in China and appeared to slow in India, while real GDP appeared to contract less in Brazil and Russia than in 2015. Monetary policy divergence continued in 2016, as the U.S. Federal Reserve increased its target interest rate again, while monetary policy remained accommodative in Europe and Japan. In June, a referendum was passed for the U.K. to exit the E.U., and in November, the U.S. held its presidential election. The market reaction to the outcomes of both events was generally more positive than expectations. The price of crude oil (WTI) increased by 45% in 2016 and, in the fourth quarter, OPEC members announced an agreement to reduce oil production. In investment banking, industry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity remained strong for 2016, but declined compared with the level of activity in 2015. Industry-wide volumes in equity underwriting declined compared with a strong 2015, while industry-wide debt underwriting volumes increased compared with the prior year.

United States

In the U.S., real GDP increased by 1.6% in 2016, compared with an increase of 2.6% in 2015, as growth in total fixed investment and consumer expenditures declined. Measures of consumer confidence were mixed on average compared with the prior year, but increased significantly in the fourth quarter. The unemployment rate declined to 4.7% at the end of 2016, and labor market indicators suggest the U.S. economy is close to full employment. Housing starts, sales, and prices increased compared with 2015, while measures of inflation also increased. The U.S. Federal Reserve raised its target rate for the federal funds rate at the December meeting to a range of 0.50% to 0.75%. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note increased by 18 basis points during 2016 to 2.45%. In equity markets, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500 Index and the NASDAQ Composite Index increased by 13%, 10% and 8%, respectively, during 2016.

Europe

In the Euro area, real GDP increased by 1.7% in 2016, compared with an increase of 1.9% in 2015. Growth in consumer spending declined, while growth in fixed investment and government consumption increased. Measures of inflation remained subdued, prompting the European Central Bank (ECB) to announce multiple easing measures in the first quarter, cutting the deposit rate by 10 basis points to (0.40)% and lowering the main refinancing operations rate by 5 basis points to 0.00%, as well as launching a new series of targeted longer-term refinancing operations, increasing the volume of monthly purchases of bonds, and adding investment grade, non-financial corporate bonds to the list of bonds purchased under its asset purchase program. In December, the ECB announced an extension of its asset purchase program through at least the end of 2017, although the pace of purchases will be lower. The Euro depreciated by 3% against the U.S. dollar. In the U.K., real GDP increased by 1.8% in 2016, compared with an increase of 2.2% in 2015. Following the passage of the U.K. referendum, the Bank of England announced a monetary easing package comprised of a 25 basis points cut to the official bank rate, £70 billion of asset purchases, and a Term Funding Scheme. The British pound depreciated by 16% against the U.S. dollar during 2016, reaching its lowest level against the U.S. dollar in over 30 years. Yields on 10-year government bonds in the region generally decreased during the year. In equity markets, the FTSE 100 Index, DAX Index, CAC 40 Index and Euro Stoxx 50 Index increased by 14%, 7%, 5% and 1%, respectively, during 2016.

Asia

In Japan, real GDP increased by 1.0% in 2016, compared with an increase of 1.2% in 2015. In 2016, the Bank of Japan introduced a negative interest rate policy during the first quarter and altered the framework for its Quantitative and Qualitative Easing program during the third quarter, shifting from purchasing set quantities of assets to targeting a 0% yield on 10-year Japanese government bonds. The yield on 10-year Japanese government bonds declined into negative territory for most of the year, the U.S. dollar depreciated by 3% against the Japanese yen and the Nikkei 225 Index ended the year essentially unchanged. In China, real GDP increased by 6.7% in 2016, compared with an increase of 6.9% in 2015. During 2016, the People’s Bank of China announced cuts to its reserve requirement ratio. Measures of inflation increased and the U.S. dollar appreciated by 7% against the Chinese yuan. In equity markets, the Shanghai Composite Index decreased by 12% during 2016, while the Hang Seng Index ended the year essentially unchanged. In India, real GDP appeared to increase by 6.8% in 2016, compared with an increase of 7.2% in 2015, and the rate of inflation was essentially unchanged from 2015. The U.S. dollar appreciated by 3% against the Indian rupee and the BSE Sensex Index increased by 2% during 2016.

Other Markets

In Brazil, real GDP appeared to contract by 3.4% in 2016, compared with a contraction of 3.8% in 2015. The U.S. dollar depreciated by 18% against the Brazilian real and the Bovespa Index increased by 39%. In Russia, real GDP appeared to contract by 0.2% in 2016, compared with a contraction of 2.8% in 2015. The U.S. dollar depreciated by 16% against the Russian ruble and the MICEX Index increased by 27% during 2016.

