Edgar Filing: MORGAN STANLEY

Form 10-K

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the year ended December 31, 2013

Commission File Number 1-11758

LOGO

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

1585 Broadway

New York, NY 10036

(Address of principal executive offices,
including zip code)

36-3145972

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

(212) 761-4000

(Registrant’s telephone number,
including area code)



Title of each class		Name of exchange on which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series A, $0.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series E, $0.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series F, $0.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange
6¹/₄% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant’s guaranty with respect thereto)		New York Stock Exchange
6¹/₄% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant’s guaranty with respect thereto)		New York Stock Exchange
5³/₄% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant’s guaranty with respect thereto)		New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant’s guaranty with respect thereto)		New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant’s guaranty with respect thereto)		New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant’s guaranty with respect thereto)		New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances)		NYSE Arca, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushing^® MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031		NYSE Arca, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031		NYSE Arca, Inc.

Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES x NO ¨

Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ¨ NO x

Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES x NO ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES x NO ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large Accelerated Filer x

Non-Accelerated Filer ¨

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Accelerated Filer ¨

Smaller reporting company ¨

Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES ¨ NO x

As of June 28, 2013, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $45,831,657,254. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.

As of January 31, 2014, there were 1,975,673,438 shares of Registrant’s common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.

LOGO

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

for the year ended December 31, 2013


Table of Contents		Page

Part I
Item 1.	Business		1
	Overview		1
	Available Information		1
	Business Segments		2
	Institutional Securities		2
	Wealth Management		4
	Investment Management		5
	Competition		6
	Supervision and Regulation		7
	Executive Officers of Morgan Stanley		21
Item 1A.	Risk Factors		22
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments		33
Item 2.	Properties		34
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings		35
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures		46

Part II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		47
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data		50
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		52
	Introduction		52
	Executive Summary		54
	Business Segments		63
	Accounting Developments		83
	Other Matters		85
	Critical Accounting Policies		88
	Liquidity and Capital Resources		92
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk		111
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		136
	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		136
	Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition		137
	Consolidated Statements of Income		138
	Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income		139
	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		140
	Consolidated Statements of Changes in Total Equity		141

LOGO


Table of Contents		Page
	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements		142
	Financial Data Supplement (Unaudited)		285
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure		293
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures		293
Item 9B.	Other Information		295

Part III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance		296
Item 11.	Executive Compensation		296
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters		297
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence		298
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services		298

Part IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules		299

Signatures			S-1

Exhibit Index			E-1

LOGO

Forward-Looking Statements

We have included in or incorporated by reference into this report, and from time to time may make in our public filings, press releases or other public statements, certain statements, including (without limitation) those under “Legal Proceedings” in Part I, Item 3, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 and “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” in Part II, Item 7A, that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In addition, our management may make forward-looking statements to analysts, investors, representatives of the media and others. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts and represent only our beliefs regarding future events, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and beyond our control.

The nature of our business makes predicting the future trends of our revenues, expenses and net income difficult. The risks and uncertainties involved in our businesses could affect the matters referred to in such statements, and it is possible that our actual results may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results indicated in these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements include (without limitation):

•

the effect of economic and political conditions and geopolitical events;

•

the effect of market conditions, particularly in the global equity, fixed income, credit and commodities markets, including corporate and mortgage (commercial and residential) lending and commercial real estate markets;

•

the impact of current, pending and future legislation (including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”)), regulation (including capital, leverage and liquidity requirements), policies (including fiscal and monetary) and legal and regulatory actions in the United States (“U.S.”) and worldwide;

•

the level and volatility of equity, fixed income and commodity prices, interest rates, currency values and other market indices;

•

the availability and cost of both credit and capital as well as the credit ratings assigned to our unsecured short-term and long-term debt;

•

investor, consumer and business sentiment and confidence in the financial markets;

•

the performance of our acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, strategic alliances or other strategic arrangements;

•

our reputation;

•

inflation, natural disasters and acts of war or terrorism;

•

the actions and initiatives of current and potential competitors as well as governments, regulators and self-regulatory organizations;

•

the effectiveness of our risk management policies;

•

technological changes and risks, including cybersecurity risks; and

•

other risks and uncertainties detailed under “Business—Competition” and “Business—Supervision and Regulation” in Part I, Item 1, “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A and elsewhere throughout this report.

Accordingly, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date on which they are made. We undertake no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the dates they are made, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise except as required by applicable law. You should, however, consult further disclosures we may make in future filings of our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments thereto or in future press releases or other public statements.

iii

LOGO

Part I

Item 1.

Business.

Overview.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides its products and services to a large and diversified group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. Morgan Stanley was originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 1981, and its predecessor companies date back to 1924. The Company is a financial holding company regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”). The Company conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S. and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other world financial centers. At December 31, 2013, the Company had 55,794 employees worldwide. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “Morgan Stanley,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” mean Morgan Stanley together with its consolidated subsidiaries.

Financial information concerning the Company, its business segments and geographic regions for each of the 12 months ended December 31, 2013 (“2013”), December 31, 2012 (“2012”) and December 31, 2011 (“2011”) is included in the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto in “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” in Part II, Item 8.

Available Information.

The Company files annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). You may read and copy any document the Company files with the SEC at the SEC’s public reference room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for information on the public reference room. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy and information statements and other information that issuers (including the Company) file electronically with the SEC. The Company’s electronic SEC filings are available to the public at the SEC’s internet site, www.sec.gov.

The Company’s internet site is www.morganstanley.com. You can access the Company’s Investor Relations webpage at www.morganstanley.com/about/ir. The Company makes available free of charge, on or through its Investor Relations webpage, its proxy statements, Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The Company also makes available, through its Investor Relations webpage, via a link to the SEC’s internet site, statements of beneficial ownership of the Company’s equity securities filed by its directors, officers, 10% or greater shareholders and others under Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

You can access information about the Company’s corporate governance at www.morganstanley.com/about/company/governance. The Company’s Corporate Governance webpage includes the Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation; Amended and Restated Bylaws; charters for its Audit Committee; Compensation, Management Development and Succession Committee; Nominating and Governance Committee; Operations and Technology Committee; and Risk Committee; Corporate Governance Policies; Policy Regarding Communication with the Board of Directors; Policy Regarding Director Candidates Recommended by Shareholders; Policy Regarding Corporate Political Activities; Policy Regarding Shareholder Rights Plan; Code of Ethics and Business Conduct; Code of Conduct; and Integrity Hotline information.

Morgan Stanley’s Code of Ethics and Business Conduct applies to all directors, officers and employees, including its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Deputy Chief Financial Officer. The Company


		1

will post any amendments to the Code of Ethics and Business Conduct and any waivers that are required to be disclosed by the rules of either the SEC or the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) on its internet site. You can request a copy of these documents, excluding exhibits, at no cost, by contacting Investor Relations, 1585 Broadway, New York, NY 10036 (212-761-4000). The information on the Company’s internet site is not incorporated by reference into this report.

Business Segments.

The Company is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments—Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management.

Institutional Securities.

The Company provides financial advisory and capital-raising services to a diverse group of corporate and other institutional clients globally, primarily through wholly owned subsidiaries that include Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”), Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc and Morgan Stanley Asia Limited, and certain joint venture entities that include Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities Co., Ltd. (“MSMS”) and Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., Ltd. (“MUMSS”). The Company, primarily through these entities, also conducts sales and trading activities worldwide, as principal and agent, and provides related financing services on behalf of institutional investors.

Investment Banking and Corporate Lending Activities.

Capital Raising. The Company manages and participates in public offerings and private placements of debt, equity and other securities worldwide. The Company is a leading underwriter of common stock, preferred stock and other equity-related securities, including convertible securities and American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”). The Company is also a leading underwriter of fixed income securities, including investment grade debt, non-investment grade instruments, mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities, tax-exempt securities and commercial paper and other short-term securities.

Financial Advisory Services. The Company provides corporate and other institutional clients globally with advisory services on key strategic matters, such as mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, corporate restructurings, recapitalizations, spin-offs, exchange offers and leveraged buyouts and takeover defenses as well as shareholder relations. The Company also provides advice and services concerning rights offerings, dividend policy, valuations, foreign exchange exposure, financial risk management strategies and financial planning. In addition, the Company furnishes advice and services regarding project financings and provides advisory services in connection with the purchase, sale, leasing and financing of real estate.

Corporate Lending. The Company provides loans or lending commitments, including bridge financing, to select corporate clients through its subsidiaries, including Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A (“MSBNA”). These loans and lending commitments have varying terms; may be senior or subordinated; may be secured or unsecured; are generally contingent upon representations, warranties and contractual conditions applicable to the borrower; and may be syndicated, traded or hedged by the Company. The borrowers may be rated investment grade or non-investment grade.

Sales and Trading Activities.

The Company conducts sales, trading, financing and market-making activities on securities, swaps and futures, both on exchanges and in over-the-counter (“OTC”), markets around the world. The Company’s Institutional Securities sales and trading activities comprise Institutional Equity; Fixed Income and Commodities; Research; and Investments.


		2

Institutional Equity. The Company acts as agent and principal (including as a market-maker) in executing transactions globally in cash equity and equity-related products, including common stock, ADRs, global depositary receipts and exchange-traded funds.

The Company acts as agent and principal (including as a market-maker) in executing transactions globally in equity derivatives and equity-linked or related products, including options, equity swaps, warrants, structured notes and futures on individual securities, indices and baskets of securities and other equity-related products. The Company offers prime brokerage services to clients, including consolidated clearance, settlement, custody, financing and portfolio reporting. In addition, the Company provides wealth management services to ultra-high net worth and high net worth clients in select regions outside the U.S.

Fixed Income and Commodities. The Company trades, invests and makes markets in fixed income securities and related products globally, including, among other products, investment and non-investment grade corporate debt; distressed debt; bank loans; U.S. and other sovereign securities; emerging market bonds and loans; convertible bonds; collateralized debt obligations; credit, currency, interest rate and other fixed income-linked notes; securities issued by structured investment vehicles; mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities and real estate-loan products; municipal securities; preferred stock and commercial paper; and money-market and other short-term securities. The Company is a primary dealer of U.S. federal government securities and a member of the selling groups that distribute various U.S. agency and other debt securities. The Company is also a primary dealer or market-maker of government securities in numerous European, Asian and emerging market countries, as well as Canada.

The Company trades, invests and makes markets globally in listed swaps and futures and OTC cleared and uncleared swaps, forwards, options and other derivatives referencing, among other things, interest rates, currencies, investment grade and non-investment grade corporate credits, loans, bonds, U.S. and other sovereign securities, emerging market bonds and loans, credit indexes, asset-backed security indexes, property indexes, mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities and real estate loan products.

The Company trades, invests and makes markets in major foreign currencies, such as the British pound, Canadian dollar, euro, Japanese yen and Swiss franc, as well as in emerging markets currencies. The Company trades these currencies on a principal basis in the spot, forward, option and futures markets.

Through the use of repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, the Company acts as an intermediary between borrowers and lenders of short-term funds and provides funding for various inventory positions. The Company also provides financing to customers for commercial and residential real estate loan products and other securitizable asset classes, and distributes such securitized assets to investors. In addition, the Company engages in principal securities lending with clients, institutional lenders and other broker-dealers.

The Company advises on investment and liability strategies and assists corporations in their debt repurchases and planning. The Company structures debt securities, derivatives and other instruments with risk/return factors designed to suit client objectives, including using repackaged asset and other structured vehicles through which clients can restructure asset portfolios to provide liquidity or reconfigure risk profiles.

The Company trades, invests and makes markets in the spot, forward, OTC cleared and uncleared swaps, options and futures markets in several commodities, including metals (base and precious), agricultural products, crude oil, oil products, natural gas, electric power, emission credits, coal, freight, liquefied natural gas and related products and indices. The Company offers counterparties hedging programs relating to production, consumption, reserve/inventory management and structured transactions, including energy-contract securitizations and monetization. The Company is an electricity power marketer in the U.S. and owns electricity-generating facilities in the U.S.

The Company owns TransMontaigne Inc. and its subsidiaries, a group of companies operating in the refined petroleum products marketing and distribution business, and owns a minority interest in Heidmar Holdings LLC,


		3

which owns a group of companies that provide international marine transportation and U.S. marine logistics services. On December 20, 2013, the Company and a subsidiary of Rosneft Oil Company (“Rosneft”) entered into a Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the Company will sell the global oil merchanting unit of its commodities division to Rosneft. The transaction includes the sale of the Company’s minority interest in Heidmar Holdings LLC. The transaction is subject to regulatory approvals and other customary conditions and is expected to close in the second half of 2014. Also on December 20, 2013, the Company announced it is exploring strategic options for its stake in TransMontaigne Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Research. The Company’s research department (“Research”) coordinates globally across all of the Company’s businesses and consists of economists, strategists and industry analysts who engage in equity and fixed income research activities and produce reports and studies on the U.S. and global economy, financial markets, portfolio strategy, technical market analyses, individual companies and industry developments. Research examines worldwide trends covering numerous industries and individual companies, the majority of which are located outside the U.S.; provides analysis and forecasts relating to economic and monetary developments that affect matters such as interest rates, foreign currencies, securities, derivatives and economic trends; and provides analytical support and publishes reports on asset-backed securities and the markets in which such securities are traded and data are disseminated to investors through third-party distributors, proprietary internet sites such as Client Link^sm and Matrix^sm, and the Company’s global representatives.

Investments. The Company from time to time makes investments that represent business facilitation or other investing activities. Such investments are typically strategic investments undertaken by the Company to facilitate core business activities. From time to time, the Company may also make investments and capital commitments to public and private companies, funds and other entities.

The Company sponsors and manages investment vehicles and separate accounts for clients seeking exposure to private equity, infrastructure, mezzanine lending and real estate-related and other alternative investments. The Company may also invest in and provide capital to such investment vehicles. See also “Investment Management” herein.

Operations and Information Technology.

The Company’s Operations and Information Technology departments provide the process and technology platform required to support Institutional Securities sales and trading activity, including post-execution trade processing and related internal controls over activity from trade entry through settlement and custody, such as asset servicing. This support is provided for listed and OTC transactions in commodities, equity and fixed income securities, including both primary and secondary trading, as well as listed, OTC and structured derivatives in markets around the world. This activity is undertaken through the Company’s own facilities, through membership in various clearing and settlement organizations, and through agreements with unaffiliated third parties.

Wealth Management.

The Company’s Wealth Management business segment provides comprehensive financial services to clients through a network of more than 16,700 global representatives in 649 locations at year-end. As of December 31, 2013, Wealth Management had $1,909 billion in client assets.

Clients.

Wealth Management professionals serve individual investors and small-to-medium sized businesses and institutions with an emphasis on ultra-high net worth, high net worth and affluent investors. Wealth Management representatives are located in branches across the U.S. and provide solutions designed to accommodate the individual investment objectives, risk tolerance and liquidity needs of investors residing in and outside the U.S. Call centers are available to meet the needs of emerging affluent clients.


		4

Products and Services.

Wealth Management provides clients with a comprehensive array of financial solutions, including products and services from the Company and third-party providers, such as other financial institutions, insurance companies and mutual fund families. Wealth Management provides brokerage and investment advisory services covering various types of investments, including equities, options, futures, foreign currencies, precious metals, fixed income securities, mutual funds, structured products, alternative investments, unit investment trusts, managed futures, separately managed accounts and mutual fund asset allocation programs. Wealth Management also engages in fixed income principal trading, which primarily facilitates clients’ trading or investments in such securities. In addition, Wealth Management offers education savings programs, financial and wealth planning services, and annuity and other insurance products.

In addition, Wealth Management offers its clients access to several cash management services through various banks and other third parties, including deposits, debit cards, electronic bill payments and check writing, as well as lending products through affiliates such as MSBNA and Morgan Stanley Private Bank, National Association (“MSPNA” and, together with MSBNA, the “Subsidiary Banks”), including securities-based lending, mortgage loans and home equity lines of credit. Wealth Management also offers access to trust and fiduciary services, offers access to cash management and commercial credit solutions to qualified small- and medium-sized businesses in the U.S., and provides individual and corporate retirement solutions, including individual retirement accounts and 401(k) plans and U.S. and global stock plan services to corporate executives and businesses.

Wealth Management provides clients a variety of ways to establish a relationship and conduct business, including brokerage accounts with transaction-based pricing and investment advisory accounts with asset-based fee pricing.

Operations and Information Technology.

The Operations and Information Technology departments provide the process and technology platform to support the Wealth Management business segment, including core securities processing, capital markets operations, product services, and alternative investments, margin, payments and related internal controls over activity from trade entry through settlement and custody. This activity is undertaken through the Company’s own facilities, through membership in various clearing and settlement organizations, and through agreements with affiliates and unaffiliated third parties.

Investment Management.

The Company’s Investment Management business segment, consisting of Traditional Asset Management, Merchant Banking and Real Estate Investing activities, is one of the largest global investment management organizations of any full-service financial services firm and offers clients a broad array of equity, fixed income and alternative investments and merchant banking strategies. Portfolio managers located in the U.S., Europe and Asia manage investment products ranging from money market funds to equity and fixed income strategies, alternative investment and merchant banking products in developed and emerging markets across geographies and market cap ranges.

Institutional Investors.

The Company provides investment management strategies and products to institutional investors worldwide, including corporations, pension plans, endowments, foundations, sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies and banks through a broad range of pooled vehicles and separate accounts. Additionally, the Company provides sub-advisory services to various unaffiliated financial institutions and intermediaries. A Global Sales and Client Service team is engaged in business development and relationship management for consultants to help serve institutional clients.


		5

Intermediary Clients and Individual Investors.

The Company offers open-end and alternative investment funds and separately managed accounts to individual investors through affiliated and unaffiliated broker-dealers, banks, insurance companies, financial planners and other intermediaries. Closed-end funds managed by the Company are available to individual investors through affiliated and unaffiliated broker-dealers. The Company also distributes mutual funds through numerous retirement plan platforms. Internationally, the Company distributes traditional investment products to individuals outside the U.S. through non-proprietary distributors and distributes alternative investment products through affiliated broker-dealers and banks.

Merchant Banking and Real Estate Investing.

The Company offers a range of alternative investment, real estate investing and merchant banking products for institutional investors and high net worth individuals. The Company’s alternative investments platform includes funds of hedge funds, funds of private equity and real estate funds and portable alpha strategies. The Company’s alternative investments platform also includes minority stakes in Lansdowne Partners and Avenue Capital Group. The Company’s real estate and merchant banking businesses include its real estate investing business, private equity funds, corporate mezzanine debt investing group and infrastructure investing group. The Company typically acts as general partner of, and investment adviser to, its alternative investment, real estate and merchant banking funds and typically commits to invest a minority of the capital of such funds with subscribing investors contributing the majority.

Operations and Information Technology.

The Company’s Operations and Information Technology departments provide or oversee the process and technology platform required to support its Investment Management business segment, including transfer agency, mutual fund accounting and administration, transaction processing and certain fiduciary services on behalf of institutional, intermediary and high net worth clients. This activity is undertaken through the Company’s own facilities, through membership in various clearing and settlement organizations, and through agreements with unaffiliated third parties.

Competition.

All aspects of the Company’s businesses are highly competitive, and the Company expects them to remain so. The Company competes in the U.S. and globally for clients, market share and human talent in all aspects of its business segments. The Company’s competitive position depends on its reputation and the quality and consistency of its long-term investment performance. The Company’s ability to sustain or improve its competitive position also depends substantially on its ability to continue to attract and retain highly qualified employees while managing compensation and other costs. The Company competes with commercial banks, brokerage firms, insurance companies, electronic trading and clearing platforms, financial data repositories, sponsors of mutual funds, hedge funds, energy companies and other companies offering financial or ancillary services in the U.S., globally and through the internet. Over time, certain sectors of the financial services industry have become more concentrated, as institutions involved in a broad range of financial services have left businesses, been acquired by or merged into other firms or have declared bankruptcy. Such changes could result in the Company’s remaining competitors gaining greater capital and other resources, such as the ability to offer a broader range of products and services and geographic diversity, or new competitors may emerge. See also “—Supervision and Regulation” below and “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A herein.

Institutional Securities and Wealth Management.

The Company’s competitive position for its Institutional Securities and Wealth Management business segments depends on innovation, execution capability and relative pricing. The Company competes directly in the U.S. and globally with other securities and financial services firms and broker-dealers and with others on a regional or product basis.


		6

The Company’s ability to access capital at competitive rates (which is generally impacted by the Company’s credit ratings) and to commit capital efficiently, particularly in its capital-intensive underwriting and sales, trading, financing and market-making activities, also affects its competitive position. Corporate clients may request that the Company provide loans or lending commitments in connection with certain investment banking activities and such requests are expected to increase in the future.

It is possible that competition may become even more intense as the Company continues to compete with financial institutions that may be larger, or better capitalized, or may have a stronger local presence and longer operating history in certain areas. Many of these firms have the ability to offer a wide range of products and services that may enhance their competitive position and could result in pricing pressure in its businesses. The complementary trends in the financial services industry of consolidation and globalization present, among other things, technological, risk management, regulatory and other infrastructure challenges that require effective resource allocation in order for the Company to remain competitive. In addition, the Company’s business is subject to increased regulation in the U.S. and abroad, while certain of its competitors may be subject to less stringent legal and regulatory regimes than the Company, thereby putting the Company at a competitive disadvantage.

The Company has experienced intense price competition in some of its businesses in recent years. In particular, the ability to execute securities trades electronically on exchanges and through other automated trading markets has increased the pressure on trading commissions and comparable fees. The trend toward direct access to automated, electronic markets will likely increase as additional markets move to more automated trading platforms. It is possible that the Company will experience competitive pressures in these and other areas in the future as some of its competitors may seek to obtain market share by reducing prices (in the form of commissions or pricing).

Investment Management.

Competition in the asset management industry is affected by several factors, including the Company’s reputation, investment objectives, quality of investment professionals, performance of investment strategies or product offerings relative to peers and an appropriate benchmark index, advertising and sales promotion efforts, fee levels, the effectiveness of and access to distribution channels and investment pipelines, and the types and quality of products offered. The Company’s alternative investment products, such as private equity funds, real estate and hedge funds, compete with similar products offered by both alternative and traditional asset managers, who may be subject to less stringent legal and regulatory regimes than the Company.

Supervision and Regulation.

As a major financial services firm, the Company is subject to extensive regulation by U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies and securities exchanges and by regulators and exchanges in each of the major markets where it conducts its business. Moreover, in response to the 2007–2008 financial crisis, legislators and regulators, both in the U.S. and worldwide, are in the process of adopting, finalizing and implementing a wide range of reforms that will result in major changes to the way the Company is regulated and conducts its business. It will take time for the comprehensive effects of these reforms to emerge and be understood.

Regulatory Outlook.

The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted on July 21, 2010. While certain portions of the Dodd-Frank Act became effective immediately, most other portions are effective following transition periods or through numerous rulemakings by multiple governmental agencies, and although a large number of rules have been proposed, many are still subject to final rulemaking or transition periods. U.S. regulators also plan to propose additional regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act. Accordingly, it remains difficult to assess fully the impact that the Dodd-Frank Act will have on the Company and on the financial services industry generally. In addition, various


		7

international developments, such as the adoption of or further revisions to risk-based capital, leverage and liquidity standards by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”), including Basel III, and the implementation of those standards in jurisdictions in which the Company operates, will continue to impact the Company in the coming years.

It is likely that 2014 and subsequent years will see further material changes in the way major financial institutions are regulated in both the U.S. and other markets in which the Company operates, although it remains difficult to predict the exact impact these changes will have on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows for a particular future period.

Financial Holding Company.

Consolidated Supervision.