Critical Accounting Policies

Fair Value

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). In evaluating the significance of a valuation input, we consider, among other factors, a portfolio’s net risk exposure to that input. 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 our credit quality, funding risk, transfer restrictions, liquidity and bid/offer spreads.

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 2016 and December 2015, level 3 financial assets represented 2.7% and 2.8%, respectively, of our total assets. See Notes 5 through 8 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about level 3 financial assets, including changes in level 3 financial assets and related fair value measurements. 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. 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 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. Our independent model risk management group (Model Risk Management), consisting of quantitative professionals who are separate from model developers, performs an independent model review and validation process of our valuation models. 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. See “Risk Management — Model Risk Management” for further information about the review and validation of our valuation models.

Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets

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 for impairment annually in the fourth quarter 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 is performed by comparing the estimated fair value of each reporting unit with its estimated net book value.

During the fourth quarter of 2016, we assessed goodwill for impairment using a qualitative assessment. The qualitative assessment required management to make judgments and to evaluate several factors, which included, but were not limited to, performance indicators, firm and industry events, macroeconomic indicators and fair value indicators. 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.

Notwithstanding the results of the qualitative assessment, since the 2015 quantitative goodwill test determined that the estimated fair value of the Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution reporting unit was not substantially in excess of its carrying value, we also performed a quantitative test on this reporting unit during the fourth quarter of 2016. In the quantitative test, the estimated fair value of the Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution reporting unit substantially exceeded its carrying value.

Therefore, we determined that goodwill for all reporting units was not impaired.

Estimating the fair value of our reporting units requires management to make judgments. Critical inputs to the fair value estimates include projected earnings and attributed equity. There is inherent uncertainty in the projected earnings. The net book value of each reporting unit reflects an allocation of total shareholders’ equity and represents the estimated amount of total shareholders’ equity required to support the activities of the reporting unit under currently applicable regulatory capital requirements. See “Equity Capital Management and Regulatory Capital” for further information about our capital requirements.

If we experience a prolonged or severe period of weakness in the business environment or financial markets, or additional increases in capital requirements, our goodwill could be impaired in the future. In addition, significant changes to other inputs of the quantitative goodwill test 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 for further information about our goodwill.

Identifiable Intangible Assets. We amortize our identifiable intangible assets over their estimated useful lives generally using the straight-line method. 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.

A prolonged or severe 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 customer contracts and relationships. Management judgment is required to evaluate whether indications of potential impairment have occurred, and to test intangible assets for impairment if required.

An impairment, 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 13 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our identifiable intangible assets.

Recent Accounting Developments

See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for information about Recent Accounting Developments.

Use of Estimates

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 (including governmental investigations) and tax audits, and the allowance for losses on loans and lending commitments held for investment.

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 and regulatory proceedings where we believe the risk of loss is more than slight. See Notes 18 and 27 to the consolidated financial statements for information about certain judicial, litigation and regulatory 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, proceeding or investigation, our experience and the experience of others in similar cases, proceedings or investigations, and the opinions and views of legal counsel.

In accounting for income taxes, we recognize tax positions in the financial statements only when it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained on examination by the relevant taxing authority based on the technical merits of the position. See Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about accounting for income taxes.

We also estimate and record an allowance for credit losses related to our loans receivable and lending commitments held for investment. Management’s estimate of loan losses entails judgment about loan collectability at the reporting dates, and there are uncertainties inherent in those judgments. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about the allowance for losses on loans and lending commitments held for investment.

Results of Operations

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 “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K for further information about the impact of economic and market conditions on our results of operations.

Financial Overview

The table below presents an overview of our financial results and selected financial ratios.

In the table above:

The table below presents our net revenues by line item in the consolidated statements of earnings.

In the table above:

Operating Environment. During the first quarter of 2016, our business activities were negatively impacted by challenging trends in the operating environment, including concerns and uncertainties about global economic growth and central bank activity as well as higher levels of volatility, all of which contributed to significant price pressure at the beginning of the year across both equity and fixed income markets. These factors negatively impacted investor conviction and risk appetite for market-making activities, and industry-wide equity underwriting and mergers and acquisitions activity for investment banking activities. Results in other principal transactions also reflected the impact of these difficult market and economic conditions. At the start of the second quarter of 2016, concerns about global economic growth moderated and conditions improved in many businesses, including a rebound in investment banking activities and improved results in other principal transactions. However, later in the second quarter, the market became increasingly focused on the political uncertainty and economic implications surrounding the potential exit of the U.K. from the E.U., impacting market-making activities.

The operating environment improved during the second half of 2016, as global equity markets steadily increased and credit spreads tightened, providing a more favorable backdrop for our business activities. For investment management activities, our assets under supervision continued to increase during 2016. The mix of our average assets under supervision shifted slightly compared with 2015 from long-term assets under supervision to liquidity products.