The Company has operated as a bank holding company and financial holding company under the BHC Act since September 2008. As a bank holding company, the Company is subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision, regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve also gained heightened authority to examine, prescribe regulations and take action with respect to all of the Company’s subsidiaries. In particular, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company is, or will become, subject to (among other things) significantly revised and expanded regulation and supervision, to more intensive scrutiny of its businesses and plans for expansion of those businesses, to new activities limitations, to a systemic risk regime that will impose heightened capital and liquidity requirements, to new restrictions on activities and investments imposed by a section of the BHC Act added by the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule” and to comprehensive new derivatives regulation. In addition, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has primary rulemaking, enforcement and examination authority over the Company and its subsidiaries with respect to federal consumer protection laws, to the extent applicable.

Scope of Permitted Activities. The BHC Act places limits on the activities of bank holding companies and financial holding companies, and grants the Federal Reserve authority to limit the Company’s ability to conduct activities. The Company must obtain Federal Reserve Board approval before engaging in certain banking and other financial activities both in the U.S. and internationally. Since becoming a bank holding company in September 2008, the Company has disposed of certain nonconforming assets and conformed certain activities to the requirements of the BHC Act.

In addition, the Company continues to engage in discussions with the Federal Reserve regarding its commodities activities, as the BHC Act also grandfathers “activities related to the trading, sale or investment in commodities and underlying physical properties,” provided that the Company was engaged in “any of such activities as of September 30, 1997 in the United States” and provided that certain other conditions that are within the Company’s reasonable control are satisfied. If the Federal Reserve were to determine that any of the Company’s commodities activities did not qualify for the BHC Act grandfather exemption, then the Company would likely be required to divest any such activities that did not otherwise conform to the BHC Act. At this time, the Company believes, based on its interpretation of applicable law, that (i) such commodities activities qualify for the BHC Act grandfather exemption or otherwise conform to the BHC Act and (ii) if the Federal Reserve were to determine otherwise, any required divestment would not have a material adverse impact on its financial condition. In January 2014, the Federal Reserve issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which seeks public comment on certain matters related to financial holding companies’ physical commodity activities and merchant banking investments in nonfinancial companies.

Activities Restrictions under the Volcker Rule. In December 2013, U.S. regulators issued final regulations to implement the Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule will, over time, prohibit “banking entities,” including the Company and its affiliates, from engaging in certain prohibited “proprietary trading” activities, as defined in the Volcker Rule, subject to exemptions for underwriting, market making-related activities, risk mitigating hedging and certain other activities. The Volcker Rule will also require banking entities to either restructure or unwind


		8

certain investments and relationships with “covered funds,” as defined in the Volcker Rule. Banking entities have until July 21, 2015 to bring all of their activities and investments into conformance with the Volcker Rule, subject to possible extensions. The Volcker Rule requires banking entities to establish comprehensive compliance programs designed to help ensure and monitor compliance with restrictions under the Volcker Rule.

The Company is continuing its review of activities that may be affected by the Volcker Rule, including its trading operations and asset management activities, and is taking steps to establish the necessary compliance programs to comply with the Volcker Rule. The Company had already taken certain steps to comply with the Volcker Rule prior to the issuance of final regulations, including, for example, the divestiture of its in-house proprietary quantitative trading unit in January 2013. Given the complexity of the new framework, the full impact of the Volcker Rule is still uncertain, and will ultimately depend on the interpretation and implementation by the five regulatory agencies responsible for its oversight.

Capital and Liquidity Standards. The Federal Reserve establishes capital requirements for the Company and evaluates its compliance with such capital requirements. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) establishes similar capital requirements and standards for the Company’s Subsidiary Banks. Under existing capital regulations, for the Company to remain a financial holding company, its Subsidiary Banks must qualify as “well-capitalized” by maintaining a total risk-based capital ratio (total capital to risk-weighted assets) of at least 10% and a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6%. To maintain its status as a financial holding company, the Company is also required to be “well-capitalized” by maintaining these capital ratios. Effective January 1, 2015, the “well-capitalized” standard for the Company’s Subsidiary Banks will be revised to reflect the higher capital requirements in the U.S. Basel III final rule, as defined below. The Federal Reserve may require the Company and its peer financial holding companies to maintain risk and leverage-based capital ratios substantially in excess of mandated minimum levels, depending upon general economic conditions and a financial holding company’s particular condition, risk profile and growth plans. In addition, under the Federal Reserve and OCC’s leverage capital rules, the Company and the Subsidiary Banks are subject to a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio (Tier 1 capital to average total consolidated assets) of 4%.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company calculated its capital ratios and risk-weighted assets in accordance with the existing capital adequacy standards for financial holding companies adopted by the Federal Reserve. These existing capital standards are based upon a framework described in the “International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards,” July 1988, as amended, also referred to as Basel I. In December 2007, the U.S. banking regulators published final regulations incorporating the Basel II Accord, which requires internationally active U.S. banking organizations, as well as certain of their U.S. bank subsidiaries, to implement Basel II standards over the next several years. On January 1, 2013, the U.S. banking regulators’ rules to implement the Basel Committee’s market risk capital framework, referred to as “Basel 2.5,” became effective, which increased the capital requirements for securitizations and correlation trading within the Company’s trading book, as well as incorporated add-ons for stressed Value-at-Risk and incremental risk requirements.

In December 2010, the Basel Committee reached an agreement on Basel III. In July 2013, the U.S. banking regulators promulgated final rules to implement many aspects of Basel III (the “U.S. Basel III final rule”). The Company became subject to the U.S. Basel III final rule on January 1, 2014. Certain requirements in the U.S. Basel III final rule, including the minimum risk-based capital ratios and new capital buffers, will commence or be phased in over several years.

The U.S. Basel III final rule contains new capital standards that raise capital requirements, strengthen counterparty credit risk capital requirements, introduce a leverage ratio as a supplemental measure to the risk-based ratio and replace the use of externally developed credit ratings with alternatives such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s country risk classifications. Under the U.S. Basel III final rule, the Company is subject, on a fully phased-in basis, to a minimum Common Equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5%, a minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% and a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of 8%.


		9

The Company is also subject to a 2.5% Common Equity Tier 1 capital conservation buffer and, if deployed, up to a 2.5% Common Equity Tier 1 countercyclical buffer, on a fully phased-in basis by 2019. Failure to maintain such buffers will result in restrictions on the Company’s ability to make capital distributions, including the payment of dividends and the repurchase of stock, and to pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers. In addition, certain new items will be deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 capital and certain existing deductions will be modified. The majority of these capital deductions is subject to a phase-in schedule and will be fully phased in by 2018. Under the U.S. Basel III final rule, unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities will be reflected in Common Equity Tier 1 capital, subject to a phase-in schedule.

U.S. banking regulators have published final regulations implementing a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring that certain institutions supervised by the Federal Reserve, including the Company, be subject to minimum capital requirements that are not less than the generally applicable risk-based capital requirements. Currently, this minimum “capital floor” is based on Basel I. Beginning on January 1, 2015, the U.S. Basel III final rule will replace the current Basel I-based “capital floor” with a standardized approach that, among other things, modifies the existing risk weights for certain types of asset classes. The “capital floor” applies to the calculation of minimum risk-based capital requirements as well as the capital conservation buffer and, if deployed, the countercyclical capital buffer.

On February 21, 2014, the Federal Reserve and the OCC approved the Company’s and the Subsidiary Banks’ respective use of the U.S. Basel III advanced internal ratings-based approach for determining credit risk capital requirements and advanced measurement approaches for determining operational risk capital requirements (collectively, the “advanced approaches method”) to calculate and publicly disclose their risk-based capital ratios beginning with the second quarter of 2014, subject to the “capital floor” discussed above. One of the stipulations for this approval is that the Company will be required to satisfy certain conditions, as agreed to with the regulators, regarding the modeling used to determine its estimated risk-weighted assets associated with operational risk.

In addition to the U.S. Basel III final rule, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve to establish more stringent capital requirements for certain bank holding companies, including the Company. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it intends to address this requirement by implementing the Basel Committee’s capital surcharge for global systemically important banks (“G-SIBs”). The Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) has provisionally identified the G-SIBs and assigned each G-SIB a Common Equity Tier 1 capital surcharge ranging from 1.0% to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. The Company is provisionally assigned a G-SIB capital surcharge of 1.5%. The FSB has stated that it intends to update the list of G-SIBs annually.

The U.S. Basel III final rule also subjects certain banking organizations, including the Company, to a minimum supplementary leverage ratio of 3% beginning on January 1, 2018. In January 2014, the Basel Committee finalized revisions to the denominator of the Basel III leverage ratio. The revised denominator differs from the supplementary leverage ratio in the treatment of, among other things, derivatives, securities financing transactions and other off-balance sheet items. U.S. banking regulators may issue regulations to implement the revised Basel III leverage ratio.

The U.S. banking regulators have also proposed a rule to implement enhanced supplementary leverage standards for certain large bank holding companies and their subsidiary insured depository institutions, including the Company and the Subsidiary Banks. Under this proposal, a covered bank holding company would need to maintain a leverage buffer of Tier 1 capital of greater than 2% in addition to the 3% minimum (for a total of greater than 5%), in order to avoid limitations on capital distributions, including dividends and stock repurchases, and discretionary bonus payments to executive officers. This proposal would further establish a “well-capitalized” threshold based on a supplementary leverage ratio of 6% for insured depository institution subsidiaries, including the Subsidiary Banks. If this proposal is adopted, its requirements would become effective on January 1, 2018 with public disclosure of the ratio required beginning in 2015.


		10

The Basel Committee has developed two standards intended for use in liquidity risk supervision, the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”) and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (“NSFR”). The LCR was developed to ensure banks have sufficient high-quality liquid assets to cover net cash outflows arising from significant stress over 30 calendar days. This standard’s objective is to promote the short-term resilience of the liquidity risk profile of banks and bank holding companies. The NSFR has a time horizon of one year and is defined as the ratio of the amount of available stable funding to the amount of required stable funding. This standard’s objective is to promote resilience over a longer time horizon. In January 2014, the Basel Committee proposed revisions to the original December 2010 version of the NSFR and continues to contemplate the introduction of the NSFR, including any final revisions, as a minimum standard by January 1, 2018.

In October 2013, the U.S. banking regulators proposed a rule to implement the LCR in the U.S. (“U.S. LCR proposal”). The U.S. LCR proposal would apply to the Company and the Subsidiary Banks. The U.S. LCR proposal is more stringent in certain respects compared to the Basel Committee’s version of the LCR, and includes a generally narrower definition of high-quality liquid assets, a different methodology for calculating net cash outflows during the 30-day stress period as well as a shorter, two-year phase-in period that ends on December 31, 2016. The Federal Reserve has also indicated that it may implement regulatory measures related to short-term wholesale funding.

See also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements” in Part II, Item 7 herein.

Capital Planning, Stress Tests and Dividends. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve has adopted capital planning and stress test requirements for large bank holding companies, including the Company, which form part of the Federal Reserve’s annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (“CCAR”) framework. Under the Federal Reserve’s capital plan final rule, the Company must submit an annual capital plan to the Federal Reserve, taking into account the results of separate stress tests designed by the Company and the Federal Reserve.

The capital plan must include a description of all planned capital actions over a nine-quarter planning horizon, including any issuance of a debt or equity capital instrument, any capital distribution (i.e., payments of dividends or stock repurchases), and any similar action that the Federal Reserve determines could impact the bank holding company’s consolidated capital. The capital plan must include a discussion of how the bank holding company will maintain capital above the minimum regulatory capital ratios, including the minimum ratios under the U.S. Basel III final rule that are phased in over the planning horizon, and above a Tier 1 common risk-based capital ratio of 5%, and serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary U.S. depository institutions under supervisory stress scenarios. The capital plan final rule requires that such companies receive no objection from the Federal Reserve before making a capital distribution. In addition, even with an approved capital plan, the bank holding company must seek the approval of the Federal Reserve before making a capital distribution if, among other reasons, the bank holding company would not meet its regulatory capital requirements after making the proposed capital distribution. In addition to capital planning requirements, the OCC, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) have authority to prohibit or to limit the payment of dividends by the banking organizations they supervise, including the Company and the Subsidiary Banks, 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. All of these policies and other requirements could influence the Company’s ability to pay dividends and repurchase stock, or require it to provide capital assistance to the Subsidiary Banks under circumstances which the Company would not otherwise decide to do so.

The Company expects that, by March 31, 2014, the Federal Reserve will either object or provide a notice of non-objection to the Company’s 2014 capital plan that was submitted to the Federal Reserve on January 6, 2014.

In October 2012, the Federal Reserve issued its stress test final rule as required by the Dodd-Frank Act that requires the Company to conduct semi-annual company-run stress tests. Under this rule, the Company is required to publicly disclose the summary results of its company-run stress tests under the severely adverse economic


		11

scenario. The rule also subjects the Company to an annual supervisory stress test conducted by the Federal Reserve. The capital planning and stress testing requirements for large bank holding companies form part of the Federal Reserve’s annual CCAR process.

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires each of the Subsidiary Banks to conduct an annual stress test, although MSPNA was given an exemption by the OCC for the 2014 stress test. MSBNA submitted its 2014 annual company-run stress tests to the OCC and the Federal Reserve on January 6, 2014.

See also “—Capital and Liquidity Standards” above and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements” in Part II, Item 7 herein.

Systemic Risk Regime. The Dodd-Frank Act established a regulatory framework applicable to financial institutions deemed to pose systemic risks. Bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets, such as the Company, became automatically subject to the systemic risk regime in July 2010. A new oversight body, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”), can recommend prudential standards, reporting and disclosure requirements to the Federal Reserve for systemically important financial institutions, must approve any finding by the Federal Reserve that a financial institution poses a grave threat to financial stability and must undertake mitigating actions. The Council is also empowered to designate systemically important payment, clearing and settlement activities of financial institutions, subjecting them to prudential supervision and regulation and, assisted by the new Office of Financial Research within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“U.S. Treasury”) (established by the Dodd-Frank Act), can gather data and reports from financial institutions, including the Company.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company must also provide to the Federal Reserve and FDIC, and MSBNA must provide to the FDIC, an annual plan for rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress. The Company and MSBNA submitted their most recent annual resolution plans to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, as required, on October 1, 2013.

In February 2014, the Federal Reserve issued final rules to implement certain requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act’s systemic risk regime. Effective on January 1, 2015, the final rules will require bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, such as the Company, to conduct internal liquidity stress tests, maintain unencumbered highly liquid assets to meet projected net cash outflows for 30 days over the range of liquidity stress scenarios used in internal stress tests, and comply with various liquidity risk management requirements. In addition, the final rules will require institutions to comply with a range of risk management and corporate governance requirements, such as establishment of a risk committee of the board of directors and appointment of a chief risk officer, both of which the Company already has. Under the final rules, upon a grave threat determination by the Council, the Federal Reserve must require financial institutions subject to the systemic risk regime to maintain a debt-to-equity ratio of no more than 15-to-1 if the Council considers it necessary to mitigate the risk.

The systemic risk regime provides that, for institutions posing a grave threat to U.S. financial stability, the Federal Reserve, upon Council vote, must limit that institution’s ability to merge, restrict its ability to offer financial products, require it to terminate activities, impose conditions on activities or, as a last resort, require it to dispose of assets. The Federal Reserve also has the ability to establish further standards, including those regarding contingent capital, enhanced public disclosures, and limits on short-term debt, including off-balance sheet exposures.

In addition, the Federal Reserve has proposed rules that would limit the aggregate exposure of each bank holding company with $500 billion or more in total consolidated assets, such as the Company, and each company designated by the Council, to each other such institution to 10% of the aggregate capital and surplus of each institution, and limit the aggregate exposure of such institutions to any other unaffiliated counterparty to 25% of the institution’s aggregate capital and surplus. The proposed rules would also create a new early remediation


		12

framework to address financial distress or material management weaknesses determined with reference to four levels of early remediation, including heightened supervisory review, initial remediation, recovery, and resolution assessment, with specific limitations and requirements tied to each level. The Federal Reserve has stated that it will issue, at a later date, final rules establishing single counterparty credit limits and an early remediation framework.

See also “—Capital and Liquidity Standards” above and “—Orderly Liquidation Authority” below.

Orderly Liquidation Authority. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, certain financial companies, including bank holding companies such as the Company and certain covered subsidiaries, can be subjected to resolution under a new orderly liquidation authority. The U.S. Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the President of the U.S., must first make certain extraordinary financial distress and systemic risk determinations, and action must be recommended by two-thirds of the FDIC Board and two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board. Absent such actions, the Company as a bank holding company would remain subject to resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The orderly liquidation authority went into effect in July 2010, and rulemaking is proceeding in stages, with some regulations now finalized and others planned but not yet proposed. If the Company were subject to the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC would be appointed receiver, which would give the FDIC considerable powers to resolve the Company, including (i) the power to remove officers and directors responsible for the Company’s failure and to appoint new directors and officers; (ii) the power to assign assets and liabilities to a third party or bridge financial company without the need for creditor consent or prior court review; (iii) the ability to differentiate among creditors, including by treating junior creditors better than senior creditors, subject to a minimum recovery right to receive at least what they would have received in bankruptcy liquidation; and (iv) broad powers to administer the claims process to determine distributions from the assets of the receivership to creditors not transferred to a third party or bridge financial institution. In December 2013, the FDIC released its proposed single point of entry strategy for resolution of a systemically important financial institution under the orderly liquidation authority. The FDIC’s release outlines how it would use its powers under the orderly liquidation authority to resolve a systemically important financial institution by placing its top-tier U.S. holding company in receivership and keeping its operating subsidiaries open and out of insolvency proceedings by transferring the operating subsidiaries to a new bridge holding company, recapitalizing the operating subsidiaries and imposing losses on the shareholders and creditors of the holding company in receivership according to their statutory order of priority. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it may also introduce a requirement that certain large bank holding companies maintain a minimum amount of long-term debt at the holding company level to facilitate orderly resolution of those firms.

U.S. Subsidiary Banks.

U.S. Banking Institutions. MSBNA, primarily a wholesale commercial bank, offers retail securities-based lending and commercial lending services in addition to deposit products. Certain foreign exchange activities are also conducted in MSBNA. As an FDIC-insured national bank, MSBNA is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the OCC.

MSPNA offers certain mortgage and other secured lending products primarily for customers of its affiliate retail broker-dealer, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB LLC”). MSPNA also offers certain deposit products, as well as prime brokerage custody services. MSPNA is an FDIC-insured national bank whose activities are subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the OCC.

Effective October 1, 2013, the lending limits applicable to the Company’s U.S. Subsidiary Banks were revised to take into account credit exposure arising from derivative transactions, securities lending, securities borrowing and repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements with third parties.

In January 2014, the OCC proposed a set of specific risk governance guidelines to formalize its heightened expectations for large national banks, including MSBNA. The proposed guidelines set minimum standards for


		13

the design and implementation of a bank’s risk governance framework and the oversight of that framework by a bank’s board of directors.

Prompt Corrective Action. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 provides a framework for regulation of depository institutions and their affiliates, including parent holding companies, by their federal banking regulators. Among other things, it requires the relevant federal banking regulator to take “prompt corrective action” (“PCA”) with respect to a depository institution if that institution does not meet certain capital adequacy standards. Current PCA regulations generally apply only to insured banks and thrifts such as MSBNA or MSPNA and not to their parent holding companies. The Federal Reserve is, however, subject to limitations, authorized to take appropriate action at the holding company level. In addition, as described above, under the systemic risk regime, the Company will become subject to an early remediation protocol in the event of financial distress. The Dodd-Frank Act also formalized the requirement that bank holding companies, such the Company, serve as a source of strength to their U.S. bank subsidiaries and commit resources to support these subsidiaries in the event such subsidiaries are in financial distress.

Transactions with Affiliates. The Company’s U.S. bank subsidiaries are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which impose restrictions on any extensions of credit to, purchase of assets from, and certain other transactions with, any affiliates. These restrictions limit the total amount of credit exposure that they may have to any one affiliate and to all affiliates, as well as collateral requirements, and they require all such transactions to be made on market terms. Effective July 2012, derivatives, securities borrowing and securities lending transactions between the Company’s U.S. bank subsidiaries and their affiliates became subject to these restrictions. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it will propose rulemaking to implement these restrictions. These reforms will place limits on the Company’s U.S. bank subsidiaries’ ability to engage in derivatives, repurchase agreements and securities lending transactions with other affiliates of the Company.

In addition, the Volcker Rule generally prohibits “covered transactions,” such as extensions of credit, between (i) the Company or any of its affiliates and (ii) “covered funds” for which the Company or any of its affiliates serve as the investment manager, investment adviser, commodity trading advisor or sponsor and other “covered funds” organized and offered pursuant to specific exemptions in the Volcker Rule.

FDIC Regulation. An FDIC–insured depository institution is generally liable for any loss incurred or expected to be incurred by the FDIC in connection with the failure of an insured depository institution under common control by the same bank holding company. As FDIC-insured depository institutions, MSBNA and MSPNA are exposed to each other’s losses. In addition, both institutions are exposed to changes in the cost of FDIC insurance. In 2010, the FDIC adopted a restoration plan to replenish the reserve fund over a multi-year period. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, some of the restoration must be paid for exclusively by large depository institutions, including MSBNA, and FDIC deposit insurance assessments are calculated using a new methodology that generally favors banks that are mostly funded by deposits.

Institutional Securities and Wealth Management.

Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Regulation. The Company’s primary U.S. broker-dealer subsidiaries, MS&Co. and MSSB LLC, are registered broker-dealers with the SEC and in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and are members of various self-regulatory organizations, including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), and various securities exchanges and clearing organizations. Broker-dealers are subject to laws and regulations covering all aspects of the securities business, including sales and trading practices, securities offerings, publication of research reports, use of customers’ funds and securities, capital structure, recordkeeping and retention, and the conduct of their directors, officers, representatives and other associated persons. Broker-dealers are also regulated by securities administrators in those states where they do business. Violations of the laws and regulations governing a broker-dealer’s actions could result in censures, fines, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, revocation of licenses or registrations, the suspension or expulsion from the securities industry of such broker-dealer or its officers or employees, or other similar consequences by both federal and state securities administrators.


		14

In addition, MSSB LLC is a registered investment adviser with the SEC. MSSB LLC’s relationship with its investment advisory clients is subject to the fiduciary and other obligations imposed on investment advisors under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder as well as various state securities laws. These laws and regulations generally grant the SEC and other supervisory bodies with broad administrative powers to address non-compliance, including the power to restrict or limit MSSB LLC from carrying on its investment advisory and other asset management activities. Other sanctions that may be imposed include the suspension of individual employees, limitations on engaging in certain activities for specified periods of time or for specified types of clients, the revocation of registrations, other censures and significant fines.

The Dodd-Frank Act includes various provisions that affect the regulation of broker-dealer sales practices and customer relationships. For example, the SEC is authorized to adopt a fiduciary duty applicable to broker-dealers when providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers. The U.S. Department of Labor is considering revisions to regulations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that could subject broker-dealers to a fiduciary duty and prohibit specified transactions for a wider range of customer interactions. These developments may impact the manner in which affected businesses are conducted, decrease profitability and increase potential liabilities.

Margin lending by broker-dealers is regulated by the Federal Reserve’s restrictions on lending in connection with customer and proprietary purchases and short sales of securities, as well as securities borrowing and lending activities. Broker-dealers are also subject to maintenance and other margin requirements imposed under FINRA and other self-regulatory organization rules. In many cases, the Company’s broker-dealer subsidiaries’ margin policies are more stringent than these rules.

As registered U.S. broker-dealers, certain subsidiaries of the Company are subject to the SEC’s net capital rule and the net capital requirements of various exchanges, other regulatory authorities and self-regulatory organizations. Many non-U.S. regulatory authorities and exchanges also have rules relating to capital and, in some cases, liquidity requirements that apply to the Company’s non-U.S. broker-dealer subsidiaries. These rules are generally designed to measure general financial integrity and/or liquidity and require that at least a minimum amount of net and/or liquid assets be maintained by the subsidiary. See also “—Financial Holding Company—Consolidated Supervision” and “—Financial Holding Company—Capital and Liquidity Standards” above. Rules of FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations also impose limitations and requirements on the transfer of member organizations’ assets.

Compliance with regulatory capital requirements may limit the Company’s operations requiring the intensive use of capital. Such requirements restrict the Company’s ability to withdraw capital from its broker-dealer subsidiaries, which in turn may limit its ability to pay dividends, repay debt, or redeem or purchase shares of its own outstanding stock. Any change in such rules or the imposition of new rules affecting the scope, coverage, calculation or amount of capital requirements, or a significant operating loss or any unusually large charge against capital, could adversely affect the Company’s ability to pay dividends or to expand or maintain present business levels. In addition, such rules may require the Company to make substantial capital infusions into one or more of its broker-dealer subsidiaries in order for such subsidiaries to comply with such rules.

MS&Co. and MSSB LLC are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”), which provides protection for customers of broker-dealers against losses in the event of the insolvency of a broker-dealer. SIPC protects customers’ eligible securities held by a member broker-dealer up to $500,000 per customer for all accounts in the same capacity subject to a limitation of $250,000 for claims for uninvested cash balances. To supplement this SIPC coverage, each of MS&Co. and MSSB LLC have purchased additional protection for the benefit of their customers in the form of an annual policy issued by certain underwriters and various insurance companies that provides protection for each eligible customer above SIPC limits subject to an aggregate firmwide cap of $1 billion with no per client sublimit for securities and a $1.9 million per client limit for the cash portion of any remaining shortfall. As noted under “—Financial Holding Company—Systemic Risk Regime” above, the Dodd-Frank Act contains special provisions for the orderly liquidation of covered financial


		15

institutions (which could potentially include MS&Co. and/or MSSB LLC). While these provisions are generally intended to provide customers of covered broker-dealers with protections at least as beneficial as they would enjoy in a broker-dealer liquidation proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act, the details and implementation of such protections are subject to further rulemaking.

The SEC adopted rules requiring broker-dealers to maintain risk management controls and supervisory procedures with respect to providing access to securities markets, which became fully effective in 2012. In July 2012, the SEC adopted a consolidated audit trail rule, which, when fully implemented, will require broker-dealers to report into one consolidated audit trail comprehensive information about every material event in the lifecycle of every quote, order, and execution in all exchange-listed stocks and options. It is possible that the SEC or self-regulatory organizations could propose or adopt additional market structure rules for equity and fixed income markets in the future. The provisions, new rules and proposals discussed above could result in increased costs and could otherwise adversely affect trading volumes and other conditions in the markets in which we operate.

Regulation of Futures Activities and Certain Commodities Activities. As futures commission merchants, MS&Co. and MSSB LLC are subject to net capital requirements of, and their activities are regulated by, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”), the National Futures Association (the “NFA”), a registered futures association, and various commodity futures exchanges. MS&Co. and MSSB LLC and certain of their affiliates are registered members of the NFA in various capacities. Rules and regulations of the CFTC, NFA and commodity futures exchanges address obligations related to, among other things, the segregation of customer funds and the holding apart of a secured amount, the use by futures commission merchants of customer funds, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, risk disclosure, risk management and discretionary trading. MS&Co. and MSSB LLC have affiliates that are registered as commodity trading advisors and/or commodity pool operators, or are operating under certain exemptions from such registration pursuant to CFTC rules and other guidance. Under CFTC and NFA rules, commodity trading advisors who manage accounts and commodity pool operators that are registered with the NFA must distribute disclosure documents and maintain specified records relating to their activities, and commodity trading advisors and commodity pool operators have certain responsibilities with respect to each pool they advise or operate. Violations of the rules of the CFTC, the NFA or the commodity exchanges could result in remedial actions, including fines, registration restrictions or terminations, trading prohibitions or revocations of commodity exchange memberships.

The Company’s commodities activities are subject to extensive and evolving energy, commodities, environmental, health and safety and other governmental laws and regulations in the U.S. and abroad. Intensified scrutiny of certain energy markets by U.S. federal, state and local authorities in the U.S. and abroad and by the public has resulted in increased regulatory and legal enforcement and remedial proceedings involving energy companies, including those engaged in power generation and liquid hydrocarbons trading. Terminal facilities and other assets relating to the Company’s commodities activities also are subject to environmental laws both in the U.S. and abroad. In addition, pipeline, transport and terminal operations are subject to state laws in connection with the cleanup of hazardous substances that may have been released at properties currently or previously owned or operated by us or locations to which we have sent wastes for disposal. See also “—Financial Holding Company—Scope of Permitted Activities” above.

Derivatives Regulation. Through the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company faces a comprehensive U.S. regulatory regime for its activities in certain OTC derivatives. The regulation of “swaps” and “security-based swaps” (collectively, “Swaps”) in the U.S. is being, and will continue to be, effected and implemented through the CFTC, SEC and other agency regulations. The CFTC has completed the majority of its regulations in this area, most of which are in effect. The SEC and other agencies charged with regulating Swaps have not yet adopted the majority of their Swap regulations.

Subject to certain limited exceptions, the Dodd-Frank Act requires central clearing of certain types of Swaps, public and regulatory reporting, and mandatory trading on regulated exchanges or execution facilities. Reporting requirements for CFTC-regulated Swaps are now in effect and certain types of CFTC-regulated interest rate and index credit default swaps are subject to mandatory central clearing. Certain Swaps will be required to be traded on an exchange or execution facility starting in February 2014.


		16

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the registration of “swap dealers” and “major swap participants” with the CFTC and “security-based swap dealers” and “major security-based swap participants” with the SEC (collectively, “Swaps Entities”). Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries have registered with the CFTC as swap dealers and in the future additional subsidiaries may register with the CFTC as swap dealers. One or more subsidiaries of the Company will in the future be required to register with the SEC as security-based swap dealers.

Swaps Entities are or will be subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime with new obligations for the Swaps activities for which they are registered, including new capital requirements, a new margin regime for uncleared Swaps and a new segregation regime for collateral of counterparties to uncleared Swaps. Swaps Entities are subject to additional duties, including, among others, internal and external business conduct and documentation standards with respect to their Swaps counterparties, recordkeeping and reporting. The Company’s swap dealers are also subject to new rules under the Dodd-Frank Act regarding segregation of customer collateral for cleared transactions, large trader reporting, and anti-fraud and anti-manipulation requirements related to activities in Swaps.

The specific parameters of these requirements for Swaps have been and continue to be developed through CFTC, SEC and bank regulator rulemakings. While many of the CFTC’s requirements are already final and effective, others are subject to further rulemaking or deferred compliance dates. In particular, the CFTC, SEC and the banking regulators have proposed, but not yet adopted, rules regarding margin and capital requirements for Swaps Entities. In September 2013, the Basel Committee and the International Organization of Securities Commissions released their final policy framework on margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives. The full impact on the Company of the U.S. agencies’ margin and capital requirements for Swaps Entities will not be known with certainty until the requirements are finalized. In November 2013, the CFTC re-proposed rules that, if finalized as proposed, would limit positions in 28 agricultural, energy and metals commodities, including swaps, futures and options that are economically equivalent to those commodity contracts. Through this re-proposal, the CFTC is taking steps to institute position limits that were previously finalized in November 2011 but were vacated by a federal court in September 2012.

Although the full impact of U.S. derivatives regulation on the Company remains unclear, the Company has already, and will continue to, face increased costs and regulatory oversight due to the registration and regulatory requirements indicated above. Complying with the Swaps rules also has required, and will in the future require, the Company to change its Swaps businesses, and has required, and will in the future require, extensive systems and personnel changes. Compliance with Swap-related partially finalized regulatory capital requirements may require the Company to devote more capital to its Swaps business.

In July 2013, the CFTC issued final guidance on the cross-border application of its Swaps regulations and an exemptive order providing a delay in compliance timing of certain of those regulations as applied to certain non-U.S. entities engaging in Swaps activities. Even with the issuance of the guidance, the full scope of the extraterritorial impact of U.S. Swaps regulation remains unclear.

The E.U. has adopted and implemented certain rules relating to the OTC derivatives market and these rules imposed regulatory reporting beginning in February 2014. The E.U. plans to impose central clearing requirements on OTC derivatives in the future. In addition, other non-U.S. jurisdictions are in the process of adopting and implementing legislation emanating from the G20 commitments that will require, among other things, the central clearing of certain OTC derivatives, mandatory reporting of derivatives and bilateral risk mitigation procedures for non-cleared trades. It remains unclear at present how the non-U.S. and U.S. derivatives regulatory regimes will interact.

Non-U.S. Regulation. The Company’s Institutional Securities businesses also are regulated extensively by non-U.S. regulators, including governments, securities exchanges, commodity exchanges, self-regulatory organizations, central banks and regulatory bodies, especially in those jurisdictions in which the Company maintains an office. Non-U.S. policy makers and regulators, including the European Commission and European


		17

Supervisory Authorities, continue to propose and adopt numerous market reforms, including those that may further impact the structure of banks, and formulate regulatory standards and measures that will be of relevance and importance to the Company’s European operations. Certain Morgan Stanley subsidiaries are regulated as broker-dealers under the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. Subsidiaries engaged in banking and trust activities outside the U.S. are regulated by various government agencies in the particular jurisdiction where they are chartered, incorporated and/or conduct their business activity. For instance, the Prudential Regulation Authority (“PRA”), the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) and several securities and futures exchanges in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”), including the London Stock Exchange and Euronext.liffe, regulate the Company’s activities in the U.K.; the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) and the Deutsche Bôrse AG regulate its activities in the Federal Republic of Germany; Eidgenôssische Finanzmarktaufsicht (the Financial Market Supervisory Authority) regulates its activities in Switzerland; the Financial Services Agency, the Bank of Japan, the Japanese Securities Dealers Association and several Japanese securities and futures exchanges, including the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Osaka Securities Exchange and the Tokyo International Financial Futures Exchange, regulate its activities in Japan; the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited regulate its operations in Hong Kong; and the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Singapore Exchange Limited regulate its business in Singapore.

Regulators in the U.K., E.U. and other major jurisdictions have also finalized or are in the process of proposing or finalizing risk-based capital, leverage capital, liquidity, banking structural reforms and other regulatory standards applicable to certain Morgan Stanley subsidiaries that operate in those jurisdictions. For example, the Company’s primary broker-dealer in the U.K., Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc (“MSIP”), is subject to regulation and supervision by the PRA with respect to prudential matters. As a prudential regulator, the PRA seeks to promote the safety and soundness of the firms that it regulates and to minimize the adverse effects that such firms may have on the stability of the U.K. financial system. The PRA has broad legal authority to establish prudential and other standards to pursue these objectives, including approvals of relevant regulatory models, as well as to bring formal and informal supervisory and disciplinary actions against regulated firms to address noncompliance with such standards. MSIP is also regulated and supervised by the FCA with respect to business conduct matters. On January 1, 2014, MSIP became subject to the Capital Requirements Regulation and Capital Requirements (collectively, “CRD IV”), which implements the Basel III and other regulatory requirements for E.U. investment firms, such as MSIP. European Market Infrastructure Regulation introduces new requirements regarding the central clearing, reporting and conduct of business with respect to derivatives. In addition, proposals to revise the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive would introduce various trading and market infrastructure reforms in the E.U. Lawmakers in the E.U. are also in the process of finalizing a proposed directive that would establish a framework for the recovery and resolution of E.U. credit institutions and investment firms, including MSIP.

Investment Management.

Many of the subsidiaries engaged in the Company’s asset management activities are registered as investment advisers with the SEC. Many aspects of the Company’s asset management activities are subject to federal and state laws and regulations primarily intended to benefit the investor or client. These laws and regulations generally grant supervisory agencies and bodies broad administrative powers, including the power to limit or restrict the Company from carrying on its asset management activities in the event that it fails to comply with such laws and regulations. Sanctions that may be imposed for such failure include the suspension of individual employees, limitations on the Company engaging in various asset management activities for specified periods of time or specified types of clients, the revocation of registrations, other censures and significant fines. In order to facilitate its asset management business, the Company owns a registered U.S. broker-dealer, Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc., which acts as distributor to the Morgan Stanley mutual funds and as placement agent to certain private investment funds managed by the Company’s Investment Management business segment. A number of legal entities within the Company’s Investment Management business are registered as commodity trading advisors and/or commodity pool operators, or are operating under certain exemptions from such registration


		18

pursuant to CFTC rules and other guidance. See also “—Institutional Securities and Wealth Management—Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Regulation” and “—Institutional Securities and Wealth Management—Regulation of Futures Activities and Certain Commodities Activities” above.

As a result of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company’s asset management activities will be subject to certain additional laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements (including with respect to clients that are private funds), restrictions on sponsoring or investing in, or maintaining certain other relationships with, “covered funds,” as defined in the Volcker Rule, subject to certain limited exemptions, and certain rules and regulations regarding trading activities, including trading in derivatives markets. Many of these new requirements may increase the expenses associated with the Company’s asset management activities and/or reduce the investment returns the Company is able to generate for its asset management clients. Several important elements of the Dodd-Frank Act will not be known until rulemaking is finalized and certain final regulations are adopted.

The Company is continuing its review of its asset management activities that may be affected by the Volcker Rule and is taking steps to establish the necessary compliance programs to help ensure and monitor compliance with the Volcker Rule. The Company had already taken certain steps to comply with the Volcker Rule prior to the issuance of the final regulations, including, for example, launching new funds that are designed to comply with the Volcker Rule. Given the complexity of the new framework, the full impact of the Volcker Rule is still uncertain, and will ultimately depend on the interpretation and implementation by the five regulatory agencies responsible for its oversight. See also “—Financial Holding Company—Activities Restrictions under the Volcker Rule.”

The Company’s Investment Management business is also regulated outside the U.S. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority regulate the Company’s business in the U.K.; the Financial Services Agency regulates the Company’s business in Japan; the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission regulates the Company’s business in Hong Kong; and the Monetary Authority of Singapore regulates the Company’s business in Singapore.

Anti-Money Laundering and Economic Sanctions.

The Company’s Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) program is coordinated on an enterprise-wide basis. In the U.S., for example, the Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, imposes significant obligations on financial institutions to detect and deter money laundering and terrorist financing activity, including requiring banks, bank holding company subsidiaries, broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, and mutual funds to implement AML programs, verify the identity of customers that maintain accounts, and monitor and report suspicious activity to appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authorities. Outside the U.S., applicable laws, rules and regulations similarly require designated types of financial institutions to implement AML programs. The Company has implemented policies, procedures and internal controls that are designed to comply with all applicable AML laws and regulations. The Company has also implemented policies, procedures, and internal controls that are designed to comply with the regulations and economic sanctions programs administered by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries, entities and individuals based on external threats to the U.S. foreign policy, national security, or economy; by other governments; or by global or regional multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations Security Council and the E.U. as applicable.

Anti-Corruption.

The Company is subject to applicable anti-corruption laws, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the U.K. Bribery Act, in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Anti-corruption laws generally prohibit offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a government official or private party in order to influence official action or otherwise gain an unfair business advantage, such as to obtain or retain business. The Company has implemented policies, procedures, and internal controls that are designed to comply with such laws, rules and regulations.


		19

Protection of Client Information.

Many aspects of the Company’s business are subject to legal requirements concerning the use and protection of certain customer information, including those adopted pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 in the U.S., the E.U. Data Protection Directive and various laws in Asia, including the Japanese Personal Information (Protection) Law, the Hong Kong Personal Data (Protection) Ordinance and the Australian Privacy Act. The Company has adopted measures designed to comply with these and related applicable requirements in all relevant jurisdictions.

Research.

Both U.S. and non-U.S. regulators continue to focus on research conflicts of interest. Research-related regulations have been implemented in many jurisdictions. New and revised requirements resulting from these regulations and the global research settlement with U.S. federal and state regulators (to which the Company is a party) have necessitated the development or enhancement of corresponding policies and procedures.

Compensation Practices and Other Regulation.

The Company’s compensation practices are subject to oversight by the Federal Reserve. In particular, the Company is subject to the Federal Reserve’s guidance that is designed to help ensure that incentive compensation paid by banking organizations does not encourage imprudent risk-taking that threatens the organizations’ safety and soundness. The scope and content of the Federal Reserve’s policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and may change based on findings from its peer review process, and the Company expects that these policies will evolve over a number of years.

The Company is subject to the compensation-related provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, which may impact its compensation practices. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, federal regulators, including the Federal Reserve, must prescribe regulations to require covered financial institutions, including the Company, to report the structures of all of their incentive-based compensation arrangements and prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing employees, directors or principal shareholders with compensation that is excessive or that could lead to material financial loss to the covered financial institution. In April 2011, seven federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve, jointly proposed an interagency rule implementing this requirement. Further, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC must direct listing exchanges to require companies to implement policies relating to disclosure of incentive-based compensation that is based on publicly reported financial information and the clawback of such compensation from current or former executive officers following certain accounting restatements.

In addition to the guidelines issued by the Federal Reserve and referenced above, the Company’s compensation practices may also be impacted by other regulations, including those promulgated in accordance with the FSB compensation principles and standards, CRD IV, Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive regulations, the fifth Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive and proposed second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. The FSB standards are to be implemented by local regulators, including in the U.K., where the remuneration of employees of certain banks is governed by the Remuneration Code. In the E.U., beginning on January 1, 2014, the Company’s compensation practices with respect to certain employees whose activities have a material impact on the risk profile of the Company’s E.U. operations will be subject to CRD IV, which includes a fixed cap on bonuses and other variable remuneration restrictions.

For a discussion of certain risks relating to the Company’s regulatory environment, see “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A herein.


		20

Executive Officers of Morgan Stanley.

The executive officers of Morgan Stanley and their ages and titles as of February 25, 2014 are set forth below. Business experience for the past five years is provided in accordance with SEC rules.

Gregory J. Fleming (50). Executive Vice President (since February 2010), President of Investment Management (since February 2010) and President of Wealth Management of Morgan Stanley (since January 2011). President of Research of Morgan Stanley (February 2010 to January 2011). Senior Research Scholar at Yale Law School and Distinguished Visiting Fellow of the Center for the Study of Corporate Law at Yale Law School (January 2009 to December 2009). President of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”) (February 2008 to January 2009). Co-President of Merrill Lynch (May 2007 to February 2008). Executive Vice President and Co-President of the Global Markets and Investment Banking Group of Merrill Lynch (August 2003 to May 2007).

James P. Gorman (55). Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley (since January 2012). President and Chief Executive Officer (January 2010 through December 2011) and member of the Board of Directors (since January 2010). Co-President (December 2007 to December 2009) and Co-Head of Strategic Planning (October 2007 to December 2009). President and Chief Operating Officer of Wealth Management (February 2006 to April 2008).

Eric F. Grossman (47). Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of Morgan Stanley (since January 2012). Global Head of Legal (September 2010 to January 2012). Global Head of Litigation (January 2006 to September 2010) and General Counsel of the Americas (May 2009 to September 2010). General Counsel of Wealth Management (November 2008 to June 2009). Partner at the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (June 2001 to December 2005).

Keishi Hotsuki (51). Chief Risk Officer of Morgan Stanley (since May 2011). Interim Chief Risk Officer (January 2011 to May 2011) and Head of Market Risk Department (since March 2008). Director of Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., Ltd. (since May 2010). Global Head of Market Risk Management at Merrill Lynch (June 2005 to September 2007).

Colm Kelleher (56). Executive Vice President (since October 2007) and President of Institutional Securities (since January 2013). Co-President of Institutional Securities of Morgan Stanley (January 2010 to December 2012). Chief Financial Officer and Co-Head of Strategic Planning (October 2007 to December 2009). Head of Global Capital Markets (February 2006 to October 2007). Co-Head of Fixed Income Europe (May 2004 to February 2006).

Ruth Porat (56). Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Morgan Stanley (since January 2010). Vice Chairman of Investment Banking (September 2003 to December 2009). Global Head of Financial Institutions Group (September 2006 to December 2009) and Chairman of the Financial Sponsors Group (July 2004 to September 2006) within Investment Banking.

James A. Rosenthal (60). Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley (since January 2011). Head of Corporate Strategy (January 2010 to May 2011). Chief Operating Officer of Wealth Management (January 2010 to August 2011). Head of Firmwide Technology and Operations of Morgan Stanley (March 2008 to January 2010). Chief Financial Officer of Tishman Speyer (May 2006 to March 2008).


		21

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Liquidity and Funding Risk.

Liquidity and funding risk refers to the risk that we will be unable to finance our operations due to a loss of access to the capital markets or difficulty in liquidating our assets. Liquidity and funding risk also encompasses our ability to meet our financial obligations without experiencing significant business disruption or reputational damage that may threaten our viability as a going concern. For more information on how we monitor and manage liquidity and funding risk, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources” in Part II, Item 7 herein.

Liquidity is essential to our businesses and we rely on external sources to finance a significant portion of our operations.

Liquidity is essential to our businesses. Our liquidity could be negatively affected by our inability to raise funding in the long-term or short-term debt capital markets or our inability to access the secured lending markets. Factors that we cannot control, such as disruption of the financial markets or negative views about the financial services industry generally, including concerns regarding the remaining sovereign debt issues in Europe or fiscal matters in the U.S., could impair our ability to raise funding. In addition, our ability to raise funding could be impaired if investors or lenders develop a negative perception of our long-term or short-term financial prospects due to factors such as if we were to incur large trading losses, are downgraded by the rating agencies, suffer a decline in the level of our business activity, or if regulatory authorities take significant action against us, or we discover significant employee misconduct or illegal activity. If we are unable to raise funding using the methods described above, we would likely need to finance or liquidate unencumbered assets, such as our investment and trading portfolios, to meet maturing liabilities. We may be unable to sell some of our assets, or we may have to sell assets at a discount from market value, either of which could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Our borrowing costs and access to the debt capital markets depend significantly on our credit ratings.

The cost and availability of unsecured financing generally are impacted by our short-term and long-term credit ratings. The rating agencies are continuing to monitor certain issuer specific factors that are important to the determination of our credit ratings, including governance, the level and quality of earnings, capital adequacy, funding and liquidity, risk appetite and management, asset quality, strategic direction, and business mix. Additionally, the rating agencies will look at other industry-wide factors such as regulatory or legislative changes, macro-economic environment, and perceived levels of government support, and it is possible that they could downgrade our ratings and those of similar institutions. For example, in November 2013, Moody’s Investor Services, Inc. (“Moody’s”) took certain ratings actions with respect to eight large U.S. banking groups, including downgrading us, to remove certain uplift from the U.S. government support in their ratings. See also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Ratings” in Part II, Item 7 herein.

Our credit ratings also can have a significant impact on certain trading revenues, particularly in those businesses where longer term counterparty performance is a key consideration, such as OTC derivative transactions, including credit derivatives and interest rate swaps. In connection with certain OTC trading agreements and certain other agreements associated with the Institutional Securities business segment, we may be required to provide additional collateral to, or immediately settle any outstanding liability balance with, certain counterparties in the event of a credit ratings downgrade. Termination of our trading and other agreements 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. The additional collateral or termination payments which may occur in the event of a future credit rating downgrade vary by contract and can be based on ratings by either or both of Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. At December 31, 2013, the future potential collateral amounts and termination payments that could be called or required by counterparties, exchanges and clearing organizations in the event of one-notch or two-notch downgrade scenarios based on the relevant contractual downgrade triggers were $1,522 million and an incremental $3,321 million, respectively.


		22

We are a holding company and depend on payments from our subsidiaries.

The parent holding company 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. Regulatory, tax restrictions or elections and other legal restrictions may limit our ability to transfer funds freely, either to or from our subsidiaries. In particular, many of our subsidiaries, including our broker-dealer subsidiaries, are subject to laws, regulations and self-regulatory organization rules that authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the flow of funds to the parent holding company, or that prohibit such transfers altogether in certain circumstances, including steps to “ring fence” entities by regulators outside of the U.S. to protect clients and creditors of such entities in the event of financial difficulties involving such entities. These laws, regulations and rules may hinder our ability to access funds that we may need to make payments on our obligations. Furthermore, as a bank holding company, we may become subject to a prohibition or to limitations on our ability to pay dividends or repurchase our stock. The OCC, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have the authority, and under certain circumstances the duty, to prohibit or to limit the payment of dividends by the banking organizations they supervise, including us and our bank company subsidiaries.