If the trend of macroeconomic concerns continues over the long term, and market-making activity levels, investment banking activity levels, or assets under supervision decline or if investors continue the trend of favoring assets under supervision that typically generate lower fees, net revenues would likely be negatively impacted. See “Segment Operating Results” below for further information about the operating environment and material trends and uncertainties that may impact our results of operations.

During 2015, the operating environment for market-making activities was positively impacted by diverging central bank monetary policies in the U.S. and the Euro area in the first quarter, as increased volatility levels contributed to strong client activity levels in currencies, interest rate products and equity products. However, during the remainder of 2015, concerns about global growth and uncertainty about the U.S. Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy, along with lower global equity prices, widening high-yield credit spreads and declining commodity prices, contributed to lower levels of client activity, particularly in mortgages and credit, and more difficult market-making conditions.

The operating environment for investment banking activities for 2015 reflected strong industry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity. In addition, investment management reflected an environment generally characterized by strong client net inflows, which more than offset the declines in equity and fixed income asset prices. Although other principal transactions for 2015 benefited from favorable company-specific events, including sales, initial public offerings and financings, a decline in global equity prices and widening high-yield credit spreads during the second half of 2015 impacted results.

2016 versus 2015

Net revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $30.61 billion for 2016, 9% lower than 2015, reflecting the impact of a challenging operating environment during the first half of the year, particularly during the first quarter, although the environment improved during the second half of the year. The decrease in net revenues was primarily due to significantly lower other principal transactions revenues and lower investment banking revenues, net interest income and investment management revenues. In addition, commissions and fees were slightly lower. These results were partially offset by slightly higher market-making revenues.

Non-Interest Revenues. Investment banking revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $6.27 billion for 2016, 11% lower compared with a strong 2015. Revenues in financial advisory were lower compared with a strong 2015, reflecting a decrease in industry-wide transactions. Revenues in underwriting were lower compared with a strong 2015, due to significantly lower revenues in equity underwriting, reflecting a decrease in industry-wide volumes. Revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher, reflecting significantly higher revenues from asset-backed activity and higher revenues from leveraged finance activity.

Investment management revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.41 billion for 2016, 8% lower than 2015, primarily reflecting significantly lower incentive fees compared with a strong 2015. In addition, management and other fees were slightly lower, reflecting shifts in the mix of client assets and strategies, partially offset by the impact of higher average assets under supervision.

Commissions and fees in the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.21 billion for 2016, 3% lower than 2015, reflecting lower listed cash equity volumes in Asia and Europe, consistent with market volumes in these regions.

Market-making revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $9.93 billion for 2016, 4% higher than 2015, due to significantly higher revenues in interest rate products and credit products. These results were partially offset by significantly lower revenues in equity cash products and lower revenues in currencies, mortgages, equity derivative products and commodities.

Other principal transactions revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.20 billion for 2016, 36% lower than 2015, primarily due to significantly lower revenues from investments in equities, primarily reflecting a significant decrease in net gains from private equities, driven by company-specific events and corporate performance. In addition, revenues in debt securities and loans were significantly lower compared with 2015, reflecting significantly lower revenues related to relationship lending activities, due to the impact of changes in credit spreads on economic hedges. Losses related to these hedges were $596 million in 2016, compared with gains of $329 million in 2015. This decrease was partially offset by higher net gains from investments in debt instruments. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about economic hedges related to our relationship lending activities.

Net Interest Income. Net interest income in the consolidated statements of earnings was $2.59 billion for 2016, 16% lower than 2015, reflecting an increase in interest expense primarily due to the impact of higher interest rates on other interest-bearing liabilities, interest-bearing deposits and collateralized financings, and increases in total average long-term borrowings and total average interest-bearing deposits. The increase in interest expense was partially offset by higher interest income related to collateralized agreements, reflecting the impact of higher interest rates, and loans receivable, reflecting an increase in total average balances and the impact of higher interest rates. See “Statistical Disclosures — Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity” for further information about our sources of net interest income.

2015 versus 2014

Net revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $33.82 billion for 2015, 2% lower than 2014, reflecting significantly lower other principal transactions revenues and net interest income, largely offset by higher market-making revenues and investment banking revenues, as well as slightly higher investment management revenues. Commissions and fees were essentially unchanged compared with 2014.

Non-Interest Revenues. Investment banking revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $7.03 billion for 2015, 9% higher than 2014, due to significantly higher revenues in financial advisory, reflecting strong client activity, particularly in the U.S. Industry-wide completed mergers and acquisitions increased significantly compared with the prior year. Revenues in underwriting were lower compared with a strong 2014. Revenues in debt underwriting were lower compared with 2014, reflecting significantly lower leveraged finance activity. Revenues in equity underwriting were also lower, reflecting significantly lower revenues from initial public offerings and convertible offerings, partially offset by significantly higher revenues from secondary offerings.

Investment management revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.87 billion for 2015, 2% higher than 2014, due to slightly higher management and other fees, primarily reflecting higher average assets under supervision, and higher transaction revenues.

Commissions and fees in the consolidated statements of earnings were $3.32 billion for 2015, essentially unchanged compared with 2014.

Market-making revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $9.52 billion for 2015, 14% higher than 2014. Excluding a gain of $289 million in 2014 related to the extinguishment of certain of our junior subordinated debt, market-making revenues were 18% higher than 2014, reflecting significantly higher revenues in interest rate products, currencies, equity cash products and equity derivatives. These increases were partially offset by significantly lower revenues in mortgages, commodities and credit products.

Other principal transactions revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings were $5.02 billion for 2015, 24% lower than 2014. This decrease was primarily due to lower revenues from investments in equities, principally reflecting the sale of Metro International Trade Services (Metro) in the fourth quarter of 2014 and lower net gains from investments in private equities, driven by corporate performance. In addition, revenues in debt securities and loans were significantly lower, reflecting lower net gains from investments.

Net Interest Income. Net interest income in the consolidated statements of earnings was $3.06 billion for 2015, 24% lower than 2014. The decrease compared with 2014 was due to lower interest income resulting from a reduction in interest income related to financial instruments owned, at fair value, partially offset by the impact of an increase in total average loans receivable. The decrease in interest income was partially offset by a decrease in interest expense, which primarily reflected lower interest expense related to financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value and other interest-bearing liabilities, partially offset by higher interest expense related to long-term borrowings. See “Supplemental Financial Information — Statistical Disclosures — Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity” for further information about our sources of net interest income.

Operating Expenses

Our operating expenses are primarily influenced by compensation, headcount and levels of business activity. Compensation and benefits includes salaries, discretionary compensation, amortization of equity awards and other items such as benefits. Discretionary compensation is significantly impacted by, among other factors, the level of net revenues, overall financial performance, prevailing labor markets, business mix, the structure of our share-based compensation programs and the external environment. In addition, see “Use of Estimates” for additional information about expenses that may arise from litigation and regulatory proceedings.

In the context of the challenging environment during the first half of 2016, we completed an initiative that identified areas where we can operate more efficiently, resulting in a reduction of approximately $900 million in annual run rate compensation. For 2016, net savings from this initiative, after severance and other related costs, were approximately $500 million.

The table below presents our operating expenses and total staff (which includes employees, consultants and temporary staff).

In the table above, other expenses for 2015 includes provisions of $3.37 billion recorded for the settlement agreement with the RMBS Working Group. See Note 27 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the 2015 Form 10-K for further information.

2016 versus 2015. Operating expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings were $20.30 billion for 2016, 19% lower than 2015. Compensation and benefits expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings were $11.65 billion for 2016, 8% lower than 2015, reflecting a decrease in net revenues and the impact of expense savings initiatives. The ratio of compensation and benefits to net revenues for 2016 was 38.1% compared with 37.5% for 2015. Total staff decreased 7% during 2016, due to expense savings initiatives.

Non-compensation expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings were $8.66 billion for 2016, 30% lower than 2015, primarily due to significantly lower net provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters, which are included in other expenses. In addition, market development expenses and professional fees were lower compared with 2015, reflecting expense savings initiatives. Net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings for 2016 were $396 million compared with $4.01 billion for 2015 (2015 primarily related to net provisions for mortgage-related matters). 2016 included a $114 million charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives, our donor-advised fund. Compensation was reduced to fund this charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives. We ask our participating managing directors to make recommendations regarding potential charitable recipients for this contribution.

2015 versus 2014. Operating expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings were $25.04 billion for 2015, 13% higher than 2014. Compensation and benefits expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings were $12.68 billion for 2015, essentially unchanged compared with 2014. The ratio of compensation and benefits to net revenues for 2015 was 37.5% compared with 36.8% for 2014. Total staff increased 8% during 2015, primarily due to activity levels in certain businesses and continued investment in regulatory compliance.

Non-compensation expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings were $12.36 billion for 2015, 30% higher than 2014, due to significantly higher net provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters, which are included in other expenses. This increase was partially offset by lower depreciation and amortization expenses, primarily reflecting lower impairment charges related to consolidated investments, and a reduction in expenses related to the sale of Metro in the fourth quarter of 2014. Net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings for 2015 were $4.01 billion compared with $754 million for 2014 (both primarily comprised of net provisions for mortgage-related matters). 2015 included a $148 million charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives, our donor-advised fund. Compensation was reduced to fund this charitable contribution to Goldman Sachs Gives. We ask our participating managing directors to make recommendations regarding potential charitable recipients for this contribution.