Our liquidity and financial condition have in the past been, and in the future could be, adversely affected by U.S. and international markets and economic conditions.

Our ability to raise funding in the long-term or short-term debt capital markets or the equity markets, or to access secured lending markets, has in the past been, and could in the future be, adversely affected by conditions in the U.S. and international markets and economy. Global market and economic conditions have been particularly disrupted and volatile in the last several years and continue to be, including as a result of the European sovereign debt crisis, and uncertainty regarding U.S. fiscal matters. In particular, our cost and availability of funding have been, and may in the future be, adversely affected by illiquid credit markets and wider credit spreads. Continued turbulence in the U.S., the E.U. and other international markets and economies could adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition and the willingness of certain counterparties and customers to do business with us.

Market Risk.

Market risk refers to the risk that a change in the level of one or more market prices, rates, indices, implied volatilities (the price volatility of the underlying instrument imputed from option prices), correlations or other market factors, such as market liquidity, will result in losses for a position or portfolio owned by us. For more information on how we monitor and manage market risk, see “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risk” in Part II, Item 7A.

Our results of operations may be materially affected by market fluctuations and by global and economic conditions and other factors.

Our results of operations may be materially affected by market fluctuations due to global and economic conditions and other factors. Our results of operations in the past have been, and in the future may continue to be, materially affected by many factors, including the effect of economic and political conditions and geopolitical events; the effect of market conditions, particularly in the global equity, fixed income, credit and commodities markets, including corporate and mortgage (commercial and residential) lending and commercial real estate markets; the impact of current, pending and future legislation (including the Dodd-Frank Act), regulation (including capital, leverage and liquidity requirements), policies (including fiscal and monetary), and legal and regulatory actions in the U.S. and worldwide; the level and volatility of equity, fixed income and commodity prices, interest rates, currency values and other market indices; the availability and cost of both credit and capital as well as the credit ratings assigned to our unsecured short-term and long-term debt; investor, consumer and business sentiment and confidence in the financial markets; the performance of our acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, strategic alliances or other strategic arrangements (including with Mitsubishi UFJ Financial


		23

Group, Inc. (“MUFG”)); our reputation; inflation, natural disasters, and acts of war or terrorism; the actions and initiatives of current and potential competitors, as well as governments, regulators and self-regulatory organizations; the effectiveness of our risk management policies; and technological changes and risks, including cybersecurity risks; or a combination of these or other factors. In addition, legislative, legal and regulatory developments related to our businesses are likely to increase costs, thereby affecting results of operations. These factors also may have an adverse impact on our ability to achieve our strategic objectives.

The results of our Institutional Securities business segment, particularly results relating to our involvement in primary and secondary markets for all types of financial products, are subject to substantial fluctuations due to a variety of factors, such as those enumerated above that we cannot control or predict with great certainty. These fluctuations impact results by causing variations in new business flows and in the fair value of securities and other financial products. Fluctuations also occur due to the level of global market activity, which, among other things, affects the size, number and timing of investment banking client assignments and transactions and the realization of returns from our principal investments. During periods of unfavorable market or economic conditions, the level of individual investor participation in the global markets, as well as the level of client assets, may also decrease, which would negatively impact the results of our Wealth Management business segment. In addition, fluctuations in global market activity could impact the flow of investment capital into or from assets under management or supervision and the way customers allocate capital among money market, equity, fixed income or other investment alternatives, which could negatively impact our Investment Management business segment.

We may experience declines in the value of our financial instruments and other losses related to volatile and illiquid market conditions.

Market volatility, illiquid market conditions and disruptions in the credit markets make it extremely difficult to value certain of our securities, particularly during periods of market displacement. Subsequent valuations, in light of factors then prevailing, may result in significant changes in the values of these securities in future periods. In addition, at the time of any sales and settlements of these securities, the price we ultimately realize will depend on the demand and liquidity in the market at that time and may be materially lower than their current fair value. Any of these factors could cause a decline in the value of our securities portfolio, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations in future periods.

In addition, financial markets are susceptible to severe events evidenced by rapid depreciation in asset values accompanied by a reduction in asset liquidity. Under these extreme conditions, hedging and other risk management strategies may not be as effective at mitigating trading losses as they would be under more normal market conditions. Moreover, under these conditions market participants are particularly exposed to trading strategies employed by many market participants simultaneously and on a large scale, such as crowded trades. Our risk management and monitoring processes seek to quantify and mitigate risk to more extreme market moves. However, severe market events have historically been difficult to predict, as seen in the last several years, and we could realize significant losses if extreme market events were to occur.

Holding large and concentrated positions may expose us to losses.

Concentration of risk may reduce revenues or result in losses in our market-making, investing, block trading, underwriting and lending businesses in the event of unfavorable market movements. We commit substantial amounts of capital to these businesses, which often results in our taking large positions in the securities of, or making large loans to, a particular issuer or issuers in a particular industry, country or region.

We have incurred, and may continue to incur, significant losses in the real estate sector.

We finance and acquire principal positions in a number of real estate and real estate-related products for our own account, for investment vehicles managed by affiliates in which we also may have a significant investment, for separate accounts managed by affiliates and for major participants in the commercial and residential real estate markets.


		24

We also originate loans secured by commercial and residential properties. Further, we securitize and trade in a wide range of commercial and residential real estate and real estate-related whole loans, mortgages and other real estate and commercial assets and products, including residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities. These businesses have been, and may continue to be, adversely affected by the downturn in the real estate sector. In connection with these activities, we have provided, or otherwise agreed to be responsible for, certain representations and warranties. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to repurchase such assets or make other payments related to such assets if such representations and warranties were breached. Between 2004 and December 31, 2013, we sponsored approximately $148.0 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) primarily containing U.S. residential loans. Of that amount, we made representations and warranties concerning approximately $47.0 billion of loans and agreed to be responsible for the representations and warranties made by third-party sellers, many of which are now insolvent, on approximately $21.0 billion of loans. At December 31, 2013, the current unpaid principal balance (“UPB”) for all the residential assets subject to such representations and warranties was approximately $17.2 billion and the cumulative losses associated with U.S. RMBS were approximately $13.5 billion. We did not make, or otherwise agree to be responsible, for the representations and warranties made by third party sellers on approximately $79.9 billion of residential loans that we securitized during that time period. We have not sponsored any U.S. RMBS transactions since 2007.

We have also made representations and warranties in connection with our role as an originator of certain commercial mortgage loans that we securitized in commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”). Between 2004 and December 31, 2013, we originated approximately $50.6 billion and $13.0 billion of U.S. and non-U.S. commercial mortgage loans, respectively, that were placed into CMBS sponsored by us. At December 31, 2013, the current UPB for all U.S. commercial mortgage loans subject to such representations and warranties was $33.0 billion. At December 31, 2013, the current UPB when known for all non-U.S. commercial mortgage loans, subject to such representations and warranties was approximately $3.0 billion and the UPB at the time of sale when the current UPB is not known was $0.4 billion.

Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government and self-regulatory agencies has increased materially in the financial services industry. As a result, we have been and expect that we may continue to become, the subject of increased claims for damages and other relief in the future. We continue to monitor our real estate-related activities in order to manage our exposures and potential liability from these markets and businesses. See “Legal Proceedings—Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters” in Part I, Item 3 herein.

Credit Risk.

Credit risk refers to the risk of loss arising when a borrower, counterparty or issuer does not meet its financial obligations to us. For more information on how we monitor and manage credit risk, see “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risk—Risk Management—Credit Risk” in Part II, Item 7A herein.

We are exposed to the risk that third parties that are indebted to us will not perform their obligations.

We incur significant credit risk exposure through the Institutional Securities business segment. This risk may arise from a variety of business activities, including but not limited to entering into swap or other derivative contracts under which counterparties have obligations to make payments to us; extending credit to clients through various lending commitments; providing short or long-term funding that is secured by physical or financial collateral whose value may at times be insufficient to fully cover the loan repayment amount; posting margin and/or collateral and other commitments to clearing houses, clearing agencies, exchanges, banks, securities firms and other financial counterparties; and investing and trading in securities and loan pools whereby the value of these assets may fluctuate based on realized or expected defaults on the underlying obligations or loans.


		25

We also incur credit risk in the Wealth Management business segment lending to individual investors, including, but not limited to, margin and securities-based loans collateralized by securities, residential mortgage loans and home equity lines of credit.

While we believe current valuations and reserves adequately address our perceived levels of risk, there is a possibility that adverse difficult economic conditions may negatively impact our clients and our current credit exposures. In addition, as a clearing member firm, we finance our customer positions and we could be held responsible for the defaults or misconduct of our customers. Although we regularly review our credit exposures, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect or foresee.

A default by a large financial institution could adversely affect financial markets generally.

The commercial soundness of many financial institutions may be closely interrelated as a result of credit, trading, clearing or other relationships between the institutions. For example, increased centralization of trading activities through particular clearing houses, central agents or exchanges as required by provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act may increase our concentration of risk with respect to these entities. As a result, concerns about, or a default or threatened default by, one institution could lead to significant market-wide liquidity and credit problems, losses or defaults by other institutions. This is sometimes referred to as “systemic risk” and may adversely affect financial intermediaries, such as clearing agencies, clearing houses, banks, securities firms and exchanges, with which we interact on a daily basis, and therefore could adversely affect us. See also “Systemic Risk Regime” under “Business—Supervision and Regulation—Financial Holding Company” in Part I, Item 1 herein.

Operational Risk.

Operational risk refers to the risk of loss, or of damage to our reputation, resulting from inadequate or failed processes, people and systems or from external events (e.g., fraud, legal and compliance risks or damage to physical assets). We may incur operational risk across the full scope of our business activities, including revenue-generating activities (e.g., sales and trading) and control groups (e.g., information technology and trade processing). Legal, regulatory and compliance risk is included in the scope of operational risk and is discussed below under “Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Risk.” For more information on how we monitor and manage operational risk, see “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk—Risk Management—Operational Risk” in Part II, Item 7A herein.

We are subject to operational risk that could adversely affect our businesses.

Our businesses are highly dependent on our ability to process, on a daily basis, a large number of transactions across numerous and diverse markets in many currencies. In addition, we may introduce new products or services or change processes, resulting in new operational risk that we may not fully appreciate or identify. In general, the transactions we process are increasingly complex. We perform the functions required to operate our different businesses either by ourselves or through agreements with third parties. We rely on the ability of our employees, our internal systems and systems at technology centers operated by unaffiliated third parties to process a high volume of transactions.

We also face the risk of operational failure or termination of any of the clearing agents, exchanges, clearing houses or other financial intermediaries we use to facilitate our securities transactions. In the event of a breakdown or improper operation of our or a third party’s systems or improper or unauthorized action by third parties or our employees, we could suffer financial loss, an impairment to our liquidity, a disruption of our businesses, regulatory sanctions or damage to our reputation. In addition, the interconnectivity of multiple financial institutions with central agents, exchanges and clearing houses, and the increased importance 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.

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and the systems of third parties with which we do business or that facilitate our business


		26

activities, such as vendors. Like other financial services firms, we and our third party providers have been and continue to be subject to unauthorized access, mishandling or misuse, computer viruses or malware, cyber attacks, denial of service attacks and other events. The increased use of smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices may also heighten these and other operational risks. Events such as these could have a security impact on our systems and jeopardize our or our clients’ or counterparties’ personal, confidential, proprietary or other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our and our third party providers’ computer systems. Furthermore, such events could cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, our clients’, our counterparties’ or third parties’ operations, which could result in reputational damage, client dissatisfaction, litigation or regulatory fines or penalties not covered by insurance maintained by us, and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Despite the business contingency plans we have in place, there can be no assurance that such plans will fully mitigate all potential business continuity risks to us. Our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our business and the communities where we are located, which are concentrated in the New York metropolitan area, London, Hong Kong and Tokyo. This may include a disruption involving physical site access, terrorist activities, disease pandemics, catastrophic events, natural disasters, extreme weather events, electrical, environmental, computer servers, communications or other services we use, our employees or third parties with whom we conduct business.

Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Risk.

Legal, regulatory and compliance risk includes the risk of legal or regulatory sanctions, material financial loss including fines, penalties, judgments, damages and/or settlements, or loss to reputation we may suffer as a result of our failure to comply with laws, regulations, rules, related self-regulatory organization standards and codes of conduct applicable to our business activities. Legal, regulatory and compliance risk also includes contractual and commercial risk such as the risk that a counterparty’s performance obligations will be unenforceable. In today’s environment of rapid and possibly transformational regulatory change, we also view regulatory change as a component of legal, regulatory and compliance risk. For more information on how we monitor and manage legal, regulatory and compliance risk, see “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk—Risk Management—Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Risk” in Part II, Item 7A herein.

The financial services industry is subject to extensive regulation, which is undergoing major changes that will impact our business.

Like other major financial services firms, we are subject to extensive regulation by U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies and securities exchanges and by regulators and exchanges in each of the major markets where we conduct our business. These laws and regulations significantly affect the way we do business, and can restrict the scope of our existing businesses and limit our ability to expand our product offerings and pursue certain investments.

In response to the financial crisis, legislators and regulators, both in the U.S. and worldwide, have adopted, or are currently considering enacting, financial market reforms that have resulted and could result in major changes to the way our global operations are regulated. In particular, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, we are, or will become, subject to (among other things) significantly revised and expanded regulation and supervision, to more intensive scrutiny of our businesses and any plans for expansion of those businesses, to new activities limitations, to a systemic risk regime that imposes heightened capital and liquidity requirements to new restrictions on activities and investments imposed by the Volcker Rule, and to comprehensive new derivatives regulation. While certain portions of the Dodd-Frank Act became effective immediately, most other portions are effective following transition periods or through numerous rulemakings by multiple governmental agencies, and although a large number of rules have been proposed, many are still subject to final rulemaking or transition periods. U.S. regulators also plan to propose additional regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act. Many of the changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act could materially impact the profitability of our businesses and the value of


		27

assets we hold, expose us to additional costs, require changes to business practices or force us to discontinue businesses, adversely affect our ability to pay dividends and repurchase our stock, or require us to raise capital, including in ways that may adversely impact our shareholders or creditors. In addition, similar regulatory requirements are being proposed by foreign policymakers and regulators, which may be inconsistent or conflict with regulations that we are subject to in the U.S. and, if adopted may adversely affect us. While there continues to be uncertainty about the full impact of these changes, we do know that the Company will be subject to a more complex regulatory framework, and will incur costs to comply with new requirements as well as to monitor for compliance in the future.

For example, the Volcker Rule provision of the Dodd-Frank Act will have an impact on us, including potentially limiting various aspects of our business. We are continuing our review of activities that may be affected by the Volcker Rule, including our trading operations and asset management activities, and are taking steps to establish the necessary compliance programs to comply with the Volcker Rule. Given the complexity of the new framework, the full impact of the Volcker Rule is still uncertain, and will ultimately depend on the interpretation and implementation by the five regulatory agencies responsible for its oversight.

The financial services industry faces substantial litigation and is subject to extensive regulatory investigations, and we may face damage to our reputation and legal liability.

As a global financial services firm, we face the risk of investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory organizations in all countries in which we conduct our business. Interventions by authorities may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. In addition to the monetary consequences, these measures could, for example, impact our ability to engage in, or impose limitations on, certain of our businesses. The number of these investigations and proceedings, as well as the amount of penalties and fines sought, has increased substantially in recent years with regard to many firms in the financial services industry, including us. Significant regulatory action against us could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations or cause us significant reputational harm, which could seriously harm our business. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides compensation to whistleblowers who present the SEC or CFTC with information related to securities or commodities laws violations that leads to a successful enforcement action. As a result of this compensation, it is possible we could face an increased number of investigations by the SEC or CFTC.

We have been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation, as well as investigations or proceedings brought by regulatory agencies, arising in connection with our activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the actual or threatened legal or regulatory actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages, claims for indeterminate amounts of damages, or may result in penalties, fines, or other results adverse to us. In some cases, the issuers that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or in financial distress. Like any large corporation, we are also subject to risk from potential employee misconduct, including non-compliance with policies and improper use or disclosure of confidential information.

Substantial legal liability could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations or cause us significant reputational harm, which could seriously harm our business. For example, over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government and self-regulatory agencies has increased materially in the financial services industry. As a result, we have been, and expect that we may continue to become, the subject of increased claims for damages and other relief in the future and there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material. For more information regarding legal proceedings in which we are involved see “Legal Proceedings” in Part I, Item 3 herein.


		28

Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected by governmental fiscal and monetary policies.

We are affected by fiscal and monetary policies adopted by regulatory authorities and bodies of the U.S. and other governments. For example, the actions of the Federal Reserve and international central banking authorities directly impact our cost of funds for lending, capital raising and investment activities and may impact the value of financial instruments we hold. In addition, such changes in monetary policy may affect the credit quality of our customers. Changes in domestic and international monetary policy are beyond our control and difficult to predict.

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

In connection with the commodities activities in our Institutional Securities business segment, we engage in the production, storage, transportation, marketing and trading of several commodities, including metals (base and precious), crude oil, oil products, natural gas, electric power, emission credits, coal, freight, liquefied natural gas and related products and indices. In addition, we are an electricity power marketer in the U.S. and own electricity generating facilities in the U.S.; we own TransMontaigne Inc. and its subsidiaries, a group of companies operating in the refined petroleum products marketing and distribution business; and we own a minority interest in Heidmar Holdings LLC, which owns a group of companies that provide international marine transportation and U.S. marine logistics services. As a result of these activities, we are subject to extensive and evolving energy, commodities, environmental, health and safety and other governmental laws and regulations. In addition, liability may be incurred without regard to fault under certain environmental laws and regulations for the remediation of contaminated areas. Further, through these activities we are exposed to regulatory, physical and certain indirect risks associated with climate change. Our commodities business also exposes us to the risk of unforeseen and catastrophic events, including natural disasters, leaks, spills, explosions, release of toxic substances, fires, accidents on land and at sea, wars, and terrorist attacks that could result in personal injuries, loss of life, property damage, and suspension of operations. For more information about the planned sale of our global oil merchanting business, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Business Segments—Institutional Securities—Sale of Global Oil Merchanting Business” in Part II, Item 7 herein.

Although we have attempted to mitigate our pollution and other environmental risks by, among other measures, adopting appropriate policies and procedures for power plant operations, monitoring the quality of petroleum storage facilities and transport vessels and implementing emergency response programs, these actions may not prove adequate to address every contingency. In addition, insurance covering some of these risks may not be available, and the proceeds, if any, from insurance recovery may not be adequate to cover liabilities with respect to particular incidents. As a result, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be adversely affected by these events.

We continue to engage in discussions with the Federal Reserve regarding our commodities activities, as the BHC Act provides a grandfather exemption for “activities related to the trading, sale or investment in commodities and underlying physical properties,” provided that we were engaged in “any of such activities as of September 30, 1997 in the United States” and provided that certain other conditions that are within our reasonable control are satisfied. If the Federal Reserve were to determine that any of our commodities activities did not qualify for the BHC Act grandfather exemption, then we would likely be required to divest any such activities that did not otherwise conform to the BHC Act. See also “Scope of Permitted Activities” under “Business—Supervision and Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 herein.

We also expect the other laws and regulations affecting our commodities business to increase in both scope and complexity. During the past several years, intensified scrutiny of certain energy markets by federal, state and local authorities in the U.S. and abroad and the public has resulted in increased regulatory and legal enforcement, litigation and remedial proceedings involving companies engaged in the activities in which we are engaged. For


		29

example, the U.S. and the E.U. have increased their focus on the energy markets which has resulted in increased regulation of companies participating in the energy markets, including those engaged in power generation and liquid hydrocarbons trading. In addition, new regulation of OTC derivatives markets in the U.S. and similar legislation proposed or adopted abroad will impose significant new costs and impose new requirements on our commodities derivatives activities. We may incur substantial costs or loss of revenue in complying with current or future laws and regulations and our overall businesses and reputation may be adversely affected by the current legal environment. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties.

A failure to address conflicts of interest appropriately could adversely affect our businesses and reputation.

As a global financial services firm that provides products and services to a large and diversified group of clients, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals, we face potential conflicts of interest in the normal course of business. For example, potential conflicts can occur when there is a divergence of interests between us and a client, among clients, or between an employee on the one hand and us or a client on the other. We have policies, procedures and controls that are designed to address potential conflicts of interest. However, identifying and mitigating potential conflicts of interest can be complex and challenging, and can become the focus of media and regulatory scrutiny. Indeed, actions that merely appear to create a conflict can put our reputation at risk even if the likelihood of an actual conflict has been mitigated. It is possible that potential conflicts could give rise to litigation or enforcement actions, which may lead to our clients being less willing to enter into transactions in which a conflict may occur and could adversely affect our businesses and reputation.

Our regulators have the ability to scrutinize our activities for potential conflicts of interest, including through detailed examinations of specific transactions. In addition, our status as a bank holding company supervised by the Federal Reserve subjects us to direct Federal Reserve scrutiny with respect to transactions between our U.S. bank subsidiaries and their affiliates.

Risk Management.

Our risk management strategies may not be fully effective in mitigating our risk exposures in all market environments or against all types of risk.

We have devoted significant resources to develop our risk management policies and procedures and expect to continue to do so in the future. Nonetheless, our risk management strategies, including our hedging strategies, may not be fully effective in mitigating our risk exposure in all market environments or against all types of risk, including risks that are unidentified or unanticipated. As our businesses change and grow, and the markets in which we operate evolve, our risk management strategies may not always adapt with those changes. Some of our methods of managing risk are based upon our use of observed historical market behavior and management’s judgment. As a result, these methods may not predict future risk exposures, which could be significantly greater than the historical measures indicate. For example, market conditions during the financial crisis involved unprecedented dislocations and highlight the limitations inherent in using historical information to manage risk. Management of market, credit, liquidity, operational, legal, regulatory and compliance risks requires, among other things, policies and procedures to record properly and verify a large number of transactions and events, and these policies and procedures may not be fully effective. Our trading risk management strategies and techniques also seek to balance our ability to profit from trading positions with our exposure to potential losses. While we employ a broad and diversified set of risk monitoring and risk mitigation techniques, those techniques and the judgments that accompany their application cannot anticipate every economic and financial outcome or the timing of such outcomes. For example, to the extent that our trading or investing activities involve less liquid trading markets 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. We may, therefore, incur losses in the course of our trading or investing activities. For more information on how we monitor and manage market and certain other risks, see “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk—Risk Management—Market Risk” in Part II, Item 7A herein.


		30

Competitive Environment.

We face strong competition from other financial services firms, which could lead to pricing pressures that could materially adversely affect our revenue and profitability.

The financial services industry and all aspects of our businesses are intensely competitive, and we expect them to remain so. We compete with commercial banks, brokerage firms, insurance companies, electronic trading and clearing platforms, financial data repositories, sponsors of mutual funds, hedge funds, energy companies and other companies offering financial or ancillary services in the U.S., globally and through the internet. We compete on the basis of several factors, including transaction execution, capital or access to capital, products and services, innovation, reputation, risk appetite and price. Over time, certain sectors of the financial services industry have become more concentrated, as institutions involved in a broad range of financial services have left businesses, been acquired by or merged into other firms or have declared bankruptcy. Such changes could result in our remaining competitors gaining greater capital and other resources, such as the ability to offer a broader range of products and services and geographic diversity, or new competitors may emerge. We have experienced and may continue to experience pricing pressures as a result of these factors and as some of our competitors seek to obtain market share by reducing prices. In addition, certain of our competitors may be subject to different, and in some cases, less stringent, legal and regulatory regimes, than we are, thereby putting us at a competitive disadvantage. For more information regarding the competitive environment in which we operate, see “Business—Competition” and “Business—Supervision and Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 herein.