Provision for Taxes

The effective income tax rate for 2016 was 28.2%, down from 30.7% for 2015. The decline compared with 2015 was primarily due to the impact of non-deductible provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters in 2015, partially offset by the impact of changes in tax law on deferred tax assets, the mix of earnings and an increase related to higher enacted tax rates impacting certain of our U.K. subsidiaries in 2016.

The effective income tax rate for 2015 was 30.7%, down from 31.4% for 2014. The decline compared with 2014 reflected reductions related to a change in the mix of earnings, the impact of changes in tax law on deferred tax assets, settlements of tax audits and the determination that certain non-U.S. earnings would be permanently reinvested abroad, and an increase related to the impact of non-deductible provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters.

In September 2016, the U.K. government enacted a budget that will reduce the corporate income tax base rate by 1 percentage point effective April 1, 2020. During 2016, we remeasured deferred income tax assets accordingly. This change did not have a material impact on our effective tax rate for the year ended December 2016, and we do not expect it to have a material impact on our future effective tax rate.

In October 2016, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued rules under Section 385 of the Internal Revenue Code that could, in some circumstances, re-characterize debt as equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The rules contain exclusions applicable to, among other things, debt instruments issued by regulated financial companies, non-U.S. subsidiaries, certain U.S. subsidiaries where the holder of the debt instrument is included in a consolidated U.S. tax return, and ordinary business transactions. The rules also contain exclusions applicable to members of a regulated financial group other than subsidiaries held under the merchant banking authority, grandfathered commodities, or complementary activities under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. These exceptions would exclude from re-characterization substantially all debt instruments issued by us. We do not expect these rules to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, effective income tax rate or cash flows.

Segment Operating Results

The table below presents the net revenues, operating expenses and pre-tax earnings of our segments.

In the table above:

Net revenues in our segments include allocations of interest income and interest expense to specific securities, commodities and other positions in relation to the cash generated by, or funding requirements of, such underlying positions. See Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our business segments.

Our cost drivers taken as a whole, compensation, headcount and levels of business activity, are broadly similar in each of our business segments. Compensation and benefits expenses within our segments reflect, among other factors, our overall performance, as well as the performance of individual businesses. Consequently, pre-tax margins in one segment of our business may be significantly affected by the performance of our other business segments. A description of segment operating results follows.

Investment Banking

Our Investment Banking segment is comprised of:

Financial Advisory. Includes strategic advisory assignments with respect to mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, corporate defense activities, restructurings, spin-offs, risk management and derivative transactions directly related to these client advisory assignments.

Underwriting. Includes public offerings and private placements, including local and cross-border transactions and acquisition financing, of a wide range of securities and other financial instruments, including loans, and derivative transactions directly related to these client underwriting activities.

The table below presents the operating results of our Investment Banking segment.

The table below presents our financial advisory and underwriting transaction volumes (Source: Thomson Reuters).

In the table above:

Operating Environment. In mergers and acquisitions, industry-wide completed activity remained strong for 2016 and industry-wide announced activity continued to be robust for most of the year, but both declined for the industry compared with the level of activity during 2015. In underwriting, industry-wide equity underwriting volumes decreased significantly compared with 2015, due to a continued weak backdrop for new issuances. This compares with strong activity levels in 2015, which benefited from favorable equity market conditions during the first half of the year. Industry-wide debt underwriting volumes during 2016 increased compared with 2015. In the future, if industry-wide activity levels in mergers and acquisitions or equity underwriting continue the downward trend or if industry-wide activity levels in debt underwriting decline, net revenues in Investment Banking would likely continue to be negatively impacted.

During 2015, Investment Banking operated in an environment characterized by strong industry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity. Industry-wide activity in both debt and equity underwriting declined compared with 2014.

2016 versus 2015. Net revenues in Investment Banking were $6.27 billion for 2016, 11% lower compared with a strong 2015.

Net revenues in Financial Advisory were $2.93 billion, 16% lower compared with a strong 2015, reflecting a decrease in industry-wide transactions. Net revenues in Underwriting were $3.34 billion, 6% lower compared with a strong 2015, due to significantly lower net revenues in equity underwriting, reflecting a decrease in industry-wide volumes. Net revenues in debt underwriting were significantly higher, reflecting significantly higher net revenues from asset-backed activity and higher net revenues from leveraged finance activity.

Operating expenses were $3.44 billion for 2016, 7% lower than 2015, due to decreased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting lower net revenues. Pre-tax earnings were $2.84 billion in 2016, 14% lower than 2015.