Automated trading markets may adversely affect our business and may increase competition.

We have experienced intense price competition in some of our businesses in recent years. In particular, the ability to execute securities trades electronically on exchanges and through other automated trading markets has increased the pressure on trading commissions or comparable fees. The trend toward direct access to automated, electronic markets will likely continue and will likely increase as additional markets move to more automated trading platforms. We have experienced and it is likely that we will continue to experience competitive pressures in these and other areas in the future as some of our competitors may seek to obtain market share by reducing prices (in the form of commissions or pricing).

Our ability to retain and attract qualified employees is critical to the success of our business and the failure to do so may materially adversely affect our performance.

Our people are our most important resource and competition for qualified employees is intense. In order to attract and retain qualified employees, we must compensate such employees at market levels. Typically, those levels have caused employee compensation to be our greatest expense as compensation is highly variable and changes based on business and individual performance and market conditions. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain highly qualified employees, or do so at rates or in forms necessary to maintain our competitive position, or if compensation costs required to attract and retain employees become more expensive, our performance, including our competitive position, could be materially adversely affected. The financial industry has and may continue to experience more stringent regulation of employee compensation, including limitations relating to incentive-based compensation, clawback requirements and special taxation, which could have an adverse effect on our ability to hire or retain the most qualified employees.

International Risk.

We are subject to numerous political, economic, legal, operational, franchise and other risks as a result of our international operations which could adversely impact our businesses in many ways.

We are subject to political, economic, legal, tax, operational, franchise and other risks that are inherent in operating in many countries, including risks of possible nationalization, expropriation, price controls, capital controls, exchange controls, increased taxes and levies and other restrictive governmental actions, as well as the outbreak of hostilities or political and governmental instability. In many countries, the laws and regulations applicable to the securities and financial services industries are uncertain and evolving, and it may be difficult for


		31

us to determine the exact requirements of local laws in every market. Our inability to remain in compliance with local laws in a particular market could have a significant and negative effect not only on our business in that market but also on our reputation generally. We are also subject to the enhanced risk that transactions we structure might not be legally enforceable in all cases.

Various emerging market countries have experienced severe political, economic and financial disruptions, including significant devaluations of their currencies, defaults or potential defaults on sovereign debt, capital and currency exchange controls, high rates of inflation and low or negative growth rates in their economies. Crime and corruption, as well as issues of security and personal safety, also exist in certain of these countries. These conditions could adversely impact our businesses and increase volatility in financial markets generally.

The emergence of a disease pandemic or other widespread health emergency, or concerns over the possibility of such an emergency as well as natural disasters, terrorist activities or military actions, could create economic and financial disruptions in emerging markets and other areas throughout the world, and could lead to operational difficulties (including travel limitations) that could impair our ability to manage our businesses around the world.

As a U.S. company, we are required to comply with the economic sanctions and embargo programs administered by OFAC and similar multi-national bodies and governmental agencies worldwide, as well as applicable anti-corruption laws in the jurisdictions in which we operate. A violation of a sanction, embargo program, or anti-corruption law, could subject us, and individual employees, to a regulatory enforcement action as well as significant civil and criminal penalties.

Acquisition and Joint Venture Risk.

We may be unable to fully capture the expected value from acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, minority stakes and strategic alliances.

In connection with past or future acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures or strategic alliances (including with MUFG), we face numerous risks and uncertainties combining, transferring, separating or integrating the relevant businesses and systems, including the need to combine or separate accounting and data processing systems and management controls and to integrate relationships with clients, trading counterparties and business partners. In the case of joint ventures and minority stakes, we are subject to additional risks and uncertainties because we may be dependent upon, and subject to liability, losses or reputational damage relating to, systems, controls and personnel that are not under our control.

For example, the ownership arrangements relating to the Company’s joint venture in Japan with MUFG of their respective investment banking and securities businesses are complex. MUFG and the Company have integrated their respective Japanese securities businesses by forming two joint venture companies, MUMSS and MSMS. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Other Matters—Japanese Securities Joint Venture” in Part II, Item 7 herein.

In addition, conflicts or disagreements between us and any of our joint venture partners may negatively impact the benefits to be achieved by the relevant joint venture.

There is no assurance that any of our acquisitions will be successfully integrated or yield all of the positive benefits anticipated. If we are not able to integrate successfully our past and future acquisitions, there is a risk that our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows may be materially and adversely affected.

Certain of our business initiatives, including 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 may expose us to new asset classes and new markets. These business activities expose us to new and enhanced risks, greater regulatory scrutiny of these activities, increased credit-related, sovereign and operational risks, and reputational concerns regarding the manner in which these assets are being operated or held.

For more information regarding the regulatory environment in which we operate, see also “Business—Supervision and Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 herein.


		32

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

The Company, like other well-known seasoned issuers, from time to time receives written comments from the staff of the SEC regarding its periodic or current reports under the Exchange Act. There are no comments that remain unresolved that the Company received not less than 180 days before the end of the year to which this report relates that the Company believes are material.


		33

Item 2.

Properties.

The Company has offices, operations and data centers located around the world. The Company’s properties that are not owned are leased on terms and for durations that are reflective of commercial standards in the communities where these properties are located. The Company believes the facilities it owns or occupies are adequate for the purposes for which they are currently used and are well maintained. The Company’s principal offices consist of the following properties:


Location	Owned/ Leased	Lease Expiration			Approximate Square Footage as of December 31, 2013(A)

U.S. Locations

1585 Broadway New York, New York (Global Headquarters and Institutional Securities Headquarters)	Owned		N/A			1,346,500 square feet

2000 Westchester Avenue Purchase, New York (Wealth Management Headquarters)	Owned		N/A			597,400 square feet

522 Fifth Avenue New York, New York (Investment Management Headquarters)	Owned		N/A			581,250 square feet

New York, New York (Several locations)	Leased		2014 – 2029			2,394,600 square feet

Brooklyn, New York (Several locations)	Leased		2014 – 2023			344,100 square feet

Jersey City, New Jersey (Several locations)	Leased		2014			369,200 square feet

International Locations

20 Bank Street London (London Headquarters)	Leased		2038			546,500 square feet

Canary Wharf London	Leased(B)		2020			454,600 square feet

1 Austin Road West Kowloon (Hong Kong Headquarters)	Leased		2019			572,600 square feet

Sapporo’s Yebisu Garden Place Ebisu, Shibuya-ku	Leased		2013	(C)		300,700 square feet

Otemachi Financial City South Tower Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku (Tokyo Headquarters)	Leased		2028	(C)		246,700 square feet

(A)	The indicated total aggregate square footage leased does not include space occupied by Morgan Stanley branch offices.

(B)	The Company holds the freehold interest in the land and building.

(C)	The Company began relocating its Tokyo headquarters from Yebisu Garden Place to Otemachi Financial City South Tower beginning in December 2013. The relocation will be complete by March 31, 2014.

LOGO

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings.

In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of business, the Company has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In some cases, the entities that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or in financial distress.

The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company’s business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.

The Company contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. Where available information indicates that it is probable a liability had been incurred at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to income. The Company expects future litigation accruals in general to continue to be elevated and the changes in accruals from period to period may fluctuate significantly, given the current environment regarding government investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Company.

In many proceedings and investigations, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government entities seek substantial or indeterminate damages, restitution, disgorgement or penalties. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, determination of issues related to class certification and the calculation of damages or other relief, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings or investigations in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for a proceeding or investigation. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company’s operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company’s revenues or income for such period.

Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government and self-regulatory agencies has increased materially in the financial services industry. As a result, the Company expects that it may become the subject of increased claims for damages and other relief and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.

Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.

Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”), collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), structured investment vehicles (“SIVs”) and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-

LOGO

through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company’s due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company’s communications with ratings agencies, the Company’s disclosures to investors, and the Company’s handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.

On January 30, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the Staff of the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to resolve an investigation related to certain subprime RMBS transactions sponsored and underwritten by the Company in 2007. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, the Company would be charged with violating Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and the Company would pay disgorgement and penalties in an amount of $275 million and would neither admit nor deny the SEC’s findings. The SEC has not yet presented the proposed settlement to the Commission and no assurance can be given that it will be accepted.

Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company’s 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company’s subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company’s disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company’s 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans’ investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. On March 28, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss both actions. Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal on June 27, 2013 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) in both matters, which have been consolidated on appeal.

On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company’s subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company’s disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit, which appeal is pending.

On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 13 trusts. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

On May 14, 2009, the Company was named as one of several underwriter defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act which is now styled In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The claims against the Company relate to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by several trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during

LOGO

2006 and 2007. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The amount of the certificates underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation was approximately $1.68 billion. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification with respect to one offering underwritten by the Company. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class to include additional offerings. IndyMac Bank, which was the sponsor of these securitizations, filed for bankruptcy on July 31, 2008, and the Company’s ability to be indemnified by IndyMac Bank is limited.

On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle (“SPV”), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the court’s decision granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities’ failure. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges that the securities’ offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities’ underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest.

Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants’ omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company’s individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California. These actions are styled Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al., respectively. Amended complaints were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $704 million and $276 million, respectively. The complaints raise claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiff’s Securities Act claims were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants filed answers to the amended complaints on October 7, 2011. On February 9, 2012, defendants’ demurrers with respect to all other claims were overruled. On December 20, 2013, plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. A bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin in September 2014. The Company is not a defendant in connection with the securitizations at issue in that trial.

LOGO

On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiff’s subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff’s subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants’ demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the second amended complaint on August 3, 2012. An initial trial of certain of plaintiff’s claims is scheduled to begin in July 2015.

On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank (“CDIB”) filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The Complaint relates to a $275 million credit default swap referencing the super senior portion of the STACK 2006-1 CDO. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment and alleges that the Company misrepresented the risks of the STACK 2006-1 CDO to CDIB, and that the Company knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the credit default swap with CDIB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CDIB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CDIB’s obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On March 10, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.

On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The Company filed its answer on December 21, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue.

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc. F/K/A GMAC LLC et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 19, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $385 million. The amended complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On May 26, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 11, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2013. The defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on December 16, 2013.

On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and

LOGO

material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On March 15, 2013, the court denied in substantial part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which order the Company appealed on April 11, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint.

On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, styled Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on April 2, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of the certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $153 million. The amended complaint raises claims under the Ohio Securities Act, federal securities laws, and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. The Company filed its answer on August 17, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in May 2015.

On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiff’s claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which motion was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2014.

On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On March 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the

LOGO

Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal and a motion to renew their opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On April 25, 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, styled The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company is approximately $1 billion. The complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud and tortious interference with contract and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages, rescission and rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, increases the total amount of the certificates at issue by approximately $80 million, adds causes of action for fraudulent inducement, equitable fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of the New Jersey RICO statute, and includes a claim for treble damages. On March 15, 2013, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 26, 2013, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the “Trust”) against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On August 8, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-14SL, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-4SL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trusts, which had original principal balances of approximately $354 million and $305 million respectively, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 16, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 17, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. On September 26, 2013, and October 7, 2013, the Company and the plaintiffs, respectively, filed notices of appeal with respect to the court’s August 16, 2013 decision.

On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al.. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint raises claims under federal

LOGO

securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On September 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 12, 2013.

On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On March 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On October 22, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and certain of its affiliated funds filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, monetary and punitive damages. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 18, 2013, the court dismissed claims with respect to seven certificates purchased by the plaintiff. The remaining claims relate to certificates with an original balance of $10.6 million. On September 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal concerning the court’s decision granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal on September 26, 2013.

On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On March 15, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 17, 2013, the court signed a joint proposed order and stipulation allowing plaintiffs to replead their complaint and defendants to withdraw their motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-10SL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On March 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

LOGO

On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in IKB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC1 (MSAC 2007-NC1) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC1 v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. On

LOGO

February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest.

On July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY styled Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On August 16, 2013, plaintiffs in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was approximately $567 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, violations of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 4, 2013. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss in substantial part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million.

On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2013.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiffs in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the SDNY. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was

LOGO

approximately $417 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, violations of the Texas Securities Act, and violations of the Illinois Securities Law of 1953 and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 13, 2013. On January 22, 2014, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising under Texas Securities Act and the Illinois Securities Law of 1953.

On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff’s assignors of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was approximately $207 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference and unjust enrichment. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages of at least approximately $207 million and punitive damages.

On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs.

On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million. The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates.

Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.

LOGO

On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the “Law Firm”), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm’s clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm’s press release also indicated that the Law Firm’s clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements (“PSAs”) that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.

Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.

On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On June 20, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On October 30, 2013, the Company filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment.

Matters Related to the CDS Market.

On July 1, 2013, the European Commission (“EC”) issued a Statement of Objections (“SO”) addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) and Markit Group Limited (“Markit”) and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap (“CDS”) products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.

Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief.


		45

The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31, 2013:

In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, related to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The remaining opt-out claims and appeals have now been resolved.

Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On November 15, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On December 3, 2013, the court dismissed the action.

Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On January 2, 2014, the court dismissed the action.

Seagull Point, LLC, individually and on behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007 HE-5 v. WMC Mortgage Corp., et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties. On January 9, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuance, dismissing the action against all defendants.

Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al., which had been pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of all of its claims against the Company. On January 27, 2014, the court dismissed the action.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiffs in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On January 23, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.

Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al., which had been pending in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.

Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al., which had been pending in the SDNY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 7, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.

On December 12, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) to resolve AIG’s potential claims against the Company related to AIG’s purchases of certain mortgage pass-through certificates sponsored or underwritten by the Company backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.


		46

Part II

Item 5.

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

Morgan Stanley’s common stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol “MS.” As of February 19, 2014, the Company had 79,140 holders of record; however, the Company believes the number of beneficial owners of common stock exceeds this number.

The table below sets forth, for each of the last eight quarters, the low and high sales prices per share of the Company’s common stock as reported by Bloomberg Financial Markets and the amount of any cash dividends per share of the Company’s common stock declared by its Board of Directors for such quarter.


	Low Sale Price		High Sale Price		Dividends
2013:
Fourth Quarter	$	26.41	$	31.85	$	0.05
Third Quarter	$	23.83	$	29.50	$	0.05
Second Quarter	$	20.16	$	27.17	$	0.05
First Quarter	$	19.32	$	24.47	$	0.05
2012:
Fourth Quarter	$	13.49	$	19.45	$	0.05
Third Quarter	$	12.29	$	18.50	$	0.05
Second Quarter	$	12.26	$	20.05	$	0.05
First Quarter	$	13.49	$	21.19	$	0.05


		47

The table below sets forth the information with respect to purchases made by or on behalf of the Company of its common stock during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2013.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

(dollars in millions, except per share amounts)


Period	Total Number of Shares Purchased		Average Price Paid Per Share		Total Number of Shares Purchased As Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs(C)		Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
Month #1 (October 1, 2013—October 31, 2013)
Share Repurchase Program(A)		1,495,000	$	29.26		1,495,000	$	1,394
Employee Transactions(B)		172,249	$	27.46		—		—
Month #2 (November 1, 2013—November 30, 2013)
Share Repurchase Program(A)		4,038,832	$	29.65		4,038,832	$	1,274
Employee Transactions(B)		56,206	$	30.10		—		—
Month #3 (December 1, 2013—December 31, 2013)
Share Repurchase Program(A)		2,087,000	$	30.81		2,087,000	$	1,210
Employee Transactions(B)		170,552	$	31.19		—		—
Total
Share Repurchase Program(A)		7,620,832	$	29.89		7,620,832	$	1,210
Employee Transactions(B)		399,007	$	29.43		—		—

(A)

On December 19, 2006, the Company announced that its Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $6 billion of the Company’s outstanding stock under a share repurchase program (the “Share Repurchase Program”). The Share Repurchase Program is a program for capital management purposes that considers, among other things, business segment capital needs, as well as equity-based compensation and benefit plan requirements. The Share Repurchase Program has no set expiration or termination date. Share repurchases by the Company are subject to regulatory approval. In July 2013, the Company received no objection from the Federal Reserve to repurchase up to $500 million of the Company’s outstanding common stock under rules permitting annual capital distributions (12 Code of Federal Regulations 225.8, Capital Planning), of which approximately $150 million as of December 31, 2013 may yet be purchased until March 31, 2014. For further information, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Capital Management” in Part I, Item 2.

(B)

Includes: (1) shares delivered or attested in satisfaction of the exercise price and/or tax withholding obligations by holders of employee and director stock options (granted under employee and director stock compensation plans) who exercised options; (2) shares withheld, delivered or attested (under the terms of grants under employee and director stock compensation plans) to offset tax withholding obligations that occur upon vesting and release of restricted shares; (3) shares withheld, delivered and attested (under the terms of grants under employee and director stock compensation plans) to offset tax withholding obligations that occur upon the delivery of outstanding shares underlying restricted stock units; and (4) shares withheld, delivered and attested (under the terms of grants under employee and director stock compensation plans) to offset the cash payment for fractional shares. The Company’s employee and director stock compensation plans provide that the value of the shares withheld, delivered or attested, shall be valued using the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date the relevant transaction occurs, using a valuation methodology established by the Company.

(C)	Share purchases under publicly announced programs are made pursuant to open-market purchases, Rule 10b5-1 plans or privately negotiated transactions (including with employee benefit plans) as market conditions warrant and at prices the Company deems appropriate.

***

LOGO

Stock performance graph. The following graph compares the cumulative total shareholder return (rounded to the nearest whole dollar) of the Company’s common stock, the S&P 500 Stock Index (“S&P 500”) and the S&P 500 Financials Index (“S5FINL”) for the last five years. The graph assumes a $100 investment at the closing price on December 31, 2008 and reinvestment of dividends on the respective dividend payment dates without commissions. This graph does not forecast future performance of the Company’s common stock.

LOGO


	MS		S&P 500		S5FINL
12/31/2008	$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00
12/31/2009	$	187.93	$	126.45	$	117.15
12/31/2010	$	174.03	$	145.49	$	131.36
12/31/2011	$	97.59	$	148.55	$	108.95
12/30/2012	$	124.84	$	172.31	$	140.27
12/31/2013	$	206.40	$	228.10	$	190.19


		49

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data.

MORGAN STANLEY

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

(dollars in millions, except share and per share data)


	2013			2012			2011			2010		2009
Income Statement Data:
Revenues:
Investment banking	$	5,246		$	4,758		$	4,991		$	5,122	$	5,020
Trading		9,359			6,990			12,384			9,393		7,723
Investments		1,777			742			573			1,825		(1,034	)
Commissions and fees		4,629			4,253			5,343			4,909		4,210
Asset management, distribution and administration fees		9,638			9,008			8,409			7,843		5,802
Other		990			556			176			1,235		672

Total non-interest revenues		31,639			26,307			31,876			30,327		22,393

Interest income		5,209			5,692			7,234			7,288		7,468
Interest expense		4,431			5,897			6,883			6,394		6,678

Net interest		778			(205	)		351			894		790

Net revenues		32,417			26,102			32,227			31,221		23,183

Non-interest expenses:
Compensation and benefits		16,277			15,615			16,325			15,860		14,287
Other		11,658			9,967			9,792			9,154		7,753

Total non-interest expenses		27,935			25,582			26,117			25,014		22,040

Income from continuing operations before income taxes		4,482			520			6,110			6,207		1,143
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes		826			(237	)		1,414			743		(298	)

Income from continuing operations		3,656			757			4,696			5,464		1,441
Discontinued operations(1):
Gain (loss) from discontinued operations		(72	)		(48	)		(170	)		600		(127	)
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes		(29	)		(7	)		(119	)		362		(92	)

Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations		(43	)		(41	)		(51	)		238		(35	)

Net income		3,613			716			4,645			5,702		1,406
Net income applicable to redeemable noncontrolling interests(2)		222			124			—			—		—
Net income applicable to nonredeemable noncontrolling interests(2)		459			524			535			999		60

Net income applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	2,932		$	68		$	4,110		$	4,703	$	1,346
Preferred stock dividends		277			98			2,043			1,109		2,253

Earnings (loss) applicable to Morgan Stanley common shareholders(3)	$	2,655		$	(30	)	$	2,067		$	3,594	$	(907	)

Amounts applicable to Morgan Stanley:
Income from continuing operations	$	2,975		$	138		$	4,168		$	4,478	$	1,404
Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations		(43	)		(70	)		(58	)		225		(58	)

Net income applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	2,932		$	68		$	4,110		$	4,703	$	1,346

LOGO


	2013			2012			2011			2010			2009
Per Share Data:
Earnings (loss) per basic common share(4):
Income (loss) from continuing operations	$	1.42		$	0.02		$	1.28		$	2.49		$	(0.72	)
Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations		(0.03	)		(0.04	)		(0.03	)		0.15			(0.05	)

Earnings (loss) per basic common share	$	1.39		$	(0.02	)	$	1.25		$	2.64		$	(0.77	)

Earnings (loss) per diluted common share(4):
Income (loss) from continuing operations	$	1.38		$	0.02		$	1.27		$	2.45		$	(0.72	)
Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations		(0.02	)		(0.04	)		(0.04	)		0.18			(0.05	)

Earnings (loss) per diluted common share	$	1.36		$	(0.02	)	$	1.23		$	2.63		$	(0.77	)

Book value per common share(5)	$	32.24		$	30.70		$	31.42		$	31.49		$	27.26
Dividends declared per common share	$	0.20		$	0.20		$	0.20		$	0.20		$	0.17

Balance Sheet and Other Operating Data:
Total assets	$	832,702		$	780,960		$	749,898		$	807,698		$	771,462
Total deposits		112,379			83,266			65,662			63,812			62,215
Long-term borrowings		153,575			169,571			184,234			192,457			193,374
Morgan Stanley shareholders’ equity		65,921			62,109			62,049			57,211			46,688
Return on average common equity(6)		4.3	%		N/M			3.8	%		9.0	%		N/M
Average common shares outstanding(3):
Basic		1,905,823,882			1,885,774,276			1,654,708,640			1,361,670,938			1,185,414,871
Diluted		1,956,519,738			1,918,811,270			1,675,271,669			1,411,268,971			1,185,414,871

N/M—Not Meaningful.

(1)	Prior-period amounts have been recast for discontinued operations. See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for information on discontinued operations.

(2)	Information includes 100%, 65% and 51% ownership of the retail securities joint venture between the Company and Citigroup Inc. (the “Wealth Management JV”) effective June 28, 2013, September 17, 2012 and May 31, 2009, respectively (see Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8).

(3)	Amounts shown are used to calculate earnings per basic and diluted common share.

(4)	For the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per common share, see Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

(5)

Book value per common share equals common shareholders’ equity of $62,701 million at December 31, 2013, $60,601 million at December 31, 2012, $60,541 million at December 31, 2011, $47,614 million at December 31, 2010 and $37,091 million at December 31, 2009, divided by common shares outstanding of 1,945 million at December 31, 2013, 1,974 million at December 31, 2012, 1,927 million at December 31, 2011, 1,512 million at December 31, 2010 and 1,361 million at December 31, 2009.

(6)

The calculation of return on average common equity uses net income applicable to Morgan Stanley less preferred dividends as a percentage of average common equity. The return on average common equity is a non-generally accepted accounting principle financial measure that the Company considers to be a useful measure to the Company and investors to assess operating performance.


		51

Item 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Introduction.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments—Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management. The Company, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides a wide variety of products and services to a large and diversified group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “Morgan Stanley” or the “Company” mean Morgan Stanley (the “Parent”) together with its consolidated subsidiaries.

Effective with the quarter ended June 30, 2013, the Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management business segments were re-titled Wealth Management and Investment Management, respectively.

A summary of the activities of each of the Company’s business segments is as follows:

Institutional Securities provides financial advisory and capital-raising services, including: advice on mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, real estate and project finance; corporate lending; sales, trading, financing and market-making activities in equity and fixed income securities and related products, including foreign exchange and commodities; and investment activities.