As of December 2016, our investment banking transaction backlog was lower compared with a strong level of backlog at the end of 2015, primarily due to lower estimated net revenues from potential advisory transactions and significantly lower estimated net revenues from potential debt underwriting transactions, principally reflecting decreases in mergers and acquisitions activity and acquisition-related financing, respectively. Estimated net revenues from potential equity underwriting transactions were slightly lower compared with the end of 2015.

Our investment banking transaction backlog represents an estimate of our future net revenues from investment banking transactions where we believe that future revenue realization is more likely than not. We believe changes in our investment banking transaction backlog may be a useful indicator of client activity levels which, over the long term, impact our net revenues. However, the time frame for completion and corresponding revenue recognition of transactions in our backlog varies based on the nature of the assignment, as certain transactions may remain in our backlog for longer periods of time and others may enter and leave within the same reporting period. In addition, our transaction backlog is subject to certain limitations, such as assumptions about the likelihood that individual client transactions will occur in the future. Transactions may be cancelled or modified, and transactions not included in the estimate may also occur.

2015 versus 2014. Net revenues in Investment Banking were $7.03 billion for 2015, 9% higher than 2014.

Net revenues in Financial Advisory were $3.47 billion, 40% higher than 2014, reflecting strong client activity, particularly in the U.S. Industry-wide completed mergers and acquisitions increased significantly compared with the prior year. Net revenues in Underwriting were $3.56 billion, 11% lower compared with a strong 2014. Net revenues in debt underwriting were lower compared with 2014, reflecting significantly lower leveraged finance activity. Net revenues in equity underwriting were also lower, reflecting significantly lower net revenues from initial public offerings and convertible offerings, partially offset by significantly higher net revenues from secondary offerings.

Operating expenses were $3.71 billion for 2015, essentially unchanged compared with 2014. Pre-tax earnings were $3.31 billion in 2015, 19% higher than 2014.

As of December 2015, our investment banking transaction backlog was higher compared with the end of 2014, primarily due to significantly higher estimated net revenues from potential debt underwriting transactions, principally related to leveraged finance transactions, and higher estimated net revenues from potential advisory transactions, reflecting the continued high level of mergers and acquisitions activity. Estimated net revenues from potential equity underwriting transactions were slightly higher compared with the end of 2014.

Institutional Client Services

Our Institutional Client Services segment is comprised of:

Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution. Includes client execution activities related to making markets in both cash and derivative instruments for interest rate products, credit products, mortgages, currencies and commodities.

Equities. Includes client execution activities related to making markets in equity products and commissions and fees from executing and clearing institutional client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide, as well as OTC transactions. Equities also includes our securities services business, which provides financing, securities lending and other prime brokerage services to institutional clients, including hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds and foundations, and generates revenues primarily in the form of interest rate spreads or fees.

As a market maker, we facilitate transactions in both liquid and less liquid markets, primarily for institutional clients, such as corporations, financial institutions, investment funds and governments, to assist clients in meeting their investment objectives and in managing their risks. In this role, we seek to earn the difference between the price at which a market participant is willing to sell an instrument to us and the price at which another market participant is willing to buy it from us, and vice versa (i.e., bid/offer spread). In addition, we maintain inventory, typically for a short period of time, in response to, or in anticipation of, client demand. We also hold inventory to actively manage our risk exposures that arise from these market-making activities. Our market-making inventory is recorded in financial instruments owned, at fair value (long positions) or financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value (short positions) in our consolidated statements of financial condition.

Our results are influenced by a combination of interconnected drivers, including (i) client activity levels and transactional bid/offer spreads (collectively, client activity), and (ii) changes in the fair value of our inventory and interest income and interest expense related to the holding, hedging and funding of our inventory (collectively, market-making inventory changes). Due to the integrated nature of our market-making activities, disaggregation of net revenues into client activity and market-making inventory changes is judgmental and has inherent complexities and limitations.

The amount and composition of our net revenues vary over time as these drivers are impacted by multiple interrelated factors affecting economic and market conditions, including volatility and liquidity in the market, changes in interest rates, currency exchange rates, credit spreads, equity prices and commodity prices, investor confidence, and other macroeconomic concerns and uncertainties.

In general, assuming all other market-making conditions remain constant, increases in client activity levels or bid/offer spreads tend to result in increases in net revenues, and decreases tend to have the opposite effect. However, changes in market-making conditions can materially impact client activity levels and bid/offer spreads, as well as the fair value of our inventory. For example, a decrease in liquidity in the market could have the impact of (i) increasing our bid/offer spread, (ii) decreasing investor confidence and thereby decreasing client activity levels, and (iii) wider credit spreads on our inventory positions.

The table below presents the operating results of our Institutional Client Services segment.

The table below presents the net revenues of our Institutional Client Services segment by line item in the consolidated statements of earnings. See “Net Revenues” above for further information about market-making revenues, commissions and fees and net interest income.

In the table above:

Operating Environment. Challenging trends in the operating environment for Institutional Client Services that existed throughout the second half of 2015 continued during the first quarter of 2016, including concerns and uncertainties about global economic growth and central bank activity. These concerns contributed to significant price pressure across both equity and fixed income markets. Volatility peaked in February with the VIX reaching over 28, and global equity markets materially declined during the first half of the first quarter with the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Shanghai Composite Index, and Nikkei 225 Index down 10%, 25% and 21%, respectively, at their lowest points. Credit spreads for high-yield issuers widened over 100 basis points early in the first quarter, driven by the energy sector, and oil and natural gas prices continued their downward trend that began during the middle of 2015, reaching as low as $26 per barrel (WTI) and $1.64 per million British thermal units, respectively. Concerns about global economic growth moderated at the beginning of the second quarter, however the market became increasingly focused on the political uncertainty and economic implications surrounding the potential exit of the U.K. from the E.U. In response to the “leave vote,” the MSCI World Index declined 7% in two days and volumes generally spiked, both of which largely reversed shortly thereafter. In addition, the Nikkei 225 Index and the Shanghai Composite Index were down 18% and 17%, respectively, during the first half of 2016. This challenging environment, including low interest rates, impacted client sentiment and risk appetite, and market-making conditions remained difficult.

During the second half of 2016, the operating environment improved, as global equity markets steadily increased, with the MSCI World Index up 6% and the S&P 500 Index up 7% during the period. In addition, equity markets in Asia generally rebounded, with the Nikkei 225 Index up 23% and the Shanghai Composite Index up 6%. Average volatility in equity markets was lower during the second half of 2016 compared with the beginning of the year. In credit and commodity markets, U.S. investment grade and high-yield credit spreads tightened by nearly 40 basis points and over 150 basis points, respectively, during the second half of 2016, and oil and natural gas prices increased to approximately $54 per barrel (WTI) and $3.72 per million British thermal units, respectively. These trends drove improved client sentiment and market-making conditions during the second half of 2016. If the trend of macroeconomic concerns continues over the long term and activity levels decline, net revenues in Institutional Client Services would likely continue to be negatively impacted. See “Business Environment” above for further information about economic and market conditions in the global operating environment during the year.

During 2015, the operating environment for Institutional Client Services was positively impacted by diverging central bank monetary policies in the U.S. and the Euro area in the first quarter, as increased volatility levels contributed to strong client activity levels in currencies, interest rate products and equity products, and market-making conditions improved. However, during the remainder of 2015, concerns about global growth and uncertainty about the U.S. Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy, along with lower global equity prices, widening high-yield credit spreads and declining commodity prices, contributed to lower levels of client activity, particularly in mortgages and credit, and more difficult market-making conditions.

2016 versus 2015. Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were $14.47 billion for 2016, 5% lower than 2015.

Net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution were $7.56 billion for 2016, 3% higher than 2015. This increase was primarily driven by the impact of changes in market-making conditions on our inventory.

The following provides details of our Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution net revenues by business, compared with 2015 results:

Net revenues in Equities were $6.91 billion, 12% lower than 2015, primarily due to significantly lower net revenues in equities client execution, reflecting significantly lower net revenues in cash products, primarily in Asia, as well as lower net revenues in derivatives. Commissions and fees were slightly lower, reflecting lower listed cash equity volumes in Asia and Europe, consistent with market volumes in these regions, and net revenues in securities services were essentially unchanged compared with 2015.

We elect the fair value option for certain unsecured borrowings. For 2015, the fair value net gain attributable to the impact of changes in our credit spreads on these borrowings was $255 million ($214 million and $41 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively). For 2016, we adopted the requirement in ASU No. 2016-01 to present separately such gains and losses in other comprehensive income. The amount included in accumulated other comprehensive loss for 2016 was a loss of $844 million ($544 million, net of tax). See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about ASU No. 2016-01.

Operating expenses were $9.71 billion for 2016, 30% lower than 2015, primarily due to significantly lower net provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters, and decreased compensation and benefits expenses, reflecting lower net revenues. Pre-tax earnings were $4.75 billion in 2016 compared with $1.21 billion in 2015.

2015 versus 2014. Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were $15.15 billion for 2015, essentially unchanged compared with 2014.

Net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution were $7.32 billion for 2015, 13% lower than 2014. Excluding a gain of $168 million in 2014 related to the extinguishment of certain of our junior subordinated debt, net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution were 12% lower than 2014. This decrease was primarily driven by the impact of changes in market-making conditions on our inventory.