Wealth Management provides brokerage and investment advisory services to individual investors and small-to-medium sized businesses and institutions covering various investment alternatives; financial and wealth planning services; annuity and other insurance products; credit and other lending products; cash management services; retirement services; and engages in fixed income trading, which primarily facilitates clients’ trading or investments in such securities.

Investment Management provides a broad array of investment strategies that span the risk/return spectrum across geographies, asset classes, and public and private markets to a diverse group of clients across the institutional and intermediary channels as well as high net worth clients.

See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for a discussion of the Company’s discontinued operations.

The results of operations in the past have been, and in the future may continue to be, materially affected by many factors, including: the effect of economic and political conditions and geopolitical events; the effect of market conditions, particularly in the global equity, fixed income, credit and commodities markets, including corporate and mortgage (commercial and residential) lending and commercial real estate markets; the impact of current, pending and future legislation (including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”)), regulation (including capital, leverage and liquidity requirements), policies (including fiscal and monetary) and legal and regulatory actions in the United States of America (“U.S.”) and worldwide; the level and volatility of equity, fixed income, and commodity prices, interest rates, currency values and other market indices; the availability and cost of both credit and capital as well as the credit ratings assigned to the Company’s unsecured short-term and long-term debt; investor, consumer and business sentiment and confidence in the financial markets; the performance of the Company’s acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, strategic alliances or other strategic arrangements; the Company’s reputation; inflation, natural disasters and acts of war or terrorism; the actions and initiatives of current and potential competitors as well as governments, regulators and self-regulatory organizations; the effectiveness of the Company’s risk management policies; technological changes and risks, including cybersecurity risks; or a combination of these or other factors. In addition, legislative, legal and regulatory developments related to the Company’s businesses are likely to increase costs, thereby affecting results of operations. These factors also may have an adverse impact on the Company’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives. For a further discussion of these and other important factors that could affect the Company’s business, see “Business—Competition” and “Business—Supervision and Regulation” in Part I, Item 1, “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A and “Other Matters” herein.

LOGO

The discussion of the Company’s results of operations below may contain forward-looking statements. These statements, which reflect management’s beliefs and expectations, are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. For a discussion of the risks and uncertainties that may affect the Company’s future results, see “Forward-Looking Statements” immediately preceding “Business—Competition” and “Business—Supervision and Regulation” in Part I, Item 1, “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A and “Executive Summary—Significant Items” and “Other Matters” herein.


		53

Executive Summary.

Financial Information and Statistical Data (dollars in millions, except where noted and per share amounts).


	2013			2012			2011
Net revenues:
Institutional Securities(1)	$	15,443		$	11,025		$	17,683
Wealth Management(1)		14,214			13,034			12,772
Investment Management		2,988			2,219			1,887
Intersegment Eliminations		(228	)		(176	)		(115	)

Consolidated net revenues	$	32,417		$	26,102		$	32,227

Net income	$	3,613		$	716		$	4,645
Net income applicable to redeemable noncontrolling interests(2)		222			124			—
Net income applicable to nonredeemable noncontrolling interests(2)		459			524			535

Net income applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	2,932		$	68		$	4,110

Income (loss) from continuing operations applicable to Morgan Stanley:
Institutional Securities(1)	$	984		$	(797	)	$	3,450
Wealth Management(1)		1,488			803			683
Investment Management		503			136			35
Intersegment Eliminations		—			(4	)		—

Income from continuing operations applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	2,975		$	138		$	4,168
Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations applicable to Morgan Stanley(3)		(43	)		(70	)		(58	)

Net income applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	2,932		$	68		$	4,110
Preferred stock dividends		277			98			2,043

Earnings (loss) applicable to Morgan Stanley common shareholders	$	2,655		$	(30	)	$	2,067

Earnings (loss) per basic common share:
Income from continuing operations	$	1.42		$	0.02		$	1.28
Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations(3)		(0.03	)		(0.04	)		(0.03	)

Earnings (loss) per basic common share(4)	$	1.39		$	(0.02	)	$	1.25

Earnings (loss) per diluted common share:
Income from continuing operations	$	1.38		$	0.02		$	1.27
Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations(3)		(0.02	)		(0.04	)		(0.04	)

Earnings (loss) per diluted common share(4)	$	1.36		$	(0.02	)	$	1.23

Regional net revenues(5):
Americas	$	23,282		$	20,200		$	22,306
Europe, Middle East and Africa		4,542			3,078			6,619
Asia		4,593			2,824			3,302

Net revenues	$	32,417		$	26,102		$	32,227

LOGO

Financial Information and Statistical Data (dollars in millions, except where noted and per share amounts)—(Continued).


	2013			2012			2011
Average common equity (dollars in billions):
Institutional Securities	$	37.9		$	29.0		$	32.7
Wealth Management		13.2			13.3			13.2
Investment Management		2.8			2.4			2.6
Parent capital		8.0			16.1			5.9

Consolidated average common equity	$	61.9		$	60.8		$	54.4

Return on average common equity(6):
Institutional Securities		2.3	%		N/M			5.1	%
Wealth Management		10.0	%		6.0	%		3.4	%
Investment Management		17.6	%		5.4	%		N/M
Consolidated		4.4	%		0.1	%		4.0	%
Book value per common share(7)	$	32.24		$	30.70		$	31.42
Average tangible common equity (dollars in billions)(8)	$	53.0		$	53.9		$	47.5
Return on average tangible common equity(9)		5.1	%		0.1	%		4.5	%
Tangible book value per common share(10)	$	27.16		$	26.86		$	27.95
Effective income tax rate from continuing operations(11)		18.4	%		(45.6	)%		23.1	%
Worldwide employees at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011		55,794			57,061			61,546
Global Liquidity Reserve held by bank and non-bank legal entities at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (dollars in billions)(12)	$	202		$	182		$	182
Average Global Liquidity Reserve (dollars in billions)(12):
Bank legal entities	$	75		$	63		$	64
Non-bank legal entities		117			113			113

Total average Global Liquidity Reserve	$	192		$	176		$	177

Long-term borrowings at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011	$	153,575		$	169,571		$	184,234
Maturities of long-term borrowings outstanding at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (next 12 months)	$	24,193		$	25,303		$	35,082
Capital ratios at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011:
Total capital ratio(13)		16.9	%		18.5	%		17.5	%
Tier 1 common capital ratio(13)		12.8	%		14.6	%		12.6	%
Tier 1 capital ratio(13)		15.7	%		17.7	%		16.2	%
Tier 1 leverage ratio(14)		7.6	%		7.1	%		6.6	%
Consolidated assets under management or supervision at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (dollars in billions)(15):
Investment Management(16)	$	373		$	338		$	287
Wealth Management(1)(17)		692			551			472

Total	$	1,065		$	889		$	759


		55

Financial Information and Statistical Data (dollars in millions, except where noted and per share amounts)—(Continued).


	2013			2012			2011
Institutional Securities(1):
Pre-tax profit margin(18)		6	%		N/M			26	%
Wealth Management(1)(17):
Wealth Management representatives at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011(19)		16,456			16,352			17,033
Annual revenues per representative (dollars in thousands)(20)	$	867		$	786		$	731
Assets by client segment at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (dollars in billions):
$10 million or more	$	678		$	538		$	468
$1 million to $10 million		776			699			682

Subtotal $1 million or more		1,454			1,237			1,150

$100,000 to $1 million		414			414			375
Less than $100,000		41			45			41

Total client assets	$	1,909		$	1,696		$	1,566

Fee-based client assets as a percentage of total client assets(21)		37	%		33	%		30	%
Client assets per representative(22)	$	116		$	104		$	92
Fee-based client asset flows (dollars in billions)(23)	$	51.9		$	26.9		$	47.0
Bank deposits at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (dollars in billions)(24)	$	134		$	131		$	111
Retail locations at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011		649			694			734
Pre-tax profit margin(18)		18	%		12	%		10	%
Investment Management:
Pre-tax profit margin(18)		33	%		27	%		13	%
Selected management financial measures, excluding DVA:
Net revenues, excluding DVA(25)	$	33,098		$	30,504		$	28,546
Income from continuing operations applicable to Morgan Stanley, excluding DVA(25)	$	3,427		$	3,256		$	1,893
Income per diluted common share from continuing operations, excluding DVA(25)	$	1.61		$	1.64		$	(0.08	)
Return on average common equity, excluding DVA(6)		5.0	%		5.2	%		N/M
Return on average tangible common equity, excluding DVA(9)		5.8	%		5.9	%		N/M

N/M—Not Meaningful.

DVA—Debt Valuation Adjustment represents the change in the fair value of certain of the Company’s long-term and short-term borrowings resulting from the fluctuation in the Company’s credit spreads and other credit factors.

(1)

On January 1, 2013, the International Wealth Management business was transferred from the Wealth Management business segment to the Equity division within the Institutional Securities business segment. Accordingly, all results and statistical data have been recast for all periods to reflect the International Wealth Management business as part of the Institutional Securities business segment.

(2)	See Notes 2, 3 and 15 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for information on redeemable and nonredeemable noncontrolling interests.

(3)	See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for information on discontinued operations.

(4)	For the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”), see Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

(5)	Regional net revenues reflect the regional view of the Company’s consolidated net revenues, on a managed basis. For further discussion regarding the geographic methodology for net revenues, see Note 21 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

(6)

The calculation of each business segment’s return on average common equity uses income from continuing operations applicable to Morgan Stanley less preferred dividends as a percentage of each business segment’s average common equity. The return on average common equity is a non-generally accepted accounting principle (“non-GAAP”) financial measure that the Company considers to be a useful measure to the Company and investors to assess operating performance. The computation of average common equity for each business segment is determined using the Company’s Required Capital framework (“Required Capital Framework”), an internal capital adequacy measure (see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements—Required Capital” herein). The effective tax rates used in the computation of business segments’ return on average common equity were determined on a separate legal entity basis. To

LOGO

determine the return on consolidated average common equity, excluding the impact of DVA, also a non-GAAP financial measure, both the numerator and the denominator were adjusted to exclude the impact of DVA. The impact of DVA in 2013, 2012 and 2011 was (0.6)%, (5.1)% and 4.2%, respectively.

(7)

Book value per common share equals common shareholders’ equity of $62,701 million at December 31, 2013, $60,601 million at December 31, 2012 and $60,541 million at December 31, 2011 divided by common shares outstanding of 1,945 million at December 31, 2013, 1,974 million at December 31, 2012 and 1,927 million at December 31, 2011. Book value per common share in 2011 was reduced by approximately $2.61 per share as a result of the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (“MUFG”) stock conversion (see “Significant Items—MUFG Stock Conversion” herein).

(8)	Average tangible common equity is a non-GAAP financial measure that the Company considers to be a useful measure that the Company and investors use to assess capital adequacy. For a discussion of tangible common equity, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Capital Management” herein.

(9)

Return on average tangible common equity is a non-GAAP financial measure that the Company considers to be a useful measure that the Company and investors use to assess capital adequacy. The calculation of return on average tangible common equity uses income from continuing operations applicable to Morgan Stanley less preferred dividends as a percentage of average tangible common equity. To determine the return on average tangible common equity, excluding the impact of DVA, also a non-GAAP financial measure, both the numerator and the denominator were adjusted to exclude the impact of DVA. The impact of DVA in 2013, 2012 and 2011 was (0.7)%, (5.8)% and 4.8%, respectively.

(10)

Tangible book value per common share equals tangible common equity of $52,828 million at December 31, 2013, $53,014 million at December 31, 2012 and $53,850 million at December 31, 2011 divided by common shares outstanding of 1,945 million at December 31, 2013, 1,974 million at December 31, 2012 and 1,927 million at December 31, 2011. Tangible book value per common share is a non-GAAP financial measure that the Company considers to be a useful measure that the Company and investors use to assess capital adequacy.

(11)	For a discussion of the effective income tax rate, see “Overview of 2013 Financial Results” and “Significant Items—Income Tax Items” herein.

(12)	For a discussion of Global Liquidity Reserve, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Liquidity Risk Management Framework—Global Liquidity Reserve” herein.

(13)

As of December 31, 2013, the Company calculated its Total, Tier 1 and Tier 1 common capital ratios and risk-weighted assets (“RWAs”) in accordance with the capital adequacy standards for financial holding companies adopted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). These standards are based upon a framework described in the International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards, July 1988, as amended, also referred to as Basel I. On January 1, 2013, the U.S. banking regulators’ rules to implement the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s market risk capital framework amendment, commonly referred to as “Basel 2.5”, became effective, which increased the capital requirements for securitizations and correlation trading within the Company’s trading book, as well as incorporated add-ons for stressed Value-at-Risk (“VaR”) and incremental risk requirements (“market risk capital framework amendment”). The Company’s Total, Tier 1 and Tier 1 common capital ratios and RWAs for 2013 were calculated under this revised framework. The Company’s Total, Tier 1 and Tier 1 common capital ratios and RWAs for prior periods have not been recalculated under this revised framework. For a discussion of Total, Tier 1 and Tier 1 common capital ratios, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements” herein.

(14)	For a discussion of Tier 1 leverage ratio, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements” herein.

(15)	Revenues and expenses associated with these assets are included in the Company’s Wealth Management and Investment Management business segments.

(16)	Amounts exclude the Investment Management business segment’s proportionate share of assets managed by entities in which it owns a minority stake.

(17)	Prior-period amounts have been recast to exclude Quilter & Co. Ltd. (“Quilter”). See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for information on discontinued operations.

(18)	Pre-tax profit margin is a non-GAAP financial measure that the Company considers to be a useful measure that the Company and investors use to assess operating performance. Percentages represent income from continuing operations before income taxes as a percentage of net revenues.

(19)

At December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, global representatives for the Company were 16,784, 16,780 and 17,512, which include approximately 328, 428 and 479 representatives associated with the International Wealth Management business, the results of which are reported in the Institutional Securities business segment, respectively.

(20)	Annual revenues per representative in 2013, 2012 and 2011 equal Wealth Management business segment’s annual revenues divided by the average representative headcount in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

(21)

Fee-based client assets represent the amount of assets in client accounts where the basis of payment for services is a fee calculated on those assets. Effective in 2013, client assets also include certain additional non-custodied assets as a result of the completion of the purchase of the remaining interest in the retail securities joint venture between the Company and Citigroup Inc. (“Citi”) (the “Wealth Management JV”) platform conversion.

(22)	Client assets per representative equal total period-end client assets divided by period-end representative headcount.

(23)	Beginning January 1, 2013, the Company enhanced its definition of fee-based asset flows. Fee-based asset flows have been recast for all periods to include dividends, interest and client fees and to exclude cash management related activity.

(24)

Approximately $104 billion, $72 billion and $56 billion of the bank deposit balances at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, are held at Company-affiliated depositories with the remainder held at Citi affiliated depositories. The Company considers the remaining deposits held with Citi affiliated depositories a non-GAAP measure, which the Company and investors use to assess deposits in the


		57

Wealth Management business segment. The deposit balances are held at certain of the Company’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) insured depository institutions for the benefit of the Company’s clients through their accounts. For additional information regarding deposits, see Notes 3, 10 and 25 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 and “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Funding Management—Deposits” herein.

(25)

From time to time, the Company may disclose certain “non-GAAP financial measures” in the course of its earnings releases, earnings conference calls, financial presentations and otherwise. For these purposes, “GAAP” refers to generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission defines a “non-GAAP financial measure” as a numerical measure of historical or future financial performance, financial positions, or cash flows that excludes or includes amounts or is subject to adjustments that effectively exclude, or include, amounts from the most directly comparable measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP. Non-GAAP financial measures disclosed by the Company are provided as additional information to investors in order to provide them with further transparency about, or an alternative method for assessing, our financial condition and operating results. These measures are not in accordance with, or a substitute for, GAAP, and may be different from or inconsistent with non-GAAP financial measures used by other companies. Whenever the Company refers to a non-GAAP financial measure, the Company will also generally present the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP, along with a reconciliation of the differences between the non-GAAP financial measure and the GAAP financial measure.


	2013			2012			2011
Reconciliation of Selected Management Financial Measures from a Non-GAAP to a GAAP Basis (dollars in millions, except per share amounts):
Net revenues
Net revenues—non-GAAP	$	33,098		$	30,504		$	28,546
Impact of DVA		(681	)		(4,402	)		3,681

Net revenues—GAAP	$	32,417		$	26,102		$	32,227

Income (loss) from continuing operations applicable to Morgan Stanley
Income applicable to Morgan Stanley—non-GAAP	$	3,427		$	3,256		$	1,893
Impact of DVA		(452	)		(3,118	)		2,275

Income applicable to Morgan Stanley—GAAP	$	2,975		$	138		$	4,168

Earnings (loss) per diluted common share
Income from continuing operations per diluted common share—non-GAAP	$	1.61		$	1.64		$	(0.08	)
Impact of DVA		(0.23	)		(1.62	)		1.35

Income from continuing operations per diluted common share—GAAP	$	1.38		$	0.02		$	1.27

Average diluted shares—non-GAAP (in millions)		1,957			1,919			1,655
Impact of DVA (in millions)		—			—			20

Average diluted shares—GAAP (in millions)		1,957			1,919			1,675

LOGO

Global Market and Economic Conditions.

During 2013, global market and economic conditions showed improvement from 2012, though significant uncertainty remained. Investor sentiment was boosted by encouraging signs of improvement in the global economy during the second half of 2013. The U.S. economy continued its moderate growth pace, but while as a whole the recession in the euro-area came to an end, significant pockets of slow or negative growth remained in Europe. During 2013, global market and economic conditions were also challenged by investor concerns about the U.S. longer-term budget outlook and the scaling back of monetary stimulus, the remaining European sovereign debt issues and slowing economic growth in emerging markets. Shorter-term concerns over the U.S. budget standoff were resolved in late 2013 as Congress came to a tentative agreement on federal government funding for the next two fiscal years. The agreement was in response to a shut-down of the U.S. federal government that lasted for 16 days during October 2013. Elsewhere, especially in parts of Europe, growth remains stymied by fiscal and longer-term structural issues in the economy.

In the U.S., major equity market indices ended the year significantly higher compared with year-end 2012. The U.S. economy continued its moderate growth pace in 2013. Labor market conditions improved as the unemployment rate declined to 6.7% at December 31, 2013 from 7.9% at December 31, 2012. Consumer spending and business investment advanced during 2013. The housing market generally strengthened in 2013, although rising mortgage rates have resulted in recent softness in housing starts and home sales. Apart from fluctuations due to changes in energy prices, inflation has been running below the Federal Reserve’s longer-run objective, but longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable. The Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) of the Federal Reserve kept key interest rates at historically low levels. At December 31, 2013, the federal funds target rate remained between 0.0% and 0.25%, and the discount rate remained at 0.75%. Earlier in 2013 concerns about the Federal Reserve’s plan to scale back its monetary stimulus plan caused investors to sell off holdings. Subsequently, the FOMC announced in December that it would be decreasing its purchases of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities in January 2014. The continuing U.S. recovery, though tepid, is also relieving some of the pressure on the federal budget experienced during the past several years.

In Europe, major equity market indices finished 2013 higher compared with year-end 2012. Euro-area gross domestic product started to grow in the second quarter of 2013, and the European Central Bank (“ECB”) views this as a gradual recovery in economic conditions, albeit with significant downside risks. The euro-area unemployment rate increased to 12.0% at December 31, 2013 from 11.9% at 2012 year-end. At December 31, 2013, Bank of England’s benchmark interest rate was 0.5%, which was unchanged from December 31, 2012. To stimulate economic activity in Europe, during 2013 the ECB lowered the benchmark interest rate from 0.75% to 0.25% and indicated it will keep open its special liquidity facilities until at least the middle of 2014.

Major equity market indices in Asia ended the year higher, with the notable exception of the Shanghai Stock Exchange Composite Index in China. Japan’s economic activity grew moderately during 2013, primarily resulting from a series of economic stimulus packages announced by the Japanese government and the Bank of Japan (“BOJ”) in early 2013. The BOJ maintained its monetary stimulus plan during the remainder of 2013. The pace of China’s economic growth slowed during 2013, though China’s overall growth was still strong compared with the U.S., Europe and Japan. During 2013, the Chinese government began to implement reforms to restructure its economy away from reliance on exports and investments and toward more sustainable growth driven by domestic consumption.

Overview of 2013 Financial Results.

Consolidated Results. The Company recorded net income applicable to Morgan Stanley of $2,932 million on net revenues of $32,417 million in 2013 compared with net income applicable to Morgan Stanley of $68 million on net revenues of $26,102 million in 2012.

Net revenues in 2013 included negative revenues due to the impact of DVA of $681 million compared with negative revenues of $4,402 million in 2012. Non-interest expenses increased 9% to $27,935 million in 2013 compared with $25,582 million in 2012. Compensation expenses increased 4% to $16,277 million in 2013


		59

compared with $15,615 million in 2012. Non-compensation expenses increased 17% to $11,658 million in 2013 compared with $9,967 million in 2012. The increase in non-compensation expenses primarily reflected higher legal expenses.

Earnings (loss) per diluted common share (“diluted EPS”) and diluted EPS from continuing operations were $1.36 and $1.38, respectively, in 2013 compared with $(0.02) and $0.02, respectively, in 2012. The diluted EPS calculation for 2013 included a negative adjustment of approximately $151 million related to the purchase of the remaining interest in the Wealth Management JV, which was completed in June 2013.

Excluding the impact of DVA, net revenues were $33,098 million, and diluted EPS from continuing operations was $1.61 per share in 2013 compared with $30,504 million and $1.64 per share, respectively, in 2012.

The Company’s effective tax rate from continuing operations was 18.4% for 2013. The effective tax rate included an aggregate discrete net tax benefit of $407 million. Excluding this aggregate discrete net tax benefit, the effective tax rate from continuing operations in 2013 would have been 27.5%.

Institutional Securities. Income from continuing operations before taxes was $869 million in 2013 compared with a loss from continuing operations before taxes of $1,688 million in 2012. Net revenues for 2013 were $15,443 million compared with $11,025 million in 2012. The results in 2013 included negative revenues due to the impact of DVA of $681 million compared with negative revenues of $4,402 million in 2012. Investment banking revenues for 2013 increased 11% from 2012 to $4,377 million, reflecting higher revenues from equity and fixed income underwriting transactions, partially offset by lower advisory revenues. The following sales and trading net revenues results exclude the impact of DVA. Sales and trading net revenues are composed of: trading revenues; commissions and fees; asset management, distribution and administration fees; and net interest revenues (expenses). The presentation of net revenues excluding the impact of DVA is a non-GAAP financial measure that the Company considers useful for the Company and investors to allow further comparability of period-to-period operating performance. Equity sales and trading net revenues, excluding the impact of DVA, of $6,607 million increased 11% from 2012, reflecting strong performance across most products and regions from higher client activity, with particular strength in prime brokerage. Excluding the impact of DVA, fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues were $4,197 million in 2013, a decrease of 25% from 2012, reflecting lower levels of client activity across most products. Net investment gains of $707 million were recognized in 2013, compared with net investment gains of $219 million in 2012, primarily reflecting a gain on the disposition of an investment in an insurance broker. Other revenues of $608 million were recognized in 2013 compared with other revenues of $203 million in 2012. Other revenues included income arising from the Company’s 40% stake in Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., Ltd. (“MUMSS”) (see “Executive Summary—Significant Items—Japanese Securities Joint Venture” herein). Non-interest expenses increased 15% in 2013 to $14,574 million, primarily due to higher non-compensation expenses. Compensation and benefits expenses in 2013 decreased 2% from 2012 to $6,823 million, primarily due to lower headcount. Non-compensation expenses were $7,751 million in 2013 compared with $5,735 million in 2012, reflecting the increased level of legal expenses.