The following provides details of our Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution net revenues by business, compared with 2014 results:

Net revenues in Equities were $7.83 billion for 2015, 16% higher than 2014. Excluding a gain of $121 million ($30 million and $91 million included in equities client execution and securities services, respectively) in 2014 related to the extinguishment of certain of our junior subordinated debt, net revenues in Equities were 18% higher than 2014, primarily due to significantly higher net revenues in equities client execution across the major regions, reflecting significantly higher results in both derivatives and cash products, and higher net revenues in securities services, reflecting the impact of higher average customer balances and improved securities lending spreads. Commissions and fees were essentially unchanged compared with 2014.

We elect the fair value option for certain unsecured borrowings. The fair value net gain attributable to the impact of changes in our credit spreads on these borrowings was $255 million ($214 million and $41 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2015, compared with a net gain of $144 million ($108 million and $36 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2014.

Operating expenses were $13.94 billion for 2015, 28% higher than 2014, due to significantly higher net provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters, partially offset by decreased compensation and benefits expenses. Pre-tax earnings were $1.21 billion in 2015, 72% lower than 2014.

Investing & Lending

Investing & Lending includes our investing activities and the origination of loans, including our relationship lending activities, to provide financing to clients. These investments and loans are typically longer-term in nature. We make investments, some of which are consolidated, directly and indirectly through funds that we manage, in debt securities and loans, public and private equity securities, infrastructure and real estate entities. We also make unsecured loans to individuals through our online platform.

The table below presents the operating results of our Investing & Lending segment.

Operating Environment. Following difficult market conditions and the impact of a challenging macroeconomic environment on corporate performance, particularly in the energy sector, in the first quarter of 2016, market conditions improved during the rest of the year as macroeconomic concerns moderated. Global equity markets increased during 2016, contributing to net gains from investments in public equities, and corporate performance rebounded from the difficult start to the year. If macroeconomic concerns negatively affect corporate performance or company-specific events, or if global equity markets decline, net revenues in Investing & Lending would likely be negatively impacted.

Although net revenues in Investing & Lending for 2015 benefited from favorable company-specific events, including sales, initial public offerings and financings, a decline in global equity prices and widening high-yield credit spreads during the second half of 2015 impacted results.

2016 versus 2015. Net revenues in Investing & Lending were $4.08 billion for 2016, 25% lower than 2015. This decrease was primarily due to significantly lower net revenues from investments in equities, primarily reflecting a significant decrease in net gains from private equities, driven by company-specific events and corporate performance. In addition, net revenues in debt securities and loans were lower compared with 2015, reflecting significantly lower net revenues related to relationship lending activities, due to the impact of changes in credit spreads on economic hedges. Losses related to these hedges were $596 million in 2016, compared with gains of $329 million in 2015. This decrease was partially offset by higher net gains from investments in debt instruments and higher net interest income. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about economic hedges related to our relationship lending activities.

Operating expenses were $2.39 billion for 2016, essentially unchanged compared with 2015. Pre-tax earnings were $1.69 billion in 2016, 44% lower than 2015.

2015 versus 2014. Net revenues in Investing & Lending were $5.44 billion for 2015, 20% lower than 2014. This decrease was primarily due to lower net revenues from investments in equities, principally reflecting the sale of Metro in the fourth quarter of 2014 and lower net gains from investments in private equities, driven by corporate performance. In addition, net revenues in debt securities and loans were significantly lower, reflecting lower net gains from investments.

Operating expenses were $2.40 billion for 2015, 15% lower than 2014, due to lower depreciation and amortization expenses, primarily reflecting lower impairment charges related to consolidated investments, and a reduction in expenses related to the sale of Metro in the fourth quarter of 2014. Pre-tax earnings were $3.03 billion in 2015, 24% lower than 2014.

Investment Management

Investment Management provides investment management services and offers investment products (primarily through separately managed accounts and commingled vehicles, such as mutual funds and private investment funds) across all major asset classes to a diverse set of institutional and individual clients. Investment Management also offers wealth advisory services, including portfolio management and financial counseling, and brokerage and other transaction services to high-net-worth individuals and families.

Assets under supervision (AUS) 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. Assets under supervision also 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 market and bank deposit assets.

Assets under supervision typically generate fees as a percentage of net asset value, which vary by asset class and distribution channel and are affected by investment performance as well as asset inflows and redemptions. Asset classes such as alternative investment and equity assets typically generate higher fees relative to fixed income and liquidity product assets. The average effective management fee (which excludes non-asset-based fees) we earned on our assets under supervision was 35 basis points for 2016, 39 basis points for 2015 and 40 basis points for 2014. These decreases reflected shifts in the mix of client assets and strategies.

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. Incentive fees are recognized only when all material contingencies are resolved.

The table below presents the operating results of our Investment Management segment.