Wealth Management. Income from continuing operations before taxes was $2,629 million in 2013 compared with $1,622 million in 2012. Net revenues were $14,214 million in 2013 compared with $13,034 million in 2012. Transactional revenues, consisting of Trading, Commissions and fees and Investment banking increased 8% from 2012 to $4,293 million. Trading revenues increased 11% from 2012 to $1,161 million in 2013, primarily due to gains related to investments associated with certain employee deferred compensation plans and higher revenues from fixed income products. Commissions and fees revenues increased 6% from 2012 to $2,209 million in 2013, primarily due to higher equity, mutual fund and alternatives activity. Investment banking revenues increased 11% from 2012 to $923 million in 2013, primarily due to higher levels of underwriting activity in closed-end funds and unit trusts. Asset management, distribution and administration fees increased 6% from 2012 to $7,638 million in 2013, primarily due to higher fee-based revenues, partially offset by lower revenues from referral fees from the bank deposit program. Net interest increased 20% from 2012 to $1,880 million in 2013, primarily due to

LOGO

higher balances in the bank deposit program and growth in loans and lending commitments in Portfolio Loan Account (“PLA”) securities-based lending products. In addition, interest expense declined in 2013 due to the Company’s redemption of all Class A Preferred Interests owned by Citi and its affiliates, in connection with the Company’s acquisition of 100% ownership of the Wealth Management JV effective at the end of the second quarter of 2013. Total client asset balances were $1,909 billion at December 31, 2013 and client assets in fee-based accounts were $697 billion, or 37% of total client assets. Fee-based client asset flows for 2013 were $51.9 billion compared with $26.9 billion in 2012. Prior period amounts have been recast to reflect the transfer of the International Wealth Management business from the Wealth Management business segment to the Institutional Securities business segment and for the Company’s enhanced definition of fee-based asset flows (see “Business Segments” herein). Compensation and benefits expenses increased 6% from 2012 to $8,271 million in 2013, primarily due to higher compensable revenues. Non-compensation expenses decreased 8% from 2012 to $3,314 million in 2013, primarily driven by the absence of platform integration costs and non-recurring technology write-offs, partially offset by an impairment expense of $36 million related to certain intangible assets (management contracts) associated with alternative investment funds in 2013.

Investment Management. Income from continuing operations before taxes was $984 million in 2013 compared with $590 million in 2012. Net revenues were $2,988 million in 2013 compared with $2,219 million in 2012. The increase in net revenues reflected higher net investment gains predominantly within the Company’s Merchant Banking and Real Estate Investing businesses and higher gains on certain investments associated with the Company’s employee deferred compensation and co-investment plans. Results in 2013 also included an additional allocation of fund income to the Company as general partner, upon exceeding cumulative fund performance thresholds (“carried interest”). Non-interest expenses were $2,004 million in 2013 compared with $1,629 million in 2012. Compensation and benefits expenses increased 41% to $1,183 million in 2013, primarily due to higher net revenues. Non-compensation expenses increased 4% to $821 million in 2013, primarily due to higher brokerage and clearing and professional services expenses, partially offset by lower information processing expenses.

Significant Items.

Litigation. The Company incurred litigation expenses of approximately $1,952 million in 2013, $513 million in 2012 and $151 million in 2011. The litigation expenses incurred in 2013 were primarily due to settlements and reserve additions related to residential mortgage-backed securities and credit crisis-related matters (see “Contingencies—Legal” in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8). Litigation expenses are included in Other expenses in the consolidated statements of income. The Company expects future litigation expenses in general to continue to be elevated, and the changes in expenses from period to period may fluctuate significantly, given the current environment regarding financial crisis-related government investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Company.

Investment Gains. The Company’s Investments revenues increased to $1,777 million in 2013 compared with $742 million in 2012. Of this increase, $543 million related to higher net investment gains and to a lesser extent the benefit of carried interest within the Company’s Merchant Banking and Real Estate Investing businesses in the Investment Management business segment. In addition, the increase includes a gain on the disposition of an investment in an insurance broker in 2013 in the Institutional Securities business segment.

Japanese Securities Joint Venture. During 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company recorded income (loss) of $570 million, $152 million and $(783) million, respectively, within Other revenues in the consolidated statements of income, arising from the Company’s 40% stake in MUMSS. Net income applicable to nonredeemable noncontrolling interests associated with MUFG’s interest in Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities Co., Ltd. (“MSMS”) was $259 million, $163 million and $1 million for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively (see Note 22 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8).

In June 2013, MUMSS paid a dividend of approximately $287 million, of which the Company received approximately $115 million for its proportionate share of MUMSS.


		61

Income Tax Items. In 2013, the Company recognized an aggregate discrete net tax benefit of $407 million. This included discrete tax benefits of: $161 million related to the remeasurement of reserves and related interest associated with new information regarding the status of certain tax authority examinations; $92 million related to the establishment of a previously unrecognized deferred tax asset from a legal entity reorganization; $73 million that is attributable to tax planning strategies to optimize foreign tax credit utilization as a result of the anticipated repatriation of earnings from certain non-U.S. subsidiaries; and $81 million due to the retroactive effective date of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the “Relief Act”). The Relief Act that was enacted on January 2, 2013, among other things, extended with retroactive effect to January 1, 2012 a provision of U.S. tax law that defers the imposition of tax on certain active financial services income of certain foreign subsidiaries earned outside the U.S. until such income is repatriated to the U.S. as a dividend.

In 2012, the Company recognized an aggregate net tax benefit of $142 million. This included a discrete tax benefit of $299 million related to the remeasurement of reserves and related interest associated with either the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations or new information regarding the status of certain Internal Revenue Service examinations and an aggregate out-of-period net tax provision of $157 million, to adjust the overstatement of deferred tax assets associated with partnership investments, principally in the Company’s Investment Management business segment and repatriated earnings of foreign subsidiaries recorded in prior years. The Company has evaluated the effects of the understatement of the income tax provision both qualitatively and quantitatively and concluded that it did not have a material impact on any prior annual or quarterly consolidated financial statements.

Corporate Lending. The Company recorded the following amounts primarily associated with loans and lending commitments within the Institutional Securities business segment (see “Business Segments—Institutional Securities” herein):


	2013			2012			2011
	(dollars in millions)
Other sales and trading:
Gains (losses) on loans and lending commitments and Net interest(1)	$	596		$	1,650		$	(699	)
Gains (losses) on hedges		(156	)		(910	)		68

Total Other sales and trading revenues	$	440		$	740		$	(631	)

Other revenues:
Provision for loan losses	$	(46	)	$	(85	)	$	(6	)
Losses on loans held for sale		(68	)		(54	)		—

Total Other revenues	$	(114	)	$	(139	)	$	(6	)

Other expenses: Provision for unfunded commitments		(45	)		(71	)		(18	)

Total	$	281		$	530		$	(655	)

(1)	Effective April 2012, the Company began accounting for all new originated loans and lending commitments as either held for investment or held for sale.

Wealth Management JV. The Company completed the purchase of the remaining 35% interest in the Wealth Management JV from Citi on June 28, 2013 for the previously established price of $4.725 billion. The Company recorded a negative adjustment to retained earnings of approximately $151 million (net of tax) in 2013 to reflect the difference between the purchase price for the 35% interest in the joint venture and its carrying value. In 2012, the Company purchased an additional 14% stake in the Wealth Management JV from Citi for $1.89 billion, increasing the Company’s interest from 51% to 65%. The Company recorded a negative adjustment to Paid-in-capital of approximately $107 million (net of tax) to reflect the difference between the purchase price for the 14% interest in the Wealth Management JV and its carrying value. Also in 2012, the Wealth Management business segment’s non-interest expenses included approximately $173 million of non-recurring costs related to the Wealth Management JV integration. For more information, see Note 3 to the consolidated statements in Item 8.

LOGO

Available for Sale Securities. During 2013, 2012 and 2011, the available for sale portfolio held within the Wealth Management business segment reported unrealized gains (losses) of $(433) million, $28 million and $87 million, net of tax, respectively, that were included in Accumulated other comprehensive income. The unrealized losses were primarily due to changes in interest rates. The securities in the Company’s available for sale portfolio with an unrealized loss were not other-than-temporarily impaired at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. For more information, see Notes 2 and 5 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

Monoline Insurers. The results for 2011 included losses of $1,838 million related to the Company’s counterparty credit exposures to Monoline Insurers (“Monolines”), principally MBIA Insurance Corporation (“MBIA”).

During 2011, the Company announced a comprehensive settlement with MBIA. The settlement terminated outstanding credit default swap (“CDS”) protection purchased from MBIA on commercial mortgage-backed securities and resolved pending litigation between the two parties for consideration of a net cash payment to the Company.

MUFG Stock Conversion. On June 30, 2011, the Company’s outstanding Series B Preferred Stock owned by MUFG with a face value of $7.8 billion (carrying value $8.1 billion) and a 10% dividend was converted into 385,464,097 shares of the Company’s common stock, including approximately 75 million shares resulting from the adjustment to the conversion ratio pursuant to the transaction agreement. As a result of the adjustment to the conversion ratio, the Company incurred a one-time, non-cash negative adjustment of approximately $1.7 billion in its calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share during 2011.

European Peripheral Countries. On December 22, 2011, the Company entered into agreements to restructure certain derivative transactions that decreased its exposure to obligors in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain (the “European Peripherals”). As a result, the Company’s results in 2011 included interest rate product revenues of approximately $600 million related primarily to the release of credit valuation adjustments associated with the transactions, reported within Trading revenues in the consolidated statement of income.

Huaxin Securities Joint Venture. In June 2011, the Company and Huaxin Securities Co., Ltd. (also known as China Fortune Securities Co., Ltd.) jointly announced the operational commencement of their securities joint venture in China. During 2011, the Company recorded initial costs of $130 million related to the formation of this joint venture in Other expenses in the consolidated statement of income.

Business Segments.

Substantially all of the Company’s operating revenues and operating expenses are allocated to its business segments. Certain revenues and expenses have been allocated to each business segment, generally in proportion to its respective net revenues, non-interest expenses or other relevant measures.

As a result of treating certain intersegment transactions as transactions with external parties, the Company includes an Intersegment Eliminations category to reconcile the business segment results to the Company’s consolidated results. Intersegment Eliminations also reflect the effect of fees paid by the Institutional Securities business segment to the Wealth Management business segment related to the bank deposit program.


		63

Net Revenues.

Trading. Trading revenues include revenues from customers’ purchases and sales of financial instruments in which the Company acts as a market maker as well as gains and losses on the Company’s related positions. Trading revenues include the realized gains and losses from sales of cash instruments and derivative settlements, unrealized gains and losses from ongoing fair value changes of the Company’s positions related to market-making activities, and gains and losses related to investments associated with certain employee deferred compensation plans. In many markets, the realized and unrealized gains and losses from the purchase and sale transactions will include any spreads between bids and offers. Certain fees received on loans carried at fair value and dividends from equity securities are also recorded in this line item since they relate to market-making positions. Commissions received for purchasing and selling listed equity securities and options are recorded separately in the Commissions and fees line item. Other cash and derivative instruments typically do not have fees associated with them, and fees for related services would be recorded in Commissions and fees.

The Company often invests directly, as a principal, in investments or other financial instruments to economically hedge its obligations under its deferred compensation plans. Changes in value of such investments made by the Company are recorded in Trading revenues and Investments revenues. Expenses associated with the related deferred compensation plans are recorded in Compensation and benefits. Compensation expense is calculated based on the notional value of the award granted, adjusted for upward and downward changes in fair value of the referenced investment and is recognized ratably over the prescribed vesting period for the award. Generally, changes in compensation expense resulting from changes in fair value of the referenced investment will be offset by changes in fair value of investments made by the Company. However, there may be a timing difference between the immediate revenue recognition of gains and losses on the Company’s investments and the deferred recognition of the related compensation expense over the vesting period.

As a market maker, the Company stands ready to buy, sell or otherwise transact with customers under a variety of market conditions and provide firm or indicative prices in response to customer requests. The Company’s liquidity obligations can be explicit and obligatory in some cases, and in others, customers expect the Company to be willing to transact with them. In order to most effectively fulfill its market-making function, the Company engages in activities, across all of its trading businesses, that include, but are not limited to: (i) taking positions in anticipation of, and in response to, customer demand to buy or sell and—depending on the liquidity of the relevant market and the size of the position—to hold those positions for a period of time; (ii) managing and assuming basis risk (risk associated with imperfect hedging) between customized customer risks and the standardized products available in the market to hedge those risks; (iii) building, maintaining and rebalancing inventory, through trades with other market participants, and engaging in accumulation activities to accommodate anticipated customer demand; (iv) trading in the market to remain current on pricing and trends; and (v) engaging in other activities to provide efficiency and liquidity for markets. Although not included in Trading revenues, interest income and expense are also impacted by market-making activities as debt securities held by the Company earn interest and securities are loaned, borrowed, sold with agreement to repurchase and purchased with agreement to resell.

Investments. The Company’s investments generally are held for long-term appreciation and generally are subject to significant sales restrictions. Estimates of the fair value of the investments may involve significant judgment and may fluctuate significantly over time in light of business, market, economic and financial conditions generally or in relation to specific transactions. In some cases, such investments are required or are a necessary part of offering other products. The revenues recorded are the result of realized gains and losses from sales and unrealized gains and losses from ongoing fair value changes of the Company’s holdings as well as from investments associated with certain employee deferred compensation plans (as mentioned above). Typically, there are no fee revenues from these investments. The sales restrictions on the investments relate primarily to redemption and withdrawal restrictions on investments in real estate funds, hedge funds and private equity funds, which include investments made in connection with certain employee deferred compensation plans (see Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8). Restrictions on interests in exchanges and clearinghouses generally include a requirement to hold those interests for the period of time that the Company is clearing trades

LOGO

on that exchange or clearinghouse. Additionally, there are certain investments related to assets held by consolidated real estate funds, which are primarily related to holders of noncontrolling interests.

Commissions and Fees. Commission and fee revenues primarily arise from agency transactions in listed and over-the-counter (“OTC”) equity securities, services related to sales and trading activities, and sales of mutual funds, futures, insurance products and options.

Asset Management, Distribution and Administration Fees. Asset management, distribution and administration fees include fees associated with the management and supervision of assets, account services and administration, performance-based fees relating to certain funds, separately managed accounts, shareholder servicing and the distribution of certain open-ended mutual funds.

Asset management, distribution and administration fees in the Wealth Management business segment also include revenues from individual investors electing a fee-based pricing arrangement and fees for investment management. Mutual fund distribution fees in the Wealth Management business segment are based on either the average daily fund net asset balances or average daily aggregate net fund sales and are affected by changes in the overall level and mix of assets under management or supervision.

Asset management fees in the Investment Management business segment arise from investment management services the Company provides to investment vehicles pursuant to various contractual arrangements. The Company receives fees primarily based upon mutual fund daily average net assets or based on monthly or quarterly invested equity for other vehicles. Performance-based fees in the Investment Management business segment are earned on certain funds as a percentage of appreciation earned by those funds and, in certain cases, are based upon the achievement of performance criteria. These fees are normally earned annually and are recognized on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Net Interest. Interest income and Interest expense are a function of the level and mix of total assets and liabilities, including trading assets and trading liabilities; securities available for sale; securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell; securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase; loans; deposits; commercial paper and other short-term borrowings; long-term borrowings; trading strategies; customer activity in the Company’s prime brokerage business; and the prevailing level, term structure and volatility of interest rates. Certain Securities purchased under agreements to resell (“reverse repurchase agreements”) and Securities sold under agreements to repurchase (“repurchase agreements”) and Securities borrowed and Securities loaned transactions may be entered into with different customers using the same underlying securities, thereby generating a spread between the interest revenues on the reverse repurchase agreements or securities borrowed transactions and the interest expense on the repurchase agreements or securities loaned transactions.

Lending Activities.

The Company provides loans to a variety of customers, from large corporate and institutional clients to high net worth individuals, primarily through its U.S. bank subsidiaries, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. (“MSBNA”) and Morgan Stanley Private Bank, National Association (“MSPBNA”). The Company’s lending activities in the Institutional Securities business segment primarily include corporate lending activities, in which the Company provides loans or lending commitments to selected corporate clients. In addition to corporate lending activity, the Institutional Securities business segment engages to a lesser extent in other lending activity, including corporate loans purchased and sold in the secondary market. The Company’s lending activities in the Wealth Management business segment principally include margin loans collateralized by securities, securities-based lending that allows clients to borrow money against the value of qualifying securities in PLAs and residential mortgage lending. The Company’s lending activities have grown during 2013 and 2012 and the Company expects this trend to continue. For a further discussion of the Company’s credit risks, see “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk—Risk Management—Credit Risk” in Item 7A. See also Notes 8 and 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for additional information about the Company’s financing receivables and lending commitments, respectively.


		65

INSTITUTIONAL SECURITIES

INCOME STATEMENT INFORMATION


	2013			2012(1)			2011(1)
	(dollars in millions)
Revenues:
Investment banking	$	4,377		$	3,930		$	4,240
Trading		8,147			6,002			11,425
Investments		707			219			239
Commissions and fees		2,425			2,176			2,849
Asset management, distribution and administration fees		280			242			206
Other		608			203			(236	)

Total non-interest revenues		16,544			12,772			18,723

Interest income		3,572			4,224			5,860
Interest expense		4,673			5,971			6,900

Net interest		(1,101	)		(1,747	)		(1,040	)

Net revenues		15,443			11,025			17,683

Compensation and benefits		6,823			6,978			7,567
Non-compensation expenses		7,751			5,735			5,566

Total non-interest expenses		14,574			12,713			13,133

Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes		869			(1,688	)		4,550
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes		(393	)		(1,061	)		880

Income (loss) from continuing operations		1,262			(627	)		3,670

Discontinued operations:
Gain (loss) from discontinued operations		(81	)		(158	)		(216	)
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes		(29	)		(36	)		(110	)

Net gains (losses) on discontinued operations		(52	)		(122	)		(106	)

Net income (loss)		1,210			(749	)		3,564
Net income applicable to redeemable noncontrolling interests		1			4			—
Net income applicable to nonredeemable noncontrolling interests		277			170			220

Net income (loss) applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	932		$	(923	)	$	3,344

Amounts applicable to Morgan Stanley:
Income (loss) from continuing operations	$	984		$	(797	)	$	3,450
Net gains (losses) from discontinued operations		(52	)		(126	)		(106	)

Net income (loss) applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	932		$	(923	)	$	3,344

(1)	Prior-period amounts have been recast to reflect the transfer of the International Wealth Management business from the Wealth Management business segment to the Institutional Securities business segment.

Supplemental Financial Information.

Investment Banking. Investment banking revenues are composed of fees from advisory services and revenues from the underwriting of securities offerings and syndication of loans, net of syndication expenses.

LOGO

Investment banking revenues were as follows:


	2013		2012		2011
	(dollars in millions)
Advisory revenues	$	1,310	$	1,369	$	1,737
Underwriting revenues:
Equity underwriting revenues		1,262		892		1,144
Fixed income underwriting revenues		1,805		1,669		1,359

Total underwriting revenues		3,067		2,561		2,503

Total investment banking revenues	$	4,377	$	3,930	$	4,240

The following table presents the Company’s volumes of announced and completed mergers and acquisitions, equity and equity-related offerings, and fixed income offerings:


	2013(1)		2012(1)		2011(1)
	(dollars in billions)
Announced mergers and acquisitions(2)	$	520	$	464	$	510
Completed mergers and acquisitions(2)		508		391		657
Equity and equity-related offerings(3)		61		52		47
Fixed income offerings(4)		287		284		231

(1)

Source: Thomson Reuters, data at January 14, 2014. Announced and completed mergers and acquisitions volumes are based on full credit to each of the advisors in a transaction. Equity and equity-related offerings and fixed income offerings are based on full credit for single book managers and equal credit for joint book managers. Transaction volumes may not be indicative of net revenues in a given period. In addition, transaction volumes for prior periods may vary from amounts previously reported due to the subsequent withdrawal or change in the value of a transaction.

(2)	Amounts include transactions of $100 million or more. Announced mergers and acquisitions exclude terminated transactions.

(3)	Amounts include Rule 144A and public common stock, convertible and rights offerings.

(4)	Amounts include non-convertible preferred stock, mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities and taxable municipal debt. Amounts also include publicly registered and Rule 144A issues. Amounts exclude leveraged loans and self-led issuances.

Sales and Trading Net Revenues.

Sales and trading net revenues are composed of Trading revenues; Commissions and fees; Asset management, distribution and administration fees; and Net interest revenues (expenses). See “Business Segments—Net Revenues” herein for information about the composition of the above-referenced components of sales and trading revenues. In assessing the profitability of its sales and trading activities, the Company views these net revenues in the aggregate. In addition, decisions relating to trading are based on an overall review of aggregate revenues and costs associated with each transaction or series of transactions. This review includes, among other things, an assessment of the potential gain or loss associated with a transaction, including any associated commissions and fees, dividends, the interest income or expense associated with financing or hedging the Company’s positions, and other related expenses. See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for further information related to gains (losses) on derivative instruments.


		67

Sales and trading net revenues were as follows:


	2013			2012(1)			2011(1)
	(dollars in millions)
Trading	$	8,147		$	6,002		$	11,425
Commissions and fees		2,425			2,176			2,849
Asset management, distribution and administration fees		280			242			206
Net interest		(1,101	)		(1,747	)		(1,040	)

Total sales and trading net revenues	$	9,751		$	6,673		$	13,440

(1)	All prior-year amounts have been recast to conform to the current year’s presentation. For further information, see “Business Segments” herein and Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

Sales and trading net revenues by business were as follows:


	2013			2012(1)			2011(1)
	(dollars in millions)
Equity	$	6,529		$	4,811		$	7,263
Fixed income and commodities		3,594			2,358			7,506
Other(2)		(372	)		(496	)		(1,329	)

Total sales and trading net revenues	$	9,751		$	6,673		$	13,440

(1)	All prior-year amounts have been recast to conform to the current year’s presentation. For further information, see “Business Segments” herein and Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

(2)

Other sales and trading net revenues include net losses associated with costs related to the amount of liquidity held (“negative carry”), net gains (losses) on economic hedges related to the Company’s long-term debt and net gains (losses) from certain loans and lending commitments and related hedges associated with the Company’s lending activities.

The following sales and trading net revenues results exclude the impact of DVA (see footnote 2 in the following table). The reconciliation of sales and trading, including equity sales and trading and fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues, from a non-GAAP to a GAAP basis is as follows:


	2013			2012(1)			2011(1)
	(dollars in millions)
Total sales and trading net revenues—non-GAAP(2)	$	10,432		$	11,075		$	9,759
Impact of DVA		(681	)		(4,402	)		3,681

Total sales and trading net revenues	$	9,751		$	6,673		$	13,440

Equity sales and trading net revenues—non-GAAP(2)	$	6,607		$	5,941		$	6,644
Impact of DVA		(78	)		(1,130	)		619

Equity sales and trading net revenues	$	6,529		$	4,811		$	7,263

Fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues
—non-GAAP(2)	$	4,197		$	5,630		$	4,444
Impact of DVA		(603	)		(3,272	)		3,062

Fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues	$	3,594		$	2,358		$	7,506

(1)	All prior-year amounts have been recast to conform to the current year’s presentation. For further information, see “Business Segments” herein and Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

(2)

Sales and trading net revenues, including fixed income and commodities and equity sales and trading net revenues that exclude the impact of DVA, are non-GAAP financial measures that the Company considers useful for the Company and investors to allow further comparability of period-to-period operating performance.

LOGO

2013 Compared with 2012.

Investment Banking. Investment banking revenues in 2013 increased 11% from 2012, reflecting higher revenues from equity and fixed income underwriting transactions, partially offset by lower advisory revenues. Overall, underwriting revenues of $3,067 million increased 20% from 2012. Equity underwriting revenues increased 41% to $1,262 million in 2013, largely driven by increased client activity across Europe, Asia and the Americas. Fixed income underwriting revenues were $1,805 million in 2013, an increase of 8% from 2012, reflecting a continued favorable debt underwriting environment. Advisory revenues from merger, acquisition and restructuring transactions (“M&A”) were $1,310 million in 2013, a decrease of 4% from 2012, reflective of the lower level of deal activity in 2013. Industry-wide announced M&A activity for 2013 was relatively flat compared with 2012, with increases in the Americas offset by decreases in Europe, Middle East and Africa.

Sales and Trading Net Revenues. Total sales and trading net revenues increased to $9,751 million in 2013 from $6,673 million in 2012, reflecting higher revenues in equity and fixed income sales and trading net revenues and lower losses in other sales and trading net revenues.

Equity. Equity sales and trading net revenues increased to $6,529 million in 2013 from $4,811 million in 2012. The results in equity sales and trading net revenues included negative revenue due to the impact of DVA of $78 million in 2013 compared with negative revenue of $1,130 million in 2012. Equity sales and trading net revenues, excluding the impact of DVA, increased 11% to $6,607 million in 2013 from 2012, reflecting strong performance across most products and regions, from higher client activity with particular strength in prime brokerage.

In 2013, equity sales and trading net revenues also reflected gains of $37 million related to changes in the fair value of net derivative contracts attributable to the tightening of counterparties’ CDS spreads and other factors compared with gains of $68 million in 2012. The Company also recorded losses of $15 million in 2013 related to changes in the fair value of net derivative contracts attributable to the tightening of the Company’s CDS spreads and other factors compared with losses of $243 million in 2012. The gains and losses on CDS spreads and other factors include gains and losses on related hedging instruments.

Fixed Income and Commodities. Fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues were $3,594 million in 2013 compared with net revenues of $2,358 million in 2012. Results in 2013 included negative revenue of $603 million due to the impact of DVA compared with negative revenue of $3,272 million in 2012. Fixed income product net revenues, excluding the impact of DVA, in 2013 decreased 26% over 2012, primarily reflecting lower levels of client activity across most products and significant revenue declines in interest rate products. Commodity net revenues, excluding the impact of DVA, in 2013 decreased 38% over 2012, primarily reflecting lower levels of client activity across energy markets.

In 2013, fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues reflected gains of $127 million related to changes in the fair value of net derivative contracts attributable to the tightening of counterparties’ CDS spreads and other factors compared with losses of $128 million in 2012 due to the widening of such spreads and other factors. The Company also recorded losses of $114 million in 2013 related to changes in the fair value of net derivative contracts attributable to the tightening of the Company’s CDS spreads and other factors compared with losses of $482 million in 2012. The gains and losses on CDS spreads and other factors include gains and losses on related hedging instruments.

Other. In addition to the equity and fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues discussed above, sales and trading net revenues included other trading revenues, consisting of costs related to negative carry, gains (losses) on economic hedges related to the Company’s long-term debt and certain activities associated with the Company’s corporate lending activities. Effective April 1, 2012, the Company began accounting for all new corporate loans and lending commitments as either held for investment or held for sale.

Other sales and trading net losses were $372 million in 2013 compared with net losses of $496 million in 2012. The results in both periods included net losses related to negative carry and losses on economic hedges and other


		69

costs related to the Company’s long-term debt. The results in 2013 and 2012 were partially offset by net gains of $440 million and $740 million, respectively, associated with corporate loans and lending commitments.

Net Interest. Net interest expense decreased to $1,101 million in 2013 from $1,747 million in 2012, primarily due to lower costs associated with the Company’s long-term borrowings.

Investments. See “Business Segments—Net Revenues” herein for further information on what is included in Investments.

Net investment gains of $707 million were recognized in 2013 compared with net investment gains of $219 million in 2012. The increase primarily reflected a gain on the disposition of an investment in an insurance broker. The results in 2013 and 2012 included mark-to-market gains on principal investments in real estate funds and net gains from investments associated with the Company’s deferred compensation and co-investment plans.

Other. Other revenues of $608 million were recognized in 2013 compared with other revenues of $203 million in 2012. The results in 2013 primarily included income of $570 million, arising from the Company’s 40% stake in MUMSS, compared with income of $152 million in 2012 (see “Executive Summary—Significant Items—Japanese Securities Joint Venture” herein). The gains in both periods were partially offset by the provision for loan losses and losses associated with investments in low-income housing and alternative energy.

Non-interest Expenses. Non-interest expenses increased 15% in 2013 compared with 2012. The increase was primarily due to higher non-compensation expenses. Compensation and benefits expenses decreased 2% in 2013, primarily due to lower headcount. Results included severance expenses of $141 million related to reductions in force in 2013 compared with $120 million in 2012. Non-compensation expenses increased 35% in 2013 compared with 2012. The increase primarily reflected additions to legal expenses for litigation and investigations related to residential mortgage-backed securities and the credit crisis (see “Contingencies—Legal” in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8). Brokerage, clearing and exchange expenses increased 16% in 2013 compared with 2012 primarily due to higher volumes of activity. Information processing and communications expenses decreased 9% in 2013 compared with 2012 primarily due to lower technology costs. Professional services expenses increased 5% in 2013 compared with 2012 primarily due to higher consulting expenses related to the Company’s technology platform.

2012 Compared with 2011.

Investment Banking. Investment banking revenues in 2012 decreased 7% from 2011, reflecting lower revenues from advisory and equity underwriting transactions, partially offset by higher revenues from fixed income underwriting transactions. Advisory revenues from merger, acquisition and restructuring transactions were $1,369 million in 2012, a decrease of 21% from 2011, reflecting lower completed market volumes. Overall, underwriting revenues of $2,561 million increased 2% from 2011. Fixed income underwriting revenues were $1,669 million in 2012, an increase of 23% from 2011, reflecting increased bond issuance volumes. Equity underwriting revenues decreased 22% to $892 million in 2012, reflecting lower levels of market activity.

Sales and Trading Net Revenues. Total sales and trading net revenues decreased to $6,673 million in 2012 from $13,440 million in 2011, reflecting lower revenues in fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues and equity sales and trading net revenues, partially offset by lower losses in other sales and trading net revenues.

Equity. Equity sales and trading net revenues decreased 34% to $4,811 million in 2012 from 2011. The results in equity sales and trading net revenues included negative revenue in 2012 of $1,130 million due to the impact of DVA compared with positive revenue of $619 million in 2011 due to the impact of DVA. Equity sales and trading net revenues, excluding the impact of DVA, in 2012 decreased 11% from 2011, reflecting lower revenues in the cash business, as a result of lower volumes.

In 2012, equity sales and trading net revenues reflected gains of $68 million related to changes in the fair value of net derivative contracts attributable to the tightening of counterparties’ CDS spreads and other credit factors compared with losses of $38 million in 2011 due to the widening of such spreads and other credit factors. The

LOGO

Company also recorded losses of $243 million in 2012 related to changes in the fair value of net derivative contracts attributable to the tightening of the Company’s CDS spreads and other credit factors compared with gains of $182 million in 2011 due to the widening of such spreads and other credit factors. The gains and losses on CDS spreads and other credit factors include gains and losses on related hedging instruments.

Fixed Income and Commodities. Fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues were $2,358 million in 2012 compared with net revenues of $7,506 million in 2011. Results in 2012 included negative revenue of $3,272 million due to the impact of DVA, compared with positive revenue of $3,062 million in 2011 due to the impact of DVA. Fixed income product net revenues, excluding the impact of DVA, in 2012 increased 45% over 2011, reflecting higher results in interest rate, foreign exchange and credit products, including higher levels of client activity in securitized products, with results in 2011 being negatively impacted by losses of $1,838 million from Monolines, including a loss approximating $1.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2011 from the Company’s comprehensive settlement with MBIA (see “Executive Summary—Significant Items—Monoline Insurers” herein for further information). The results in 2011 also included interest rate product revenues of approximately $600 million, primarily related to the release of credit valuation adjustments upon the restructuring of certain derivative transactions that decreased the Company’s exposure to the European Peripherals (see “Executive Summary—Significant Items—European Peripheral Countries” herein for further information). Commodity net revenues, excluding the impact of DVA, decreased 20% in 2012 due to a difficult market environment. Results in the fourth quarter of 2011 included a loss of approximately $108 million upon application of the overnight indexed swap (“OIS”) curve to certain fixed income products (see Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8).

In 2012, fixed income and commodities sales and trading net revenues reflected losses of $128 million related to changes in the fair value of net derivative contracts attributable to the widening of counterparties’ CDS spreads and other credit factors compared with losses of $1,249 million, including Monolines, in 2011. The Company also recorded losses of $482 million in 2012 related to changes in the fair value of net derivative contracts attributable to the tightening of the Company’s CDS spreads and other credit factors compared with gains of $746 million in 2011 due to the widening of such spreads and other credit factors. The gains and losses on CDS spreads and other factors include gains and losses on related hedging instruments.

Other. Other sales and trading net losses were $496 million in 2012 compared with net losses of $1,329 million in 2011. The results in both years included losses related to negative carry. The 2012 results included losses on economic hedges related to the Company’s long-term debt compared with gains in 2011. Results in 2012 were partially offset by net gains of $740 million associated with loans and lending commitments. Results in 2011 included net losses of approximately $631 million associated with loans and lending commitments. The results in 2012 also included net investment gains in the Company’s deferred compensation and co-investment plans compared with net losses in 2011.

Net Interest. Net interest expense increased to $1,747 million in 2012 from $1,040 million in 2011, primarily due to lower revenues from securities purchased under agreements to resell and securities borrowed transactions.

Investments. Net investment gains of $219 million were recognized in 2012 compared with net investment gains of $239 million in 2011. The gains in 2012 and 2011 primarily included mark-to-market gains on principal investments in real estate funds and net gains from investments associated with the Company’s deferred compensation and co-investment plans.

Other. Other revenues of $203 million were recognized in 2012 compared with other losses of $236 million in 2011. The results in 2012 included income of $152 million, arising from the Company’s 40% stake in MUMSS. The results in 2011 included pre-tax losses of $783 million arising from the Company’s 40% stake in MUMSS (see “Executive Summary—Significant Items—Japanese Securities Joint Venture” herein). The gains in 2012 were partially offset by increases in the provision for loan losses. The results in both periods also included gains from the Company’s retirement of certain of its debt.


		71

Non-interest Expenses. Non-interest expenses decreased 3% in 2012. The decrease was due to lower compensation expenses, partially offset by higher non-compensation expenses. Compensation and benefits expenses decreased 8% in 2012, in part due to lower net revenues, excluding DVA and the comprehensive settlement with MBIA, and were partially offset by severance expenses related to reductions in force during the year. Non-compensation expenses increased 3% in 2012, compared with 2011. Brokerage, clearing and exchange expenses decreased 9% in 2012, primarily due to lower volumes of activity. Information processing and communications expense increased 6% in 2012, primarily due to ongoing investments in technology. Professional services expenses increased 21% in 2012, primarily due to higher legal and regulatory costs and consulting expenses. Other expenses increased 4% in 2012. The results in 2012 included increased litigation expense and a higher provision for unfunded loan commitments. The results in 2011 included the initial costs of $130 million associated with Morgan Stanley Huaxin Securities Company Limited (see “Executive Summary—Significant Items—Huaxin Securities Joint Venture” herein for further information). The results in 2011 also included a charge of $59 million due to the bank levy on relevant liabilities and equities on the consolidated balance sheets of “U.K. Banking Groups” at December 31, 2011 as defined under the bank levy legislation enacted by the U.K. government in July 2011.

Income Tax Items.

In 2013, the Company recognized in income from continuing operations an aggregate discrete net tax benefit of $407 million attributable to the Institutional Securities business segment. This included discrete tax benefits of: $161 million related to the remeasurement of reserves and related interest associated with new information regarding the status of certain tax authority examinations; $92 million related to the establishment of a previously unrecognized deferred tax asset from a legal entity reorganization; $73 million that is attributable to tax planning strategies to optimize foreign tax credit utilization as a result of the anticipated repatriation of earnings from certain non-U.S. subsidiaries; and $81 million due to the retroactive effective date of the Relief Act.

In 2012, the Company recognized in income from continuing operations a net tax benefit of $249 million attributable to the Institutional Securities business segment. This included a discrete tax benefit of $299 million related to the remeasurement of reserves and related interest associated with either the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations or new information regarding the status of certain Internal Revenue Service examinations and an out-of-period net tax provision of $50 million, primarily related to the overstatement of deferred tax assets associated with repatriated earnings of foreign subsidiaries recorded in prior years. The Company has evaluated the effects of the understatement of the income tax provision both qualitatively and quantitatively, and concluded that it did not have a material impact on any prior annual or quarterly consolidated financial statements.

Discontinued Operations.

For a discussion about discontinued operations, see Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

Nonredeemable Noncontrolling Interests.

Nonredeemable noncontrolling interests primarily relate to MUFG’s interest in MSMS (see “Executive Summary—Significant Items—Japanese Securities Joint Venture” herein).

Sale of Global Oil Merchanting Business.

On December 20, 2013, the Company and a subsidiary of Rosneft Oil Company (“Rosneft”) entered into a Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the Company will sell the global oil merchanting unit of its commodities division to Rosneft. The transaction is subject to regulatory approvals and other customary conditions and is expected to close in the second half of 2014. At December 31, 2013, the transaction does not meet the criteria for discontinued operations and is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

LOGO

WEALTH MANAGEMENT

INCOME STATEMENT INFORMATION


	2013			2012(1)		2011(1)
	(dollars in millions)
Revenues:
Investment banking	$	923		$	835	$	738
Trading		1,161			1,043		988
Investments		14			10		4
Commissions and fees		2,209			2,080		2,495
Asset management, distribution and administration fees		7,638			7,190		6,709
Other		389			309		406

Total non-interest revenues		12,334			11,467		11,340

Interest income		2,100			1,886		1,719
Interest expense		220			319		287

Net interest		1,880			1,567		1,432

Net revenues		14,214			13,034		12,772

Compensation and benefits		8,271			7,796		7,910
Non-compensation expenses		3,314			3,616		3,555

Total non-interest expenses		11,585			11,412		11,465

Income from continuing operations before income taxes		2,629			1,622		1,307
Provision for income taxes		920			557		461

Income from continuing operations		1,709			1,065		846

Discontinued operations:
Income (loss) from discontinued operations		(1	)		94		21
Provision for income taxes		—			26		7

Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations		(1	)		68		14

Net income		1,708			1,133		860
Net income applicable to redeemable noncontrolling interests		221			120		—
Net income applicable to nonredeemable noncontrolling interests		—			167		170

Net income applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	1,487		$	846	$	690

Amounts applicable to Morgan Stanley:
Income from continuing operations	$	1,488		$	803	$	683
Net gain (loss) from discontinued operations		(1	)		43		7

Net income applicable to Morgan Stanley	$	1,487		$	846	$	690

(1)	Prior-period amounts have been recast to reflect the transfer of the International Wealth Management business from the Wealth Management business segment to the Institutional Securities business segment.

LOGO

Net Revenues. The Wealth Management business segment’s net revenues are composed of Transactional, Asset management, Net interest and Other revenues. Transactional revenues include Investment banking, Trading, and Commissions and fees. Asset management revenues include Asset management, distribution and administration fees, and referral fees related to the bank deposit program. Net interest revenues include net interest revenues related to the bank deposit program, interest on securities available for sale and all other net interest revenues. Other revenues include revenues from available for sale securities, customer account services fees, other miscellaneous revenues and revenues from Investments.


	2013		2012(1)		2011(1)
	(dollars in millions)
Net revenues:
Transactional	$	4,293	$	3,958	$	4,221
Asset management		7,638		7,190		6,709
Net interest		1,880		1,567		1,432
Other		403		319		410

Net revenues	$	14,214	$	13,034	$	12,772

(1)	Prior-period amounts have been recast to reflect the transfer of the International Wealth Management business from the Wealth Management business segment to the Institutional Securities business segment.

Wealth Management JV. On June 28, 2013, the Company completed the purchase of the remaining 35% stake in the Wealth Management JV for $4.725 billion. As the 100% owner of the Wealth Management JV, the Company retains all of the related net income previously applicable to the noncontrolling interests in the Wealth Management JV, and benefit from the termination of certain related debt and operating agreements with the Wealth Management JV partner.

Concurrent with the acquisition of the remaining 35% stake in the Wealth Management JV, the deposit sweep agreement between Citi and the Company was terminated. In 2013, $26 billion of deposits held by Citi relating to customer accounts were transferred to the Company’s depository institutions. At December 31, 2013, approximately $30 billion of additional deposits are scheduled to be transferred to the Company’s depository institutions on an agreed-upon basis through June 2015.

For further information, see Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

2013 compared with 2012.

Transactional.

Investment Banking. Wealth Management business segment’s investment banking revenues include revenues from the distribution of equity and fixed income securities, including initial public offerings, secondary offerings, closed-end funds and unit trusts. Investment banking revenues increased 11% from 2012 to $923 million in 2013, primarily due to higher levels of underwriting activity in closed-end funds and unit trusts.

Trading. Trading revenues include revenues from customers’ purchases and sales of financial instruments in which the Company acts as principal and gains and losses on the Company’s inventory positions, which are held primarily to facilitate customer transactions and gains and losses associated with certain employee deferred compensation plans. Trading revenues increased 11% from 2012 to $1,161 million in 2013, primarily due to gains related to investments associated with certain employee deferred compensation plans and higher revenues from fixed income products.

Commissions and Fees. Commissions and fees revenues primarily arise from agency transactions in listed and OTC equity securities and sales of mutual funds, futures, insurance products and options. Commissions and fees revenues increased 6% from 2012 to $2,209 million in 2013, primarily due to higher equity, mutual fund and alternatives activity.

LOGO

Asset Management.

Asset Management, Distribution and Administration Fees. See “Business Segments—Net Revenues” herein for information about the composition of Asset management, distribution and administration fees.

Asset management, distribution and administration fees increased 6% from 2012 to $7,638 million in 2013, primarily due to higher fee-based revenues, partially offset by lower revenues from referral fees from the bank deposit program. The referral fees for deposits placed with Citi-affiliated depository institutions declined to $240 million in 2013 from $383 million in 2012. Lower revenues from the bank deposit program and the decrease in referral fees are both due to the ongoing transfer of deposits to the Company from Citi.

Balances in the bank deposit program increased to $134 billion at December 31, 2013 from $131 billion at December 31, 2012, which includes deposits held by Company-affiliated FDIC-insured depository institutions of $104 billion at December 31, 2013 and $72 billion at December 31, 2012. As a result of the Company’s 100% ownership of the Wealth Management JV, the deposits held in non-affiliated depositories will transfer to the Company-affiliated depositories on an agreed-upon basis through June 2015.

Client assets in fee-based accounts increased to $697 billion and represented 37% of total client assets at December 31, 2013 compared with $554 billion and 33% at December 31, 2012, respectively. Total client asset balances increased to $1,909 billion at December 31, 2013 from $1,696 billion at December 31, 2012, primarily due to the impact of market conditions and higher fee-based client asset flows. Client asset balances in households with assets greater than $1 million increased to $1,454 billion at December 31, 2013 from $1,237 billion at December 31, 2012. Effective from the quarter ended March 31, 2013, client assets also include certain additional non-custodied assets as a result of the completion of the Wealth Management JV platform conversion. Fee-based client asset flows for 2013 were $51.9 billion compared with $26.9 billion in 2012.

Beginning January 1, 2013, the Company enhanced its definition of fee-based asset flows. Fee-based asset flows have been recast for all periods to include dividends, interest and client fees and to exclude cash management related activity.

Net Interest.

Interest income and Interest expense are a function of the level and mix of total assets and liabilities. Net interest is driven by securities-based lending, mortgage lending, margin loans, securities borrowed and securities loaned transactions and bank deposit program activity.

Net interest increased 20% to $1,880 million in 2013 from 2012, primarily due to higher balances in the bank deposit program and growth in loans and lending commitments in PLA securities-based lending products. In addition, interest expense declined in 2013 due to the Company’s redemption of all the Class A Preferred Interests owned by Citi and its affiliates, in connection with the Company’s acquisition of 100% ownership of the Wealth Management JV effective at the end of the second quarter of 2013. The loans and lending commitments in the Company’s Wealth Management business segment have grown in 2013, and the Company expects this trend to continue. See “Business Segments—Lending Activities” herein and “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk—Credit Risk” in Item 7A.

Other.

Other revenues were $389 million in 2013, an increase of 26% from 2012, primarily due to a gain on sale of the global stock plan business and realized gains on securities available for sale.

Non-interest Expenses.

Non-interest expenses increased 2% in 2013 from 2012. Compensation and benefits expenses increased 6% in 2013 from 2012, primarily due to higher compensable revenues. Non-compensation expenses decreased 8% in 2013 from 2012, primarily driven by the absence of platform integration costs and non-recurring technology


		75

write-offs, partially offset by an impairment expense of $36 million related to certain intangible assets (management contracts) associated with alternative investment funds in 2013 (see Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8).

2012 Compared with 2011.

Transactional.

Investment Banking. Investment banking revenues increased 13% to $835 million in 2012 from 2011, primarily due to higher revenues from closed-end funds and higher fixed income underwriting.

Trading. Trading revenues increased 6% to $1,043 million in 2012 from 2011, primarily due to gains related to investments associated with certain employee deferred compensation plans and higher revenues from structured notes and corporate bonds transactions, partially offset by lower revenues from municipal securities, corporate equity securities, government securities and foreign exchange transactions.

Commissions and Fees. Commissions and fees revenues decreased 17% to $2,080 million in 2012 from 2011, primarily due to lower client activity.

Asset Management.

Asset Management, Distribution and Administration Fees. Asset management, distribution and administration fees increased 7% to $7,190 million in 2012 from 2011, primarily due to higher fee-based revenues, and higher revenues from annuities and the bank deposit program held at Citi depositories. The referral fees for deposits placed with Citi-affiliated depository institutions were $383 million and $255 million in 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Balances in the bank deposit program increased to $131 billion at December 31, 2012 from $111 billion at December 31, 2011. Deposits held by Company-affiliated FDIC-insured depository institutions were $72 billion at December 31, 2012 and $56 billion at December 31, 2011.

Client assets in fee-based accounts increased to $554 billion and represented 33% of total client assets at December 31, 2012 compared with $468 billion and 30% at December 31, 2011, respectively. Total client asset balances increased to $1,696 billion at December 31, 2012 from $1,566 billion at December 31, 2011, primarily due to the impact of market conditions and net new asset inflows. Client asset balances in households with assets greater than $1 million increased to $1,237 billion at December 31, 2012 from $1,150 billion at December 31, 2011. Global fee-based client asset flows for 2012 were $26.9 billion compared with $47.0 billion in 2011.

Net Interest.

Net interest increased 9% to $1,567 million in 2012 from 2011, primarily resulting from higher revenues from the bank deposit program, interest on the available for sale portfolio and secured financing activities.

Other. Other revenues were $309 million in 2012, a decrease of 24% from 2011, primarily due to lower gains on sales of securities available for sale.

Non-interest Expenses. Non-interest expenses were flat in 2012 from 2011. Compensation and benefits expenses decreased 1% from 2011, primarily due to lower compensable revenues, partially offset by higher expenses associated with certain employee deferred compensation plans. Non-compensation expenses increased 2% in 2012 from 2011. Information processing and communications expenses increased 7% in 2012, primarily due to higher telecommunications and data storage costs. Marketing and business development expenses increased 10% from 2011, primarily due to higher costs associated with advertising and infrastructure, partially offset by lower costs associated with conferences and seminars. Other expenses increased 5% in 2012, primarily

LOGO

due to non-recurring costs related to Wealth Management JV integration (see “Executive Summary—Significant Items—Wealth Management JV” herein). Professional services expenses decreased 7% in 2012 from 2011, primarily due to lower technology consulting costs.

Discontinued Operations.

On April 2, 2012, the Company completed the sale of Quilter, its retail wealth management business in the U.K., resulting in a pre-tax gain of $108 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 in the Wealth Management business segment. The results of Quilter are reported as discontinued operations for all periods presented. See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.


		77

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

INCOME STATEMENT INFORMATION


	2013		2012			2011
	(dollars in millions)
Revenues:
Investment banking	$	11	$	17		$	13
Trading		41		(45	)		(22	)
Investments		1,056		513			330
Asset management, distribution and administration fees		1,853		1,703			1,582
Other		33		55			25